Chamber and committees

Okay.

I will close by answering that point. My view is that I am more of a carrots man than a sticks man.

The kind of proposal that Mark Ruskell has come up with would be hugely controversial, which is possibly why the cabinet secretary has not said what she plans to do. However, she needs to set out her plans and have discussions across the Parliament and perhaps in advance of announcing those things, because I accept that this is not easy.

Once again, I congratulate Mark Ruskell on securing the debate and for allowing us a chance to air a number of issues.

I congratulate Mark Ruskell on securing the debate. I was very happy to sign his motion, because I agree with every word of it.

The removal of peak fares on our trains has been a positive thing. I would like it to be permanent because, for a long time, my view has been that we need a simple fare structure and lower fares. By “a simple fare structure”, I really mean what we currently have on our trains. It was off-putting to have a structure that had people pay different prices at different times of the day.

Irrespective of the interim evaluation, which I think gave a mixed picture, we should keep what we have now because it is the right thing to do. If we reverted to the previous system, there is a danger that it would discourage people from using the trains, and that would be a negative thing.

John Mason—who I see is not in the chamber at the moment—asked earlier for a cost. There is a cost given in the interim evaluation of £40 million. We need to see that as an investment rather than a burden on the public purse. Getting fares lower is an investment.

Mark Ruskell covered quite a lot of ground. He mentioned smart and integrated ticketing, which I would like to see. I am frustrated that the board that the Scottish Government set up to look at that has been given three years to produce recommendations. We need to move a lot quicker than that. The technology is being used elsewhere in Europe and the world, and we could move quicker on it. I have spoken to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport about that—three years is far too long. We need to get on with it. It is all about making public transport, including trains and buses, easier to use.

The cabinet secretary has announced that there will be a pilot of a flat fare system for bus travel. I would like the start of that to be announced very quickly. I accept that we are in an election period, but I think that the cabinet secretary needs to decide where the pilot is going to be. That change could be transformative. I have called for a £2 fare cap across Scotland, and although the cabinet secretary is going for a slightly different system, they amount to the same thing—putting a limit on what bus travel should cost. That is the way that we need to go.

Mark Ruskell also mentioned the Government’s ambition to cut car miles by 20 per cent. We have yet to see a plan for that, so I urge the cabinet secretary to get on with that. We need to know what the Government thinks should be done to get people—

Mark Ruskell rose—

I see that Mr Ruskell wants to make an intervention, and I am happy to take it.

I thank the cabinet secretary for providing advance sight of her statement. However, I have to say that there was very little point to it. It does not tell us anything that we did not already know. Apart from revealing an alliance between Liam Kerr, Colin Smyth and Mike Rumbles, it does not announce anything. It is just a defence of low-emission zones. For the avoidance of doubt, we have never been against low-emission zones in Scotland. Our view is that decisions on such zones are local decisions. Our concerns have always been about the implementation.

If we accept that the owners of older vehicles are often less well off, that gives rise to a couple of questions. What analysis has the Scottish Government done on how many older vehicles will be affected in the low-emission zones for those who live and work in the zones? How many taxis in Scotland are still non-compliant?

Will the member give way?

Presiding Officer, I do not know what you think, but I think that one of the basic infrastructure requirements of any country is to make it easy to get around. It is kind of vital to people and it is certainly vital to the economy. For the country to function, we need to get a few basics right, and chief among those requirements is decent roads. We do not necessarily need more roads; we just need better ones.

World leaders are not queuing up to get advice on that from the Scottish Government—and nor are leaders from anywhere else in Britain—because Scotland is ahead of the game, but only in the number of potholes that we have. Earlier this year, researchers who analysed reports of potholes in 69 cities across Britain, which were registered via FixMyStreet.com, found that Glasgow was the worst, followed by Edinburgh. I see that China has landed a craft on the crater-filled dark side of the moon. It could have saved itself the bother and just come to Glasgow, or to Caithness, where it has been reported that people are leaving because of the state of the roads. Scotland’s roads are so bad that we could almost think that it is deliberate. It is as if we are living in some dystopian experiment led by a faceless Green committee that sits around trying to think of ways to stop us driving.

I do not blame the councils—not even anti-car Edinburgh would actually want its roads to be as bad they are. It comes down to the decline in funding that our councils have had under the Scottish National Party, and it is time that we stopped that.

Yes.

There are tragic consequences of failing to invest. Between 2020 and 2023, there were 144 deaths on Scotland’s major trunk roads that go outside the central belt, and 104 of those were on sections that were not dualled. Failing to invest can also hit people in the pocket. A constituent of mine found that out when his car suffered hundreds of pounds of damage when he was driving along the M8 at night. Amey, whose job it is to maintain that road, told him:

“It is not the duty of an Operating Company to make all roads under their control completely safe ... Our duty is to maintain roads in a condition which is safe for road users who are themselves exercising reasonable care.”

In other words, Amey was saying, “If you don’t look out for potholes and you hit one, it’s your own fault.” It is no wonder that driving instructors in Scotland are now teaching their students how to avoid them: just do not go out.

The cabinet secretary might well say that the debate is just us trying to score points ahead of a general election—or she might not, now that I have headed her off at the pass. She would be wrong, because we have been making those points for years and we are no nearer to seeing roads such as the A9 completed. Reading the Government’s amendment today, one would think that everything is just fine, the Government is cracking on with things and there is just a temporary pause because of—wait for it—Westminster.

I think that we should finish with a game. It is called “Guess who said this”, and all the questions are about the A9. The first one is easy:

“I am sorry that we will not have dualled the A9 by 2025 ... I want to be clear, though, that I do not accept that we failed to meet that target because we just did not bother and we were not trying to meet it. The 2025 target was set for the right reasons and we were committed to it.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 29 May 2024; c 7.]

There are no prizes for guessing that that was Nicola Sturgeon last week.

Then there is this one:

“the A9 is the backbone of Scotland. It must be safe, reliable and resilient, and that is what the Government will deliver.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2023; c 23.]

While members are all being impressed by the stand-up comedy abilities of that speaker, I can tell them it was none other than Màiri McAllan.

Finally, Presiding Officer,

“This is not an easy project. The A9 dualling is one of the most sophisticated pieces of infrastructure we have ever undertaken … Things are getting done. We need to move on from this. I get sick and tired of listening to the Tories constantly bringing this up in parliament as if they own the issue. It’s us, that is the first government who has ever pledged to dual the A9 in its entirety.”

Control yourselves now. Who said that? Any guesses? No? The answer is witty Pete Wishart in his stirring address to the SNP conference last year.

That is a series of SNP figures with delusional outlooks. The SNP has had 17 years to deliver. It has not delivered. It will never deliver. The SNP needs to go.

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges the importance of a well-maintained road network to Scotland’s economy; believes that Scottish National Party administrations have repeatedly broken promises on major road upgrades and that their underfunding of Scottish local authorities has led to a deterioration in the condition of local roads, and calls upon the Scottish Government to fairly fund Scottish local authorities and make road infrastructure a key priority.

What does Fulton MacGregor think of the condition of the council-owned roads in his constituency?

Common sense from Edinburgh for a change.

When it comes to moving goods and people, it is our trunk road network that does the heavy lifting, and it is found wanting. From the A75 and the A77 to the A1, the A9, full dualling of which by 2025 was promised in 2011, and the A96, whose dualling was promised in 2007—I could even throw in the M8, not to mention the Rest and Be Thankful—we have main roads that are in serious need of upgrading, which are all years behind where they should be under the SNP.