Chamber and committees

Therefore, are you confident that the issues with the postal ballots have been resolved and that there are suitable measures in place?

Police Scotland figures, which were obtained by the Scottish Conservatives during the summer, have revealed that assaults and threats at bus stations have soared by 65 per cent in one year. The number of police call-outs to assaults at Glasgow’s Buchanan bus station rose by 85 per cent, while the number of call-outs to Dunfermline bus station increased by 133 per cent. Does the cabinet secretary believe that that is acceptable? What action is being undertaken to ensure that hard-working commuters feel safe?

I thank Mr Doris for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is great to be back after our summer recess and to talk about something that people care about so much.

Nicola Sturgeon promised passengers that Scotland’s rail service would improve under Government ownership, yet things are manifestly worse than they were under Abellio. Public transport has become unreliable and far too expensive. Taxpayer subsidies, ticket prices and the number of complaints have all soared, but the number of services and the number of passengers using them have plummeted.

It was the Scottish National Party’s decision to reintroduce peak fares on ScotRail trains last year. That was a disastrous decision, because it punished hard-working Scots, who paid hundreds or thousands of pounds more simply to commute to their work.

Our party, the Scottish Conservatives, campaigned against that. Despite being defeated in the Parliament last September on a Scottish Conservative vote on the issue, the SNP at that time refused to budge, claiming that abolishing peak fares permanently was unaffordable. We have always campaigned to permanently scrap peak fares, because we want to ease the burden on hard-working Scots.

I did not, because the budget is not about one specific thing; it is about a collection of things. There were many things in the Government’s budget that we would never prioritise ahead of other things.

I am pleased that the SNP has U-turned on peak rail fares. We have seen all the SNP’s tweets and other social media posts congratulating itself on reversing its own decision. I am glad about the decision. However, sadly, some passengers will still miss out, despite the sudden SNP U-turn, as is always the way when we scratch underneath for the detail.

Those with a club 50—or over-50s—rail card cannot get a discount with that card until after the old peak time. We have had lots of numbers today, so I will give just one example. On a 9.15 am service from Waverley to Queen Street, they will pay £16.80, but, at 9.30 am, it will be £13.40. People with other rail cards can get that discount, so why is it not the same for everyone?

I want to make sure that the detail is provided and that everyone can benefit from there being no peak rail fares. We have also heard that consumers paying the anytime fare, no matter what time of the day they travel—I am getting a bit mixed up with my notes here. I apologise, Presiding Officer.

Mr Doris said that it is not just about affordability but about services being accessible and reliable. We know that cheaper rail fares in Scotland will contribute to our net zero goals and better connectivity, so we need to encourage people to leave their cars at home. We want them to choose rail travel, because we know that it reduces congestion, lowers emissions and will support our climate targets.

Although encouraging a shift from the car to the train is a worthwhile goal, it does nothing to address the underlying issues that Scotland’s rail system faces overall—the unreliable services, the frequent cancellations and the underinvestment in key routes. We heard some of the specifics from Mr Doris, including the need for Sunday services at Maryhill. We need greater frequency rather than one train an hour.

Consumer Scotland research shows that 11 per cent of consumers feel that lack of safety is a barrier to adopting more sustainable travel methods. It is not just about fares but about accessibility, reliability and passenger safety.

If the CPG on deafness was to include visual impairment, there might be an obligation on the organisations that attend the CPG on visual impairment—such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Royal National Institute of Blind People—to attend the other CPG as well, and it might also put more pressure on small charities and people who are interested. I know that the CPG on visual impairment is doing some specific work with Stuart McMillan, its convener, which I have been involved in through my work on floating bus stops. We are aware of their impact on deaf people and people with visual impairments.

I am really concerned by the prospect of expansion, and I recommend being a bit more firm, convener.

I am happy with that.

We already have a CPG on visual impairment, and we have many discussions in this room about duplication of CPGs’ work. If the group is seeking to expand its remit, I suggest that the groups perhaps consider merging.

I remind the cabinet secretary that Gail Macgregor was speaking on behalf of COSLA, not on behalf of the Conservative Party.

After being forced to scrap its 2030 car use target, the Scottish National Party now plans to continue its war on motorists by charging them for using our pothole-ridden roads. To reduce car use, we should be providing efficient and affordable public transport alternatives, but, under SNP control, ScotRail is deterring passengers by cutting services and packing commuters like sardines into carriages. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the Scottish Government needs to focus on incentives, rather than penalties, to encourage Scots to leave their cars at home?

To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to undertake a regulatory check of existing Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 powers to allow local authorities and regional transport partnerships to implement local road user charging schemes. (S6O-04852)

Yes, and I know that Ms Roddick might talk about that later.