Chamber and committees

No; it is the reverse.

That is a good question. Unless people are in the Lothian Buses area, they probably do not realise that that happens. Lothian is seen as the most successful municipal bus company, part of which comes from the simplicity of its fare structure. We are also learning from the experience in England.

We are working with partners in the Scottish landscape, including private bus operators in the deregulated market, to anticipate how that might encourage a modal shift. We see benefits in the Lothians because everyone uses the buses and that is not in any way differentiated, whereas, in other parts of the country, affluence can affect whether people use the bus or prefer to use a car. We also need availability. I am interested in whether having a flat-rate structure might help to support more bus use in rural or semi-rural areas. I am keen to see that, but we must work with operators to identify where that can be done.

There is a case for looking at regional discounting. There are already interesting developments in Glasgow. We do not want to displace activity that is already happening, but that might help to inform us about how to get a modal shift and whether cutting prices might help. We are looking at a £2 price but that already happens with most buses anyway: they do not necessarily cost £4.

The problem comes outside cities, where there are the complications of poorer bus availability and more expensive buses. I feel strongly that if we want to tackle child poverty we must encourage and support parents who want to get better-paid jobs elsewhere or who want to travel to employment or education. That is more problematic in rural and semi-rural areas than it might be in our cities. We are looking at all the different aspects to identify where it would be best to pilot flat-rate fares and whether they would make a difference.

We must bear in mind that 79 per cent of all public transport journeys are by bus, so I am very keen to focus on that this year

No, that is certainly not the case. Convener, you have asked me not to stray into the territory of announcements that I cannot make. That is why I said that I cannot give you that information. I have not seen it, so I am not in a position to tell you; even if I had seen it, I would probably be restricted in what I can say in this meeting.

I do not need to do that—I have taken advice, and I am not allowed to discuss that particular area.

It is important to state that that is our commitment, although there are challenges with that. We should also be clear that the 20 per cent target relates to car kilometres. It is about encouraging people who currently use their car from Monday to Friday, to perhaps take public transport, such as the train, one day a week, to encourage that reduction.

It is likely that more progress will be made in our cities, and Glasgow and Edinburgh have a 30 per cent reduction target. The issue is how we make that shift in relation to the switch to electric vehicles. I know from talking to Councillor Gail Macgregor that she is a big champion of that policy, and we are keen to publish our joint report with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on how that can be done. We will do that by the autumn, as we have indicated in the climate change plan.

The issue that Councillor Macgregor reiterates is about behaviour more generally, across all car use, to encourage people to get into different habits and behaviours. As for demand management, there will be mechanisms that councils can use, at their instigation, such as those that the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive passed way back in the early 2000s.

I agree with you. However, a lot of the issue is to do with the technology of the ticketing system, which ScotRail inherited from Abellio. ScotRail knows that it must make changes to it. You are not the only MSP who has raised the issue with me. A number of MSPs have, and they have given good examples.

When I meet Joanne Maguire, the MD of ScotRail, I will ask about progress on the issue. I think that ScotRail is trying to address the issue, but I cannot give you the detail of how it is planning to do that. Once I have spoken to ScotRail, I would be happy to provide more information or to ask ScotRail to contact the committee directly to explain how it plans to change things. We might not be talking about an overnight change, because it is a systems issue. I will ask ScotRail to brief you at the same time, Mr Simpson.

I am alert to the issue. I share your concern, because the current situation does not make sense. We need to make sure that we have a fare structure that is simple and that, when people buy tickets, they can have confidence that they are getting the best value, because that will help to drive people on to public transport and to make them switch from the car to rail.

They are continuing. That is a matter for the employer and the trade union, as is appropriate. The public pay matrix was issued at the end of last week. With regard to the discussions with the rail unions, I cannot comment specifically on those with the RMT, but I understand that there will be engagement. I am not sure of the timescale for when the talks with the RMT will commence, but I reiterate that it is the responsibility of the employer to engage in those discussions with the relevant trade unions.

As a Government, our position is quite clear. Because of the constraints that we are under, there is a public pay matrix that—

My understanding is that that will be the case, because that is what happened last year when I had just come into post. I am assuming that the process will be the same this year.

As you might be aware, convener—and as, I am sure, the deputy convener is aware—my responsibilities are for the trunk roads network, on which we have spent some time. I am not, however, diminishing what is a local issue for a local authority. Every local authority will have roads that are, for various reasons, priorities for investment.

As far as improvement is concerned, we have a £10 million road improvement fund—I will correct that if I have got the number wrong—on which we work with local authorities. It tends to be used to address safety issues.

However, the solution to the problem that Ben Macpherson has identified has to come from the council. Nobody would expect me to impose solutions on local authorities without their having asked for that. I have not been approached by the City of Edinburgh Council on the issue. Even if I were to be approached, I know that there are similar issues in Glasgow and other places.

The issue comes down to how we improve the availability of capital investment to help our infrastructure. I will try to word this in a gentle way. Over the piece—by that, I mean over several UK Governments—there has not been so much focus on capital investment in infrastructure. As a result, we have not had consequentials with which to move towards making the major capital investment in infrastructure that we need, not only to fulfil our national responsibilities but to help to support work at the local level.

The question—as Monica Lennon’s was—is about how we increase the amount of capital investment that is available to local authorities. We cannot do that when we are facing a 9 per cent reduction over the next few years. I know that Ben Macpherson is passionate about his constituency, but I am not sure that the committee that scrutinises national policy is the right place to get a good answer to the question. Obviously, that is what you are looking for. However, if you have written to me, I will try to respond appropriately.

That is the bottom line. I have big responsibilities for all our public sector transport network and our trunk roads. I really sympathise, because I used to live in that part of Edinburgh and I am aware of the road in question. However, every city will have areas that face the same issue. Part of the solution lies in reducing car use and providing more public transport; however, I cannot spend time today dealing with individual constituency issues, and it is perhaps a bit unfair to ask me to do so.