Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

I thank all the members on all sides of the chamber who signed the motion that has enabled us to have this debate.

I start with a quote:

“the East Kilbride line is one of the areas that we have identified. I was there fairly recently, and the investigation works have started. The work involves not only electrifying the line but dualling it, which will provide it with much greater resilience and capacity to help to support the people who make use of the services. It also involves enhancements to East Kilbride railway station which, in my view, is unacceptable in its present form. That is why that work is one of the early actions that we intend to take forward.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 2 September 2020; c 34.]

Those were the words of the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, Michael Matheson, when I questioned him at the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee in September last year. That is the same Michael Matheson who described the service to East Kilbride as “inadequate” and not “up to scratch”. While posing in a hard hat on the line, he said:

“The combination of projects at East Kilbride and Hairmyres will transform the services into Glasgow in the next four to five years and is part of a major investment by us ... We want to make sure the line is able to cope with ever growing demand for rail services on this route and these are ambitious plans to take forward for the benefit of those who make regular use of the service on this line.”

One would think that all was well—and it was, until October, when Transport Scotland sneaked out the announcement that we are not actually going to get a dualled line between Busby and East Kilbride and that the line will be decarbonised, which may or may not mean electrified. The line from East Kilbride runs into Glasgow, through part of East Renfrewshire and then through the south side of the city. Going from East Kilbride, it is a single line until Busby, apart from a small loop at Hairmyres so that trains can pass each other. Only diesel trains operate on the line, and it is clear that, if we want to get to net zero, we need to tackle such lines.

We also need to encourage people on to the trains. One problem with a single-track line is that, if problems occur, as they do, the trains just stop. If they are coming from Glasgow, they usually go no further than Busby. That is why I, along with the former MSP for East Kilbride, Linda Fabiani, and others, have been pushing for years to get the line dualled and electrified. As members have heard, we got agreement for that, but it has now been torn up, with no consultation whatsoever.

I realise that we are up against the clock, so I will roll two questions into one. They are also on the theme of what we do now.

I am really frustrated by the use of the made affirmative procedure. It has been overused in both Parliaments. When ministers lay such instruments before the Parliament, they should have to justify why a measure is urgent or an emergency. They should have to come to—or at least write to—a committee and make the case. Also, to pick up on the House of Lords report on the subject, it would be a good idea for every made affirmative instrument to be subject to a sunset provision.

Should the Government have to make the case that an instrument is urgent? Should that have to be subject to a vote in a committee or the Parliament? Should such instruments be subject to a sunset provision and, if so, what length should that be?

What do you think, Dr Fox?

I thank both witnesses for coming. It has been very interesting so far.

I have to praise Dr Fox for some of her work so far, including her book “The Devil is in the Detail: Parliament and Delegated Legislation”, which I was thinking of putting on my Christmas list. However, knowing my family, I will probably end up having to buy it myself. It looks like an absolute bargain, so I will be rushing out to get it.

Morag Ross made a number of interesting points earlier, one of which was about how we as parliamentarians deal with stuff after it has become law. When something has been put through under made affirmative procedure, it is already law, and we scrutinise it as such—as opposed to as something that is not already law. She is absolutely right that there is a tendency for parliamentarians to look at stuff that is already law and say, “Well, it is done; we will just nod it through.” Sometimes, the law has already been overtaken or amendments have been lodged or it is null and void, and so we think, “Well, I’m not going to bother with this.” However, that is not the way it should be, and the purpose of this mini-inquiry is to consider that issue.

In the interests of time, I will not go over the same ground. I am keen to explore solutions as to how we improve things. When the Scottish Parliament debates regulations, they go through this committee, as we have a remit; then to a policy committee—in terms of this inquiry, coronavirus-related regulations go mostly to the COVID-19 Recovery Committee—and then to the full Parliament. When regulations get to the full Parliament, the opportunity for MSPs to debate them is extremely limited, as there is only a minister and possibly one member from each party taking part. There is some very important stuff going through the Parliament—Craig Hoy has mentioned vaccination passports—yet the debate is extremely limited.

Perhaps this is a question for Ruth Fox. You mentioned that, in Westminster, MPs get a 90-minute debate, which we do not get. Is there something there for us in Scotland to look at?

I tell the minister that I have no double standards in me. I have been fighting for cycling for years, which is why I went to the rally and stood beside fellow cyclists who were saying that cycling can save the planet. That is not double standards.

We are having this debate against the backdrop of COP26 having just been held and Patrick Harvie rejoicing in the potential loss of nearly 100,000 energy jobs in Scotland—the same Mr Harvie who insists on giving cyclists a bad name every time he gets on his bike, whether it be for a ministerial photo call or not.

I want to focus my comments on transport, because it is our biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. We need to decarbonise aviation as much as possible, as well as our ferries—which should not involve buying second-hand diesel boats—and we need to decarbonise our trains, buses, lorries and cars. There is a lot to do. We also need to get more people to make very short local journeys under their own steam, where possible. That means cycling, walking and wheeling.

The Government motion refers to the just transition commission report and the Government’s response to it. On transport, the response says that the ambition is that

“Public transport and active modes of travel are the norm, supplemented by zero emissions vehicles, where needed”,

which is all fine, but the challenge is in how to get there. If we want to get more people on to public transport, there must be services for them to use, and those services need to have fares that are affordable. Cutting train services is not the way, as Colin Smyth noted. Our having public transport deserts, as we do in some places, is not the way, either. We need to move to a fully integrated system, but we are a long way from that.

Public transport is nowhere near being “the norm”. We are yet to have significant reform of the bus system, and we do not yet know what the Scottish Government has planned for our railway; we are months away from it being nationalised. We know that how the ferries are run is in dire of need of a shake-up; we just need the Government to accept that.

Active travel is not “the norm” either, but it is affordable for many people, and it is low carbon. In order to encourage more people to take up cycling, we need safe cycling infrastructure—which usually means segregation. I was at the COP26 rally in Glasgow. I cycled there in the rain, and the message from my fellow cyclists was “Our machines fight climate change!” Mark Ruskell was there, too. Investment in cycling is good value for money, and investment in cycling infrastructure and cycling projects creates new green jobs. Cycling can be part of a just transition to net zero, and it tackles transport poverty.

People in low-income households are far more likely than those in richer households to use public transport, rather than own a car. About 60 per cent of households that have an income of less than £10,000 do not have access to a car; indeed, 55 per cent of households in north-east Glasgow have no access to a car. Using a bike is, for many people on low incomes, a much more affordable option than e-vehicle ownership. Some 81 per cent of people say that they would be motivated to cycle if there were more cycle lanes, traffic-free routes and off-road cycle paths, because they currently feel unsafe on the roads.

I will be looking very carefully at what is announced in the budget this week. We will need action on electric vehicles, buses, trains, ferries and active travel, as well as on improving existing roads. Those are all compatible and they must happen. This week can be a key test of whether either we are serious about change or it is all hot air.

Does Tess White agree that standing up for 100,000 jobs in the north-east and for energy security is not, as a Scottish Government minister has said, taking a far-right position?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Today, at First Minister’s question time, I asked the First Minister about the union connectivity review. I referred to a project between the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments that aims to develop options to cut rail journey times and said that Transport Scotland officials have been told to stop working on it. In her answer, the First Minister said that I was completely wrong. However, I was not wrong, because I was at the public meeting at which a Transport Scotland official said that that had happened, as was the transport editor of The Scotsman, who duly reported it. Could the First Minister be invited to correct the record so that Parliament has not been unduly misinformed?

We do not get people back on to trains by cutting services. The consultation on the controversial proposed new timetable closed on 2 October. When will we be told the results?