Official Report 1012KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-16572, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on cheaper rail fares. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
15:59
I acknowledge up front that bringing ScotRail into public ownership has been a welcome move by the Scottish Government that has put the public interest at the heart of our rail services.
However, the cost of rail travel is now the critical issue for travellers. It is time for the Government to intervene, to use its power and to act in the public interest to deliver a more affordable service. We all see from our inboxes that rail travel is now too expensive for too many people, and that ticketing is complex and confusing. The fact that rail fares are even higher in England is cold comfort to our struggling constituents, who want to see action here in Scotland.
The return of peak fares in September last year has seen day ticket prices more than doubling in some cases. A peak-time return from Perth to Glasgow Queen Street station will set a passenger back £40.10, compared with an off-peak ticket costing £20. Meanwhile, people heading from Stirling to Waverley station will pay £19.90 on a peak journey, compared with £12.10 for an off-peak one.
Those are prices before ScotRail’s above-inflation increase to ticket prices of 3.8 per cent. That increase in ticket prices will outstrip percentage increases in many pay packets next month, including those of staff who work here in the Parliament. Unless the Scottish Government revisits the decision to increase rail fares, passengers between Perth and Glasgow Queen Street, for example, will pay £41.62. Tickets that are already too expensive will become even more costly at a time when household budgets are already stretched. Those are eye-watering amounts of money for commuters to be shelling out. Peak-time ticket costs are an unfair tax on working people, and they must be scrapped.
Although I acknowledge that some better deals are now available, such as flexipasses and season passes, those all require commuters to dig deep into their pockets up front. In a post-Covid world in which patterns of work are no longer fixed, investing in a season pass will not be an attractive, convenient or affordable option for many people. However, for many, it will be the only option that they have, if they want to get the train. Of course, flexipasses are not even available on all routes, which means that some passengers are barred from cheaper fares simply because of where they live and the journeys that they make.
The cost crisis has not happened overnight: the price of public transport has been steadily rising for years and years. Over the past decade, we have seen an increase of nearly 70 per cent in the cost of public transport, compared with an increase in motoring costs of only around a third. There is a widening gap between people who drive and those who do not or cannot drive, which will structurally build in car dependency for people in the working-age population who are ineligible for concessionary fare schemes. Working people on low incomes will continue to find their monthly outgoings being dominated by transport costs as much as, if not more than, they are by energy costs.
Bus services might be a cheaper option, and I welcome the constructive agreement that we have reached with the Scottish Government on a future bus fare cap pilot scheme. However, buses do not always provide the fast connection that is needed to get to a place of work or for longer-distance travel. For people with caring responsibilities, especially women, spending hours on a bus—or, indeed, on multiple buses—at either end of a day does not fit with family life. When that is paired with a complex and unintegrated ticketing system, the cost for women of travelling by public transport adds up. It is unclear what progress has been made towards delivering an integrated ticketing system that would go at least some way towards reducing the complexity and cost of journeys in Scotland.
I reassure Mark Ruskell that integrated ticketing is happening, but does he recognise that 75 per cent of public sector journeys are on buses? Is it the position of the Greens that the majority of subsidies should go to rail travel at the expense of bus travel?
No—it is not an either/or. The cabinet secretary would do well to reflect on the fact that many people use multiple modes of transport and that integration is therefore critical. It is disappointing that the Government always seems to see rail travel as being second to bus travel, when we need to invest in both. They do very different things.
For many people, the choices are stark. They either get the train and save time, but spend more money, get the bus and spend less money but waste time, or drive, if they are able to, and spend less money but waste more time sitting in traffic jams. Those are the real-world choices that are faced every morning by households, and none of those options properly serves the people or the economy. Public transport should be seamless and accessible, and it should be an affordable choice. I am concerned that rail is increasingly being seen as a premium form of travel for the few, rather than mass transit for the many.
It seems odd that, having successfully opened a new rail route to Levenmouth with the objective of tackling economic disadvantage, the Government is now allowing fare increases that will price many people out of the restored train services that communities fought for.
During our time in Government, the Scottish Greens worked to secure the removal of peak fares through the pilot scheme, which resulted in a shift in ticket prices for peak-time commuters and an average saving across all tickets of 17 per cent. Over the scheme’s duration, passenger numbers increased by nearly 7 per cent, and 4 million extra journeys were switched away from private cars. Awareness of rail as a viable travel option also increased, with 80 per cent of people who participated in the scheme stating that they were now making more trips by rail.
The Scottish Government has scrapped the pilot scheme, having cited a limited increase in passenger numbers and lack of modal shift towards rail travel. However, we all know that modal shifts take longer than a year-long pilot, and that multiple interventions are needed to support it. Few people would be tempted to change their job or sell a car based on a short-term pilot to reduce rail fares, so long-term certainty is important.
The cabinet secretary’s amendment indicates that the Transport for London off-peak trial’s results mirror those of the Scottish scheme, and cites them as proof that our scheme somehow did not work. However, TFL’s pilot ran only on Fridays for 13 weeks: it could hardly be called a trial at all.
The spiralling rail travel costs issue is not going away, and it goes way beyond what can be agreed in budget negotiations in a single parliamentary year. We need a real vision for Scotland’s railways from the Government, but above-inflation increases to complex rail fares that discriminate against workers should have no place in that vision.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that rail fares in Scotland must be cheaper; regrets the decision by the Scottish Government to end the off-peak all-day pilot in September 2024, despite an increase of passenger demand by 6.8% and an average 17% cost saving to passengers; understands that expensive and complex ticketing deters passengers from choosing to travel by train; acknowledges that, in order to fulfil the Scottish Government’s ambition of reducing car kilometres by 20% by 2030, rail services and public transport must be cheaper and more accessible, and calls, therefore, on the Scottish Government to reverse the 3.8% increase to rail fares coming into effect from 1 April 2025, to permanently remove peak-time rail fares, and to simplify public transport fares, through the introduction of integrated ticketing, as soon as possible.
16:06
The Government agrees that we must make public transport accessible, affordable and reliable in order to encourage more people to travel by bus and train.
The off-peak all-day trial was bold and pioneering. It was possible only due to this Government’s having brought ScotRail under public sector control and it was definitely worth trying. However, the pilot did not achieve its original aim of encouraging more people to travel by train. The analysis shows that there was only a limited increase in passenger numbers—6.8 per cent—during the pilot. Consequently, insufficient levels of income were generated to justify continuing the pilot, which mostly benefited existing passengers who have above-average incomes. Similarly, the recent fare reduction trial by Transport for London did not see passenger numbers increasing.
Only yesterday, Ross Greer warned in the budget debate that politics should not be a
“bit of a game”
in which
“we are all just here to get one up on one another”.—[Official Report, 25 February 2025; c45.]
However, the Green Party’s motion does exactly what he warned against. On day 1, they support the budget; on day 2, they want to drive a coach and horses through the transport resource budget and blow a £51 million hole in it.
A rail fare freeze, which the Greens did not ask for during budget negotiations, would leave us having to find an additional £11 million.
I encourage the cabinet secretary to check the record in reference to what we proposed during budget negotiations. She knows that the Scottish Greens have made a range of proposals to fund every policy that we have put forward in the Parliament.
Our motion is consistent with our party’s policy over a long period of time. We are trying to be constructive, so the cabinet secretary is disrespectful in accusing us of playing political games when we are simply abiding by our party’s values.
I am sorry, but I asked my officials to check whether introducing a 3.8 per cent increase and rail fare freeze were part of budget discussions, and I was reassured that they were not. If he adds the additional £11 million to the £40 million that off-peak all-day fares would cost, he can see how it becomes unaffordable.
Passenger journey numbers on our publicly owned train services have increased by 4.5 per cent for each four-week period this year, when compared with the same period last year, when the trial was running. The ability to move people, goods and services around Scotland and beyond is a key building block in growing the economy, leisure and tourism, and in making our nation more prosperous.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I have limited time.
The 2025-26 transport budget focuses on that, but it also focuses on funding actions that will help to cut carbon emissions. Decisions on how much is needed to support rail travel are carefully calibrated—we need to balance the necessary revenue contribution from passengers, which equates to around 35 per cent of train operator costs, against the already significant level of public investment that is required from the transport resource budget to operate ScotRail.
I am very mindful of the costs to rail passengers and am seeking to keep fares affordable and accessible. That is why the increase in rail fares in Scotland from April will be only 3.8 per cent, which is below the United Kingdom Labour Government’s increase of 4.6 per cent.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I have limited time.
We are seeking to keep fares down for regular passengers and commuters through the 20 per cent discount on all ScotRail season tickets—weekly, monthly and annual—until the end of September 2025. I have also permanently improved the value of a flexipass to allow 12 single journeys to be made within 60 days for the price of 10. That provides passengers with a 32 per cent saving, compared with the cost of six any-time return tickets, so the Glasgow to Edinburgh return fare becomes £21.25. Super off-peak return fares have also returned, so there are even cheaper fares on offer for people who can travel at less-busy times.
Last month, ScotRail announced the extension of a digital tap-and-pay trial, which means that passengers who use the app will be charged the best-value fare automatically, based on the day and time when they travel. If they make the same journey regularly, Monday to Sunday, their fare will be capped at the weekly season ticket price.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
The cabinet secretary is about to conclude.
I apologise to Mr Sweeney.
Those price and fare innovations are designed to encourage people to switch from car to train and to simplify journey planning. They are the thoughtful and well-planned interventions that we need, whereas the poorly timed proposals in the motion sadly seem to be more about defeating the Government than about having a rational and creative debate about funding and support for rail travel in Scotland.
I move amendment S6M-16572.3, to leave out from first “fares” to end and insert:
“and bus fares must be affordable to encourage the use of public transport; welcomes that rail passenger numbers, since the off-peak all-day pilot ended, have continued to grow, with demand in each four-week period being an average of 4.5% more than the same period in 2024, when the trial was in place; notes that the Scottish Budget for 2025-26 includes provision for a pilot of a £2 bus fare cap; recognises that the results of the off-peak all-day pilot mirror the results of Transport for London’s similar trial, which also saw no significant increase in travel as a result of lower fares; further recognises that reinstating off-peak fares all day from 1 April 2025 would cost up to £40 million of resource funding, which would require a commensurate reduction elsewhere in the Transport portfolio’s resource budget; recognises that not implementing a fares rise in 2025 would require an additional £11 million, which would require a commensurate reduction elsewhere in the Transport portfolio’s resource budget, and believes that any further consideration of off-peak fares all day should take account of the Transport Scotland and Transport for London research, be part of future budget planning and must also consider progress on bus affordability, availability and reliability across Scotland.”
16:11
We know that an efficient transport network that delivers value for money for taxpayers is essential for economic and social development across Scotland. However, under the Scottish National Party, public transport has become unreliable and far too expensive. Unless considerable action is taken, our public transport network will only continue to decline.
Given the topic of the debate, we would be forgiven for thinking that the Scottish Greens had pushed for cheaper rail fares in their budget negotiations with the SNP. However, a few seconds ago, the cabinet secretary assured us that those discussions did not take place, so it is notable that rail fares were not mentioned in the negotiations. In return for supporting the SNP’s Scottish budget, the Greens secured a number of transport concessions—such as a year-long regional trial of bus fares being capped at £2 and free interisland ferry travel for young island residents—that fail to deliver for hard-working Scots and allow the Greens to continue their attack on road users.
I think that we can all agree that cheaper rail fares in Scotland would contribute to net zero goals, provide better connectivity and help the ailing economy. In the cabinet secretary’s recent draft transport plan, there are boasts that ScotRail has been brought into public ownership and that
“6 new stations have opened up across Scotland since 2020.”
However, there were 34 per cent fewer passenger journeys in 2022-23 than there were in 2019, which suggests that many people have shunned ScotRail.
I think that Sue Webber would acknowledge that there has been a great deal of hybrid working, with people who have been working from home not using any form of travel. Does she recognise the figures that I have just given? There has been a 4.5 per cent increase between 2024 and 2025, whereas the figures that she quoted are from back in 2022-23, when we were recovering from the pandemic.
I am certain that, if we had fair and less expensive fares, passenger numbers would be even greater.
Despite the reduced number of passenger journeys, ScotRail is increasing its ticket prices by almost 4 per cent in the forthcoming financial year. That is on the back of an 8.7 per cent increase last year, which means that there will be a more than 12 per cent increase over two years. The price rise will affect all services that are operated by ScotRail, and it will mean that an any-time return ticket from Glasgow to Edinburgh will now cost £32.60. We heard that a flexipass might reduce the cost to £21, but that is still an eye-watering price.
Will the member take an intervention?
No—sorry. We are short of time.
Unsurprisingly, only one fifth of passengers think that ScotRail delivers good value for money. Polling found that 46.4 per cent of Scots thought that rail fares were too expensive.
The SNP’s nationalisation of ScotRail has been a failure by any and every measure. Nicola Sturgeon promised passengers that Scotland’s rail service would improve with Government ownership, yet things are manifestly worse than they were when ScotRail was under Abellio. Taxpayer subsidies, ticket prices and complaints have all soared while the number of services and the number of passengers using them have plummeted.
The just transition paper looks like another ploy to make the SNP look as if it is doing something while doing little—except squandering more public money. There are no projects, no priorities, no timescales and certainly no costings. The Scottish Government receives more money per capita for public services than the rest of the UK. It is high time that the SNP showed more common sense and used that money to give the public the vital services that they deserve at a cost that they can afford.
I move amendment S6M-16572.1, to insert at end:
“; notes that the operation of ScotRail has cost £600 million more compared to when it was in private hands, and that rail fares also increased by 8.7% in the 2024-25 financial year; calls on the Scottish Government to deliver value for money for taxpayers, which is a significant concern for rail users; urges the Scottish Government to increase access to ScotRail by opening new railway stations, in areas such as Winchburgh, Cove and Newtonhill, and calls on the Scottish Government to consider how a nationalised rail service can provide for all people in Scotland.”
16:16
Scottish Labour agrees that rail fares in Scotland must be more affordable and that rail travel must be an attractive alternative to car use. We are committed to the removal of peak fares as the first step in making rail travel more accessible and affordable, so that we can deliver a rail service that works for passengers and increase patronage.
I recognise the need for investment in ScotRail. We need to make progress on rolling stock replacement and we need a long-term investment plan for upgrading rail infrastructure, which will require the Government and private businesses to work in partnership. However, increasing the burden on passengers at this point in time places downward pressure on passenger numbers as the gulf in affordability between rail travel and the alternatives grows. The ending of the pilot removal of peak fares came between two ticket price increases, so passengers were hit with three price increases in just over a year. Before drawing comparisons with the rest of the UK, the cabinet secretary might want to reflect on the inflation-busting 8.7 per cent increase in prices that we had in Scotland last year.
Greater reliability is key to increased patronage and revenue, but, if prices continue to rise—particularly in the face of service performance issues—people will just be unwilling or unable to pay them. Household budgets are challenging, and the reality is that the car is, far too often, the more affordable option. If we are serious about reducing car use and related emissions, the approach of making other travel options more and more expensive by comparison is counterproductive.
The plethora of restrictive cheaper deals is confusing and complicated, and pressing ahead with ticket office closures does not help passengers to navigate the system. The process of how and when peak periods are applied is inconsistent and unnecessarily complex. The cabinet secretary has been keen to highlight the flexipass as a money-saving option for passengers, but it does not apply to all stations or routes. Indeed, two of Scotland’s cities—Stirling and Perth—were added to the scheme only recently.
The Government’s amendment suggests that, since the pilot ended, passenger numbers have continued to grow. However, the reasons for that can be questioned. For example, are fewer service reductions taking place? Is that comparison really like for like? Can we expect that trend to continue in the face of ever-increasing fares?
Transport Scotland’s analysis of the peak fares pilot is one of the most inconclusive that I have read. Data was routinely not collected, particularly at busy stations, which suggests that the 6.8 per cent increase could be an underestimate. The costs are not exactly clear, but, if the top figure of £40 million is accepted and the Scottish Government said that it required a 10 per cent increase to be cost neutral, almost 7 per cent is not far off. Although the pilot ran for a year, it was not actively promoted, so how would someone who did not regularly use the train know that the offer was available? The majority of the pilot also took place during a period of industrial dispute and a reduced timetable—hardly favourable conditions.
Post-pandemic, there is an argument that peak fares are increasingly unfair. Workers who have to physically attend work—those who are in retail or service delivery—must still travel at those peak times while the “middle-class passenger” whom the Transport Scotland report identifies as benefiting often has more flexibility to work at home and avoid travelling at peak times. It is time to remove the inconsistent and unfair application of varying prices that makes people pay a premium for travelling to work by rail.
Although we are focusing on rail fares today, the Government’s amendment also mentions bus provision and asks us to consider progress on buses. However, the progress that it has made is extremely limited. Rather than improving services for passengers, the Scottish Government has overseen a reduction in routes. The number of bus routes has plummeted by 44 per cent since 2006, although many were critical for rural and peripheral urban areas. Before the bus partnership fund was paused, in 2024, it had allocated hardly 5 per cent of the £500 million that was intended for infrastructure improvements. The zero emission bus challenge fund is now scrapped, and there is glacial progress on franchising.
The bus and train services that are being delivered to the public are far from good enough. Getting them right would mean more people using public transport and a reduced reliance on cars. However, to achieve that, the services must be reliable and affordable.
I move amendment S6M-16572.2, to insert at end:
“; recognises that ScotRail requires investment and sustainable funding, but believes that passengers should not carry the burden of this while services are underperforming.”
16:20
I welcome the opportunity to reply on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. We believe that rail needs to be affordable, that ticketing is too complex and that new stations are needed to connect more communities. We are ambitious for rail in Scotland.
It is regrettable that the debate comes less than 24 hours after the Scottish Parliament passed the 2025-26 budget. As the Greens, the Government and others have acknowledged, my party approached the budget talks constructively. We secured big changes for the communities that we represent and for Scotland as a whole, and we are willing to sit down and talk through ideas. That is why it is hard to understand the timing of the debate. Less than 24 hours after tax and spending plans were agreed, it is not serious or credible to ask the Parliament to back a package of changes that would cost £50 million this year. There is no indication of where that money should come from.
If the proposal is that the money should be moved around in the transport budget, that could mean taking money away from buses, ferries, walking and cycling improvements and fixing potholes. I have a particular interest in the delivery of infrastructure upgrades for areas that are less well connected—the rural and island communities, who need working, reliable ferries and progress on fixed links. I imagine that all parties would be willing to look at proposals if they were brought back to the table for the next budget, in which policies could be properly costed, funding identified and priorities balanced.
Scottish Liberal Democrats have long campaigned to get cars and lorries off the roads, moving passengers and freight on to our railways as part of a package to tackle the climate crisis. Getting more people and goods on to trains will reduce congestion, improve air quality and help to tackle the climate emergency. It means connecting more communities, too. In government, we paved the way for the Borders railway and a station for Laurencekirk. However, the Conservatives’ amendment overlooks Newburgh, in Fife, where my colleague Willie Rennie has fought tirelessly for a new station.
In the long term, we need to decarbonise our planes, ferries and cars. Right now, we should also do what we can to ensure that, where public transport is available, it is a safe, feasible and convenient way to get from A to B. I know that there were concerns about the previous peak fares pilot and whether the Government did enough to get behind it. There is a question about the extent to which it was hampered by the pay row that culminated in the chaotic emergency timetable that plagued services last summer, when cancellations and overcrowding were rampant. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers was among those who questioned the methodology that was used to evaluate the trial. Thousands of real-world experiences illustrate the barrier that the return of peak fares represents for commuters.
On greater affordability, reforms to ticket incentives and discounts could drive up passenger uptake. Complicated rail fares are also a barrier to passengers. We have tiered super off-peak, off-peak and peak fares, which are further complicated by their use at differing times along parallel routes. Passengers find it difficult to know which ticket will best get them from A to B, and the terms and conditions are often complicated. Although cheaper fares might be available, calculating them and finding time to research alternatives is another barrier to rail travel. It is also difficult to be 100 per cent certain that a ticket is the right one until a rail staff member confirms that. Passengers would rather avoid the stress.
We move to the open debate, with back-bench speeches of up to four minutes.
16:24
For a moment, Presiding Officer, imagine yourself in the shoes of my constituent. You need to get to work. It is rush hour. You check the train price—it is way more expensive than off peak and there is no flexipass option. You prefer the train: it is the right thing to do for the climate and it is less stressful than driving. You can catch up on emails or you can take a moment for yourself, and you do not have to worry about parking. It should be the easiest choice, but when rail fares keep rising, how are you supposed to afford that choice?
People in my region face that cost benefit dilemma weekly. A worker in Elgin has to pay £24 for a peak return, which is 52 per cent more than if they were travelling off-peak. A nurse in Oban going to training in Glasgow will pay £54, which is more than a third more than the off-peak alternative. How about a tourist staying in Aberdeen who wants to go to Inverness? To make a day trip worth it, they will have to pay £70, which is £32 more than the off-peak fare. In all those cases, Presiding Officer, you would hardly begrudge them driving, if they have the option, or not travelling at all.
Let us imagine the alternative. With affordable fares, more people travel, which means busier high streets, more customers in shops, cafes and businesses, and more access to jobs. If rail is reliable and affordable, people can take up work further afield without the financial pressure of running a car. There is also more tourism, as visitors can choose trains over rental cars, spreading tourism and spending beyond the central belt. More people using rail means more revenue to invest in infrastructure improvements. The bottom line is this: if we do not get more people on to public transport, we will not hit our climate targets. Audit Scotland has already said that Scotland is unlikely to meet its goal of cutting car use by 20 per cent by 2030. Why? Because we are not making rail a real alternative to driving.
Nowhere is that picture more stark than in the Highlands and Islands. Right now, the Highland main line is still mostly single track. That means that a journey from Inverness to Edinburgh can take more than three and a half hours, which is the same amount of time as in the Victorian era. Driving is faster. If we are serious about growing our economy, creating jobs and tackling climate change, we need to make fares affordable and improve journey times. Instead of supporting that, the Scottish Government is doing the opposite. It has brought back peak fares, which the Scottish Greens scrapped when we were in government, and it is hiking fares by 3.8 per cent in April.
The Government asks why more people are not choosing the train. The real question that it should be asking is: why are we making it harder for them? We need real action: no fare increases this year; a permanent end to peak-time rail fares; simple integrated ticketing across all public transport; electrification and dualling of the Highland main line and other lines so that trains can compete with driving; and investment to move freight on to rail.
Climate action is not about telling people what to do; it is about making the right choice—the easiest choice. Let us stop punishing the people who want to take the train and treating rail like a luxury when it should be the obvious affordable option. Let us get this right—not in five years, not after another price hike, but now.
16:28
I will start with a bit of consensus. I think that everyone agrees that we want rail travel to be affordable. We want to encourage more people to use public transport, and most of us in the room want public services to be in public hands and for the public good, not for the benefit of private shareholders.
We want those things because they bring tangible benefits to people in our society. We need those things because people have to travel and we face a climate crisis. In order to deliver on those shared objectives, we have to make choices based on the available evidence. The SNP Government moved to nationalise ScotRail. We walked the walk while others just talked about it on a loop. Too many people felt that, in private hands, the service was not delivering for them as described, and that our public transport was lining the pockets of unaccountable shareholders. That was not a just or sustainable situation. The SNP Government therefore began a project to deliver a public transport system that is for the benefit of the public and accountable to the taxpayer.
It is absolutely true that people are struggling with the cost of living. That limits the choices that are available to individuals and families. People who are struggling often do not perceive public transport to be affordable. That is why the Scottish Government has kept the price rise as low as practicable while ensuring that we can maintain services and continue to invest in infrastructure. Through that investment, the Borders railway has come back, the Levenmouth infrastructure has opened up, and the Airdrie and Shotts lines, which run through my constituency, have been electrified.
I sympathise greatly with a number of the points that Green colleagues have made. We want many of the same outcomes, but we have to demonstrate that the policy is financially viable, affordable and deliverable. The SNP’s ambitions—as a party and as the Government—could be fulfilled if we did not have the restrictions of being in the union, but we have to live within the parameters that are set by the UK.
The removal of peak fares pilot was possible only because the Scottish Government took action to nationalise ScotRail. However, it was only a pilot—it was a trial to see how the policy would impact on behaviour. It was successful in that it saved Scots hundreds of pounds during times of economic hardship, but the review showed that the benefits mainly went to existing rail passengers with medium to higher incomes. We did not see the 10 per cent increase in passenger numbers that would be required to ensure that the policy was economically viable and could continue. Without the policy self-financing, subsidies would cost the public as much as £40 million a year.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry—I have only a short time left.
The pilot showed minimal impacts overall on car travel. Only 0.1 per cent of car journeys moved to rail during the pilot, and that was heavily concentrated in the central belt. The numbers simply have to improve to make the project viable and sustainable.
In 2025-26, the Scottish Government will invest £1.5 billion in rail services, rail infrastructure and maintenance of the network. We also need increased passenger numbers and reduced car journeys to make the project a viable long-term solution.
16:32
I will use my speech today to talk about the role of public transport in general, but first let me address the motion that is before us and the specific issue of train travel.
I welcome the Greens’ motion. Quite rightly, it calls for public transport fares to be cheaper and more accessible, as well as for the introduction of integrated ticketing, which was promised more than a decade ago.
A survey for The Herald found that almost half the public—46.4 per cent—thought that rail fares were too expensive, and that more than 40 per cent rarely travelled on ScotRail. The latest Transport Scotland figures show that the level of satisfaction with public transport in general, despite a modest rise last year, is still lower than it was pre-pandemic. I suggest to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport that charging the public more than £30 for a return fare between Scotland’s two largest cities is unlikely to help to improve those figures, particularly when it is extremely difficult to purchase a flexipass at Edinburgh Waverley station.
However, if we want more people to travel via public transport, we have to make it both easy and accessible. That is not rocket science. In addition to keeping costs low, we should be doing sensible things, such as introducing smart travel cards that let passengers use all types of public transport with a single-access card. That would tick both boxes—easy and accessible.
The member has raised an important point about integrated ticketing. The advice that we received from our smart ticketing advisory board is that the increasing use of mobiles means that the idea of having everything on a card is probably more for the past, and that digital ticketing on phones with a common platform needs to be the way forward.
I accept that, and I take the point on board, but some people will still require a card.
Our train stations should be accessible and appealing to visit. The new Dundee station is a good example of that, but the nearby Broughty Ferry station has many issues to address. When the train arrives, only one door opens, which causes problems for everyone, but particularly for people with mobility needs. That causes delays, and subsequent connections in Dundee are missed. A refurbished cafe unit has sat empty for years, and an underpass that is used to access the south platform resembles a scene from “The Walking Dead”. That is not good enough.
We need a total package to improve the usage of public transport. We also need to improve access by extending the Borders railway to Carlisle and by opening new stations in places including Winchburgh, Renfrew, Cove and Newtonhill. Likewise, let us put some life back into the railways by reopening stations and lines, such as Aberdeen’s links to the central belt, in order to serve more communities. Let us dual the main Highland line, and let us get that direct line from Perth to Edinburgh. Again, those things are about making travel easier and more accessible.
Cleaner, more reliable and more affordable public transport does not just happen. It takes effort to provide options that people actually want, to make them accessible and to persuade people to use them. I want to see that happen in Scotland.
16:36
I remind members of my voluntary registration of trade union interests.
Last month, the Accounts Commission teamed up with the Auditor General to publish a hard-hitting report on the Government’s wish to reduce car use in Scotland by 20 per cent by 2030. They gave evidence to the Public Audit Committee just this morning. What they found was that there had been no consultation on the setting of that target, that there is no clear or costed plan to meet that target, that there are no measurable milestones towards that target, that there are no equality impact assessments and that the Scottish Government’s arrangements for monitoring and scrutinising progress are insufficient. In fact, the failings are of such a magnitude that they conclude that it is
“not possible to see how the national target of 20 per cent will be achieved”,
and that it is
“impossible to understand which interventions will have the most impact on the target or deliver the best value for money.”
It is little wonder that their key message is that there is a “lack of leadership”.
In the same report, the ScotRail peak fares pilot is considered as a test case. The cabinet secretary hides behind the evaluation report, but he should listen to this conclusion from the Auditor General:
“The evaluation report does not outline the impact ... reinstating peak fares will have on car use or acknowledge that it can take time to sustain positive behavioural changes, such as encouraging modal shift from car to rail use.”
As the RMT union has pointed out, that the evaluation report does not assess the impact on passenger use at peak times is “a glaring omission”.
Let me say this to the Government: you cannot claim to be committed to cutting car miles when you are driving up the cost to passengers of train miles. You cannot welcome COP26 to Glasgow, declare to the world a climate emergency, raise the hopes of the people and then hope that no one will notice that you have reneged on nearly every one of the undertakings that you gave and all of the goals and targets that you set. The 2030 emissions reduction target—dropped. The climate change plan—delayed. The spending commitment to active travel—axed. The bus partnership fund—discontinued. Spending on rail—down. Spending on trunk roads—up. I say to the cabinet secretary that these are contradictions that cannot be left unchallenged, that these are conclusions that cannot be denied and that this is a calamitous climate catastrophe that cannot be ignored.
One of the reasons why I am a democratic socialist is that I believe that ownership is power. The Government is the sole shareholder of ScotRail and it has the power to embark on a bold and radical course of action. If the Scottish Government chooses not to act—chooses not to exercise that power for the common good—and if that requires this Government to be led by this Parliament this afternoon, then so be it, because, in the end, it is our duty to reverse these proposed hikes in rail fares, to abolish these peak train fares once and for all and to stop the cuts to ticket offices.
We understand that the Government’s present course of action does not reduce inequalities but widens them, and that needs to be noted. We must understand that we need not just words, but deeds. We need clear, urgent action and we need a compelling vision. I, for one, will be voting for the Green motion and for the Labour amendment to achieve that this afternoon.
16:40
First, I welcome the news that the feasibility study into extending the Borders railway will get going, after some foot dragging from the Tory and Labour UK Governments. I hope that, when the feasibility study reports to the by then re-elected SNP Scottish Government, it will study the recommendations carefully.
The Scottish Government’s programme of rail modernisation has, among those of all parties, been one of the success stories of devolution, not just—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry—I dinna have time. Four-minute speeches are quite short.
Rail modernisation has been one of the success stories of devolution, not just in the Borders but across the country. The system has been built on and expanded hugely over the past decades. The investment programme, which has included £20 million for building the Reston railway station in Berwickshire, has led to a huge increase in passenger numbers. It is that kind of investment that drives people to choose the railway to travel, because it leads to improved and faster services, cleaner and smoother travel, and modernised and reliable rolling stock.
I appreciate the point that we all want to pay less for our train and bus tickets. If the Scottish Government had the required financial resources, it could repeat or extend the off-peak trial. However, it seems from the Government’s amendment that that
“would cost up to £40 million of resource funding”
and, while our resources are subject to someone else’s diktat, I believe that we need to get the biggest bang for our buck.
I look forward to the refreshed rail decarbonisation plan that will be published this year, continuing the Scottish Government’s commitment to electrification across a huge swathe of our rail network.
On ticketing, customers travelling to or from Stranraer were able to take advantage of a two-for-one ticket offer from 18 November last year, with a £17.30 return for twae folk. However, there are challenges with the station’s current location at the end of the pier, and some people have mooted a reopening of the Station Street station near the town centre or a newer platform closer to the town centre. I would appreciate hearing from the cabinet secretary whether the two-for-one ticket offer boosted passenger numbers and whether there have been any discussions to review the location of the station, although I know that that is a Network Rail issue and is reserved to the UK.
Locally, there are challenges in parts of my South Scotland region. Lockerbie station relies on TransPennine Express, which is owned by the UK Department for Transport, for the vast majority of its services. ScotRail does not serve the station and has never served it. I have pursued that issue separately. Lockerbie is an important railhead for Dumfries and Galloway—it is particularly important for the whole of Galloway—but it is clear that we are being dealt a service that seems to be hitting the buffers with depressing regularity.
The ticket price of £24.70 from Lockerbie to Edinburgh or Glasgow might be challenging for many, but a look at the train service in the past week alone shows that ticket pricing is not the only problem. Last Friday, 16 of the 34 services at Lockerbie were cancelled completely and only 11—less than a third—turned up on time. The day before, 10 of the 36 services were cancelled and eight were more than half an hour late. On Sunday, only five of the scheduled 30 services turned up at the station on time.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I am not gonnae take any interventions. I am looking at the seconds that I have left.
It does not matter what the rail fare is if the trains do not turn up. I know that it is not the Scottish Government’s fault as TransPennine Express is not part of its remit. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could advise me whether she will contact her counterpart at the UK Department for Transport and prod them on how the service could be improved so that people in D and G can rely on the transport that they need to get to the capital city, to Glasgow and wider areas.
As we move to the winding-up speeches, I advise members that we have a little time in hand.
16:45
I am really glad that we are having this debate today. Unlike the cabinet secretary, I do not think that it is a poorly timed debate—it is a debate that is urgently needed. Scottish Labour’s amendment aims to strengthen the Green motion. It is important that we highlight the need for investment—sustainable investment—so that ScotRail can improve the efficiency and performance of its services.
Members across the chamber have talked about the need for reliability, affordability and accessibility, which are crucial. Given the climate emergency, our public transport services need our immediate attention. In his devastating critique, Richard Leonard said that there is no way that the Scottish Government will achieve a 20 per cent reduction in the number of car kilometres by 2030, given what is happening with our bus and rail networks.
Will the member give way?
I would be delighted to take a sharp intervention.
If the issue is so immediate and so important, why did the Labour Party not put forward any of its ideas? Why did it abstain on the budget, which we voted on only yesterday, and come here today to demand urgent action?
The cabinet secretary has previously said in the chamber that, if more money was available, she would reintroduce the removal of peak fares. An additional £5.2 billion was made available to the Scottish Government. We are not in government and it is not possible to amend individual budget lines. Last month, we made it clear that we wanted peak fares to be removed. A 10 per cent increase in usage was needed to generate enough income to enable the reduction in fares to pay for itself. We came so close—we achieved a 6.8 per cent increase in usage. I ask members to consider how many more users we could have attracted if there had been effective advertising and promotion of the opportunities of more affordable journeys on reliable trains. Reliability is crucial.
We also need to take a more joined-up approach to our rail services and to think about how people access them. That includes getting a bus to access rail services, as well as walking, cycling or being able to park at a station. As Claire Baker argued, we need joined-up provision if we are to persuade people to use our railways. The proposed changes are realistic, and they would give us a more desirable system.
The issue of simplifying the ticketing process via integrated ticketing has been raised by members across the chamber. We need to simplify transport fares and ban peak-time fares and the proposed 3.8 per cent increase in rail fares. Several members talked about the cost of rail travel. A return from Glasgow to Edinburgh costs more than £30 in peak hours. That is simply not affordable for people, and it will not persuade people to shift from their cars to travel by train.
The Scottish Government has clearly ignored the public’s and the trade unions’ evident desire for cheaper rail fares, as well as the campaigning for action to reduce our carbon emissions. The Scottish Government has missed nine of the past 13 climate targets. Rather than going into reverse, we need to accelerate progress if we are to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres by 2030, which is now less than five years away. As Richard Leonard said, there has been a lack of leadership and a lack of action. We have had three price hikes in just over a year, and that is disproportionately punishing those who are choosing the train over the car.
If the end goal is increased use of Scottish rail services, public transport journeys as a whole must become a more desirable option. That means that we need to have those services in the first place. Yesterday, members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee discussed the issue of subsidies for bus travel. I totally support the over-60s bus pass, which I introduced when I was the transport minister, and the under-22s bus pass. It was really interesting to dig into the detail. One of the key challenges is the reduction in the number of bus services, which impacts in particular on lower-income and rural constituents. Work needs to be done on that. Many people do not have access to rail services because there are none in their areas, and the same applies to bus services. We need more effective public transport, which will be good for our economy and is also critical for interconnectedness. We need to see progress on that.
When Scottish Labour was in government, we increased the number of stations, we approved new railway lines—Larkhall to Milngavie, Airdrie to Bathgate and Stirling to Alloa—and we made progress on the Borders railway. Those new routes with better connections made it easier for people to travel by train.
We should agree to make it easier and not harder for people to travel by train, and we should have bus services that connect with the railway sector. We need to focus on sustainable funding and investment in our rail services so that passengers do not bear the burden of the shift. Services are not as effective or as accessible as they could be and they are often cancelled. We need to make sure that the infrastructure is reliable, especially in the context of the climate emergency. An effective, popular Scottish rail service that benefits our constituents and our planet must be a goal for all of us, and we need investment in that now and in every year going forward.
I challenge the cabinet secretary on the cuts that we have seen. The cuts to buses and rail fare hikes are not good enough. I say again that the Scottish Government has had an extra £5.2 billion this year and we should have seen something a lot better.
16:51
It has taken me a long time to get the Greens to see sense, and it has finally happened. The motion from my good friend Mark Ruskell could well be his application to join the Scottish Conservatives—although that might not be a good career move. Everything in the motion has been our policy for years. My attempts to get various transport ministers to deliver cheaper, simpler fares and integrated ticketing may not have succeeded yet, but I live in hope. Fiona Hyslop knows that I am always here to help.
Earlier today, the Public Audit Committee looked at the Auditor General’s report “Sustainable transport: Reducing car use”. The report says—rightly—that
“Transport is the largest source of greenhouse gas”.
That makes me wonder why we would build new ferries, which pump out greenhouse gases.
The report refers to the Government’s target of cutting car miles by 20 per cent from 2019 levels by 2030, and points out that, even now, with only five years to go, there is no plan to achieve that target. I would like the cabinet secretary to tell us whether the Government is still committed to that target, because it does not look as if it is. If she wants to intervene now, I will take her intervention.
A number of issues play a role in reducing car use, not least of which is that we must work with the other Governments in the UK on incentivisation in relation to electric vehicles. The Climate Change Committee’s advice will be instrumental in our assessment of what we do to reach the target.
Well, I am none the wiser. Is anyone else? I assume from that answer that the target is scrapped—as it should be, because the Government has absolutely no chance of hitting it. The consultation paper that was published on Monday is just a way of stalling things until after next year’s election.
To achieve the target, car traffic levels would have to decrease by 4.5 billion miles from the 2019 baseline, to 18 billion miles. Car traffic levels were previously at that level in 1994. That is not going to happen, and the Government should be honest about that.
However, the Government can do what we have been calling for—I am pleased to say that the Greens are now on board with it—which is to radically improve public transport. Ignoring the will of the Parliament when we voted last year to end peak fares on the railways was a bad move. We will not get people back on the trains by making them more expensive. There has been precious little sign of things improving on ScotRail since it was nationalised but, when the Government has all the levers at its disposal, it should at least use them.
The bus system is too fragmented and confusing. I have long backed a £2 bus fare cap, similar to that introduced by the previous Conservative Government in England, rather than a pilot. We do not need a pilot, because we know that it works. Across the country, we need integrated ticketing and a smart card system, which can be on a phone. Other countries are using the technology that I have suggested to the cabinet secretary. In fact, we need only look at innovative regions in England, such as the West Midlands and Greater Manchester, to see how things can be done better.
We are way behind where we need to be. Transport Scotland has said that, to achieve the car reduction target, we would need an increase in public transport capacity of—wait for it—222 per cent. There is no sign of that happening, and it will not happen.
Sue Webber was right to mention Winchburgh in her amendment. A new station should have been planned and agreed before any of the new houses were built there. Why can we not get the simple things right?
Mark Ruskell opened the debate by saying that rail fares are “eye-watering”. He is absolutely right; others have made a similar point. I hope that Parliament backs the amendment in Sue Webber’s name, as well as the original motion, as amended. If it does, the Government will have to take notice and act on that instruction, because kicking the can down the road with yet another consultation will not do.
16:56
I want to make two things absolutely clear. First, I wanted the off-peak all-day trial to be successful. The SNP Government chose to extend it twice, using scarce resource funding, to make it a year-long trial. It was not just a Green policy—indeed, the decision on the second extension was made after the Greens had left government. However, the trial had limited success, and Parliament simply cannot and should not overturn a carefully crafted and agreed budget for transport this coming year, the day after agreeing to it. That budget allows for investment in services and infrastructure for rail and bus, walking, wheeling and cycling, and in road safety measures, such as the rolling out of the 20mph speed limit, which I know Mark Ruskell supports. As Beatrice Wishart pointed out, the proposals in the motion risk that investment.
Secondly, I am prepared to revisit having cheaper fares in the future, but proposals need to be properly thought through, discussed and agreed as part of budget negotiations, not outside them.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
The Government wants more people to choose to travel by public transport for work, study and leisure. That is why we will invest more than £2.6 billion to make our transport system available, affordable and accessible for all. I am pleased that passenger numbers are increasing, even after the end of the trial, by 4.5 per cent for a four-week period this year, compared with the trial period.
For the second time today, I will give way to Ross Greer.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary. She seems to suggest that Opposition parties cannot bring motions to the chamber to advocate for our own policies, if we have agreed to co-operate with the Government on the budget. This was not a Green budget; it was an SNP budget that the Greens and the Liberal Democrats were able to change sufficiently to gain our support. If the Government is suggesting that we cannot advocate for our own policies once we have voted for the budget, how does she think that the Government will find any votes at all for its final budget of this session of Parliament?
I gently point out that it is the day after the budget has been agreed, and it is not a small amount of funding that has been requested. It is also not a small amount of funding for some point in the future; the demand is for it to be implemented in a matter of weeks in relation to the fare increase, with a grand total of £51 million.
Our publicly owned railway is performing well. Performance on the ScotRail network continues to be high compared with that of other UK train operating companies. ScotRail’s current public performance measure is sitting at 90 per cent, but we want that to improve. I have set a higher performance measure of 92.5 per cent.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I need to make progress.
It is wrong for the Conservatives to claim that the operation of publicly owned ScotRail has cost more than when it was in private hands. That claim ignores the fact that rail employees did not get a pay rise when Abellio employed them. It ignores the fact that the governance arrangements are reduced compared with the contractual arrangements that were required under private sector franchising, and it ignores the fact that the overall subsidy is now lower because of rising passenger numbers. It ignores the £300 million accounting adjustment under international financial reporting standards to reflect the valuation of leased assets, as I reported in person in evidence on the budget to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.
The claim also ignores how much has changed in the economy—not least the significant inflationary pressures that were largely caused by the mismanagement of the economy by the Tory Westminster Government, which have had to be applied to things such as track access charges. I hope that Labour—and Mr Leonard in particular—will refuse to support the Conservative amendment, which suggests that what Scotland needs for our railways is a return to private sector franchising.
I am sure that Scotland’s rail employees would welcome positive reinforcement of the good job that they do, day in and day out, and of the services that they provide, rather than constantly being criticised by some in the Parliament.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No, thank you.
The Government has broadly kept ScotRail fare increases down for more than a decade by ensuring that they are in line with inflation—or even lower than that, in the case of off-peak fares. The Scottish Government froze rail fares for a number of years while costs increased.
In the absence of a fares rise, our only available option would be to consider service cuts, which would prevent people from accessing jobs, education, public services, friends and family networks. We simply cannot afford to create a £51 million black hole in the transport budget for the year ahead.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I need to come to a close.
None of that matters to some members in the Parliament. They do not reflect on what respective Westminster Governments have done to constrain our finances.
Herein lies the conundrum for the Scottish Greens. Do they support Labour and the Conservatives, who continue to talk down Scottish rail travel as being too expensive? If they continue to support that narrative, they will not encourage people to choose public transport; they will encourage them to stay in their cars.
I am disappointed that we have had to increase rail fares and that the pilot did not succeed sufficiently to allow off-peak all-day fares to continue, but I will not accept the position of the Tory Opposition, which does not even believe in public rail ownership.
We need a collective approach that can steer our public services, including our public rail service, through these most difficult and challenging financial circumstances. I want to do that and to do so collectively, which is why I call on members to support the SNP amendment, which will allow us to have the prospect of doing what members want to do but in an orderly and considered manner.
17:02
I extend apologies from Gillian Mackay, who was to close for the Greens in the debate but is not able to make it, due to an unforeseen personal reason. So, I will attempt to close the debate.
That was a disappointing contribution from the cabinet secretary. It seems that she is saying that it is actually the fault of the Scottish Greens that rail fares have been increasing for years on years—not ScotRail, nor the Scottish Government and its budget choices, but the Scottish Greens.
To be honest, if we are being egged on to go further by the cabinet secretary, Sue Webber and Beatrice Wishart—not just to deliver a bus fare cap pilot, but to make rail fares substantially cheaper as well—I would welcome support, maybe from Beatrice Wishart in a future budget deal. The Liberal Democrats were unable to get the Newburgh rail station over the line this year, but maybe we can achieve a lot more for communities by working in a more collaborative way.
To take on board the cabinet secretary’s criticism and concern, I note that there is some flexibility within the budget that the Parliament has agreed. The cabinet secretary pointed out that, previously, the off-peak all-day pilot scheme was extended as a result of in-year budget revisions. It is not clear what in-year budget revisions will look like in the coming year. Perhaps development costs for the A96 will be underspent—I hope so. Perhaps other areas of Government funding will be underspent, so that we can redirect that funding to support people who are struggling with the cost of living.
Sarah Boyack pointed out that the cabinet secretary had said that if more money became available, off-peak all-day fares would be a priority for the Government. I am not so sure about that, any more. However, more things can be done to lower the cost of travel.
I believe that the price of the flexipass has been frozen until September 2025. I am not clear whether there has been a decision to extend the price freeze, but limited spending by the Scottish Government in that area could benefit people in terms of their travel choices every day.
A number of members expanded the debate a little to talk about other issues that are important for the travelling public. For example, Claire Baker and Richard Leonard discussed ticket office closures. Ticket office staff play a vital role in helping passengers to access the cheapest fares. Many people who require concessionary tickets or national entitlement card tickets can purchase them only at ticket offices or on the train. There is still concern about the planned reduction in ticketing hours and potential closures, and there is concern about accessibility at unstaffed stations.
Claire Baker described the evaluation report on the off-peak all-day fares pilot as probably “the most inconclusive” that she has ever read. Richard Leonard highlighted the lack of analysis of the impact of increased traffic growth as a result of off-peak all-day fares being removed.
It was slightly disingenuous of the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in her amendment to draw parallels with the Transport for London pilot. London is a very different place from Scotland: it has fully integrated ticketing and an underground rail network that spans the whole city, which is provided at low cost. As I pointed out in my opening comments, that pilot study ran only on Fridays for 13 weeks, so it is just not credible to include it in the amendment as a reason why off-peak all-day fares will not work in Scotland.
There has been discussion about flexipasses, including by Maurice Golden, who raised issues on behalf of his constituents. I point out that someone who is trying to get a flexipass and is commuting between Cumbernauld and Dalmuir or from Larkhall to Dalmuir cannot get a flexipass. There are very limited options for regular commuters. I think that that comes down to the fact that some stations do not have automated gates. There simply is not the infrastructure to deal with cheaper tickets.
I have constituents in Pitlochry who are struggling to understand whether they are eligible for flexipasses. I will have to write to the cabinet secretary on the issue. Most of my constituents who have written to me are just getting in the car and heading down the A9, because they have more or less given up trying to work out how flexipasses work.
We heard contributions about the climate and the critical Audit Scotland report from Ariane Burgess, Richard Leonard and Sarah Boyack. Unfortunately, Audit Scotland has clearly said that we are “unlikely” to meet the target of
“reducing car kilometres driven by 20 per cent by 2030.”
It has attributed that to a “lack of leadership”, where national and local spending on reducing car usage is complex, fragmented and lacking in transparency. I hope that the 20 per cent plan, which has been under discussion for many years with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and councils, can finally be agreed.
I wish the Government well in those negotiations with COSLA, but some key elements of the plan will require in Parliament discussion of subjects that are currently taboo—demand management, automatic road tolls, congestion charges and a wide range of measures that are needed to raise the revenue to invest in public transport in order to make it low cost or free.
In European cities, that is normal. Demand management and investing not just in low-cost public transport but in free public transport is not a Green dream—it is a reality and it is happening in French cities right now. They are making the choice to raise revenue and to invest in making public transport free, and are not just using peak fare reductions or anything else that fiddles round at the edges through use of complex schemes.
If we are serious about reducing emissions, tackling transport inequality and making public transport the best option, action must be taken now, but it has to have a big vision behind it. That is not just about the Scottish budget this year, but is about setting out a vision.
That concludes the debate on cheaper rail fares.