Chamber and committees

I start by thanking all 32 members from four parties who signed the motion that is before us. The issue has certainly struck a chord—and rightly so. It was brought to my attention at a meeting in September with Sight Scotland and Sight Scotland Veterans, which are two of Scotland’s oldest charities. For more than 200 years, they have been determined that no one should face sight loss alone and, in essence, that is what we are talking about in this debate. Given that the number of people in Scotland with sight loss is set to rise to more than 200,000 by 2030, there is a real need for support.

The issue is that there is no national policy for rail travel across Scotland that entitles the companions of blind and partially sighted people to free rail travel. Different concessionary and companion schemes are in place in various areas and councils, which is causing confusion for passengers and rail staff.

At the end of September, I wrote to the Minister for Transport and she replied, having subsequently met Sight Scotland. She admitted in her response to me that there is a postcode lottery—although that is my phrase. I hope that she will offer a solution to that today, because the situation is clearly unfair.

I will give an example from my region, where two different schemes operate. Falkirk Council offers no discount for companions, but Strathclyde Partnership for Transport has a scheme under which companions can travel at half the fare when accompanying someone. That contrasts with the national policy for bus travel, under which companions of people with a national entitlement card with the eye and “+1” symbols can travel for free on any service across Scotland.

For many blind and partially sighted people, having a companion can mean the difference between travelling or not travelling. A partially sighted person supported by Sight Scotland Veterans said:

“I would like to use the trains more often, but no way would I travel without someone else with me. My eyesight is getting worse—I couldn’t travel without a companion now.”

Another veteran said:

“It’s more dangerous getting on and off a train with a sight problem than on a bus. I always need someone when travelling. It’s also easier with +1 to use the bus, because my partner gets on for free, but I would prefer to use train because it’s quicker.”

Even when a concessionary scheme exists, it is not always possible to buy a ticket or the scheme is not known about. That is largely due to a lack of infrastructure, as there is no option on the ticket machine to select a companion ticket. Very often, that means that a companion must buy a ticket at full price, despite being entitled to a discount, depending on which local authority area they are travelling from or to. Companions of people with a card with the eye and “+1” symbols are often reliant on the knowledge of train staff about schemes to access the discount. At stations that have no staff, particularly smaller stations, asking someone simply is not an option. The situation is confusing and stressful.

Members might reasonably ask why someone’s travelling companion should travel for nothing or, indeed, why someone who is blind or has sight problems should do so, and that is a fair question. We know from the latest findings from the Scottish household survey that household incomes for disabled people tend to be lower than incomes for those who are not disabled. Cost was named by more disabled people than non-disabled people as a reason for not using the train. Use of rail services among disabled people is also lower than it is among non-disabled people, with 3 per cent of disabled people citing health reasons when saying why they do not use the train, compared with 0 per cent of non-disabled people. Those findings reflect the experiences of people with a visual impairment.

A single parent with Stargardt disease, which is a form of macular degeneration that causes central vision loss, explained the benefits of having a companion when travelling and why, although taking the train would be her preference, she chooses to take the bus instead, due to cost. She said:

“I go everywhere by bus only because of the free companion travel—that’s the reason I use the bus over the train,?because of the concessionary rate for whoever is with me. I’d rather take the train as the bus can be so unreliable, especially in the?darker nights, which reduces what vision I do have even more. I’d take the train more if I could.”

The charities estimate the cost of implementing a national policy for companions to be around £2 million. When we think about the benefits that it would bring, that is a small price to pay. It would make public transport more accessible and help the economy by improving access to employment. One in four registered blind and partially sighted people of working age are in employment, and the scheme could help to remove barriers to simply getting to a workplace. If the Scottish Government is serious about achieving the vision, as set out in its accessible travel framework, that

“All disabled people can travel with the same freedom, choice, dignity and opportunity as other citizens”,

it should provide free rail travel for blind and partially sighted people and their companions, as that would have a significant impact in meeting those outcomes.

A lack of national policy on free rail travel for companions of blind and partially sighted people is causing anguish for passengers and rail staff. It is clear to me that having a companion can ultimately make the difference between someone being able to make a journey or not. I therefore thank Sight Scotland and Sight Scotland Veterans for bringing this important issue to my attention, and I urge members to back the calls for a national policy to take steps towards a more equitable and accessible rail network across Scotland for everyone who uses it.

In her letter to me, the cabinet secretary said that she would take advice from Transport Scotland. What kind of advice is she expecting to get? Will it be advice on how to run a national scheme or something else?

Thank you for agreeing to stay on for a bit.

I want to follow up on the previous line of questioning. The Just Transition Commission said that there should be a skills guarantee for workers in carbon-intensive industries, and I think that you committed to that. Will we be in a position to offer that guarantee? How would it look if there are not the jobs? Maybe there are the jobs but not the people.

I would like to ask Catriona Laing a question, if that would be okay.

Earlier, you mentioned regulations—I think that that was in relation to buildings. In the previous session of Parliament, I convened the tenement maintenance working group. As you will be aware, there are huge issues with a lot of Scotland’s properties, such as the problems of obtaining agreement from owners to get work done and figuring out how it will be paid for. The working group looked at those areas and produced some recommendations. The matter is now in the hands of the Scottish Law Commission. It will take years to resolve. I would be interested to get a bit more detail on what you are working on.

Good morning, minister. It is good to see you. I will ask some questions about the Climate Change Committee’s report but, first, I will pick up on something that you mentioned. You said that there would be a specific Grangemouth plan. When are we likely to see that?

I accept that you are not the transport minister—she has my phone number; she can ring me any time; and she knows that I am prepared to work with her on all those matters. My door is open, if hers is.

I know that you are not the transport minister, but your brief covers a lot of areas. If we are to get people away from driving petrol and diesel cars, something else has to be in place. We will have to persuade them to use public transport more and/or use vehicles that are not powered by petrol or diesel, such as electric vehicles.

We are doing quite well with the charging network, but there is a long way to go. At the moment, there are 2,400 charging places, but the aim is to have 30,000 within the next seven years. There is a long, long way to go. As we know, many of those charging points do not work. That unreliability factor is not going to persuade people to switch to electric vehicles. Do you accept that that is a challenge, and do you accept that, despite the progress that we have made, we need to do better on electric vehicles?

So we will see that along with the other plans, probably by the end of June.

The Climate Change Committee’s report is pretty damning. It has published a table, which is useful, so I will go through it. On transport, the milestone for no new fossil fuel car sales by 2030 is “Slightly off track” and the Scottish Government’s policy of a 20 per cent reduction on 2019 car kilometres by 2030 is “Significantly off track”. On the low-carbon heat milestone, it is “Too early to say” and the energy efficiency milestone is “Significantly off track”. Afforestation is “Slightly off track” and peatland restoration “Significantly off track”. Recycling rates are also “Significantly off track”. If that was a school report for you, minister, you would be kept in after school, would you not?

I will focus on transport because, as you know, it is the biggest emitter of carbon. The Just Transition Commission has also focused on transport. It says that

“Scotland’s public transport network requires vast improvement and must be made more affordable”

and it talks about ScotRail capacity needing to be expanded, not reduced.

In the report that has come out today, the Climate Change Committee says:

“Plans to decarbonise transport in Scotland are falling behind ... Scotland has a laudable aim to reduce car-kilometres by 20% on 2019 levels ... This is a challenging goal and current plans lack a full strategy”.

There is no strategy and there are no policies in place to achieve that, are there?

That is interesting. I would caution against using regulations but, if you use them, they will have to be trailed in advance. When you are, in essence, forcing people to spend money, that is very controversial and difficult to do, if not impossible.

Will the member take an intervention?