Chamber and committees

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. There was very little in it that was new, although the report makes for interesting reading.

The Scottish Government wants half of diesel buses to be replaced by low-emissions buses by 2023. Bus operators tell me that that target has no chance of being achieved. How, therefore, was that date arrived at, if not on the back of a cigarette packet?

There are problems with getting the charging infrastructure in place. One operator that I have spoken to is using diesel generators to charge electric buses. You could not make it up. What is the minister doing about the infrastructure issue?

Rural buses travel longer distances. That makes charging electric vehicles even more challenging. Will there be any additional support to help rural operators with that?

The report mentions the further issue of getting new buses built. It calls on the Scottish Government to work with bus builders across Europe. That does not excuse using taxpayers’ money through the Scottish ultra-low-emissions bus scheme to buy buses that are built not in the UK nor even in Europe but—probably subsidised—in China. What will the minister do to prevent that from happening again?

Will the minister take an intervention?

I did not shout up a moment ago, but we are wholly opposed to the cuts. As I will make clear later, my concern is that they will just stay when ScotRail is nationalised, and things will get worse and worse. Does he share that concern?

I find it extraordinary that a transport minister, speaking in a transport debate, did not take any interventions.

I thank Scottish Labour for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is being held against a backdrop of looming service cuts, on-going industrial action and a forthcoming change of ownership of our rail operator. Today, as we have heard, unions have been protesting outside the First Minister’s official residence, calling on her to stop the service cuts. The RMT’s Mick Lynch says:

“With COP26 just weeks away, it beggars belief that the Scottish Government is happy to preside over massive cuts to rail services, despite this being a sustainable and low carbon form of transport. This will do nothing to make Scotland a ‘Net zero nation’ and will just push more people into cars.”

Mr Lynch is absolutely right about that, but he might want to reflect on the fact that strikes achieve the same thing. It is clear to me that, if the cuts go ahead, they will be here to stay and the direction of travel will not be good.

It is easy to be critical when anything goes wrong on the railways. We have all done it in relation to leaves on the line, the wrong kind of snow, station skipping, fare increases, late trains, no trains, breakdowns and now strikes. There is a lot to criticise, and there always will be, because running railways is a fiendishly complicated business.

However, we have to be honest and say that, although privatisation of the railways led to some improvements and an increase in rail travel, it has not been the roaring success that many hoped that it would be. We should also be honest and say that nationalisation is not the cure-all that Labour and the SNP think that it will be.

The industrial action on Scotland’s railways should serve as a warning to the Government: there could well be more where that comes from. Today’s debate should be about a positive future for our railways; it should not be about industrial strife. That suits some people’s narrative, but not mine. The minister should insist that parties get round the table and accept mediation. Perhaps he can address that point later.

We need to move away from the “private bad, public good” mindset and accept three things. First, we want trains to run on time. Secondly, we need simpler, cheaper fares and easier methods of getting tickets. Thirdly, we need more lines connecting more communities—that means not only reopening old lines but improving what is there. It is nonsense that the largely single-track lines that link Aberdeen, Inverness and the central belt are not electrified, and we need to improve the line beyond Inverness too.

Patrick Harvie tells people to “Take. The. Train”, but that is just not an option for many people, even in the central belt. As members know, the United Kingdom Government is to create a new public body—Great British Railways—which will own the infrastructure, receive the fare revenue, run and plan the network, and set most fares and timetables. Network Rail will be absorbed into that new organisation.

Great British Railways will simplify the current confusing mass of tickets; standardise mobile and online ticketing; and end the need to queue for paper tickets. It will contract with private companies to operate trains to the timetable, on fares that it specifies, in a way that Transport for London uses. I like the TfL model—we should consider it in Scotland. We do not have to do so, however.

We know that the Scottish National Party wants to take Scotland’s rail services into public ownership from next March, but we do not know any of the detail of what that will look like, or have any in-depth explanation of what its proposals—we do not know what those are—will deliver for the passenger. Our amendment calls on the Government to come up with that explanation; the minister can perhaps do that later.

We want to see a green recovery, and public transport should be at the heart of it. That will need investment and commitment; what it does not need is dogma, and I fear that that is where we are headed.

I move amendment S6M-01300.1, to leave out from “supports” to end and insert:

“notes the disruption that the RMT strikes have been having on passengers across the country and calls on the Scottish Government to work to deliver a resolution; further notes the Scottish Government’s intention to nationalise the service in March 2022 and therefore calls for the details and costs of its plans to be published urgently; believes that any operating model must put delivering a reliable and affordable service for passengers at the heart of its aim; notes the work of the Williams Rail Review and calls upon the Scottish Government to consider its recommendations carefully; further calls for the Scottish Government to undertake a review of disused tracks and stations with a view to reopening those that would support local growth and connectivity, and notes that, for many people across Scotland, particularly in rural areas, car travel is a necessity not a choice.”

On that point about getting around the table, can the minister explain further what that is? Is it mediation?

As you are aware, convener, because you will have read the papers, the instrument deals with where checks can be made on animals. In essence, it would allow checks to be carried out on animals and related products at an appropriate place rather than, as happens at present, at the place of destination of the goods. That sounds not too controversial, but the Scottish Parliament information centre has informed us that no reason has been provided as to why that should be the case. SPICe goes on to say that there has been concern from stakeholders around the issue.

Given that, we should flag up the matter to the lead committee, which I believe is the rural affairs committee—although it has a slightly longer title than that—just to ensure that it casts its eye over the matter. The instrument raises important policy matters, which are not for us to consider, but the rural affairs committee might want to have a look at it. I accept that the negative procedure is correct, but the instrument raises important issues.

I think that we can all agree in this debate on one thing, which is that we need to cut carbon emissions and that whatever target we set to reach net zero, we have to achieve it.

I will focus my remarks on transport, the biggest contributor to carbon emissions, and start with active travel, which I am keen on. There is no reason why people cannot walk or cycle instead of taking the car for many short journeys, but still too few people do. When it comes to cycling, many people do not feel safe, so we need to invest more in segregated routes and maintain them. We also need to teach children and adults how to ride safely. The Scottish Government’s recent conversion to our own manifesto target of spending 10 per cent of the transport budget on active travel infrastructure is welcome, but it must deliver.

Next, on motor travel, we need a green recovery from the pandemic, but it cannot be a car-led one. That does not mean that we ignore cars, vans or lorries, because investment in roads is needed as congestion is bad and therefore projects such as the dualling of the entire A96 must go ahead. However, ultimately, we will have to move to zero or low-emission vehicles, be they electric or hydrogen. The infrastructure is not fully there yet and it often does not work. For example, someone told me at the weekend that a fast charger near where I live works only if twigs are stuck in it—that is not good enough.

On public transport, I am convinced that people will use it if it gets them where they want to go, is integrated and has simple, low fares. Decarbonising the bus fleet is vital, but the idea that we can replace half the Scottish bus fleet by 2023 is for the birds. After talking to Scottish bus operators this week, it is clear to me that they are on board but that, having already met strict Euro 6 emissions targets, they will struggle to do it all again. Aside from the cost, the speed at which utilities move was described to me as “cripplingly slow”, and bus manufacturers will struggle to keep up with demand.

Next, on trains, we need a mix of technologies in Scotland, from electrification of some lines—like the one to my home town of East Kilbride—to the use of battery trains, hybrid trains and hydrogen. However, we might need to keep diesel for a while as we get that right. We need to work with the UK Government to shift more freight on to trains and we should also, where feasible, open up old lines. I am not convinced that nationalisation will achieve any of that, and the Scottish Government should say why it believes that it will. It has not done that so far—but there will be more on that tomorrow.

Whenever we can get new ferries—we can only hope—it is clear that they should be more fuel efficient. If we have an aviation sector left after the pandemic, it can be a catalyst for change.

Last week, the SNP Government published a 54-page document on how it will engage with the public on climate change. It was the usual waffle with a nice photo of a father and daughter at an iron-age fort, a somewhat fluffy introduction from Michael Matheson and the claim throughout that we, in Scotland, have something that is described as an open Government—I am none the wiser, either. If we really want to get to net zero, we need less Governmentspeak such as that and more Government action.

Does the minister plan to keep the timetable cuts when ScotRail is nationalised?

When is the turnaround director going to turn anything around at the yard, and when is somebody’s head going to roll over this shambles?

I want to follow up on that. Like the minister, I am a football fan. If I go to a football match, I show somebody at the gate my QR code, and he or she scans it into their personal mobile phone. That is what it will be—that is what the Government said last week. My concern is that my name, address and date of birth could show up on that person’s mobile phone. That, to me, is a breach of my data.