Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, there are. I will meet officials this afternoon to set out the next stages for ensuring that we report by the end of this year, as intended. The name of the fair fares review is a bit of a tongue-twister and, if I wanted to make changes, I would probably change that title, not least because the review is not just about fares—it is about how we make sure that our public transport system is accessible and affordable.

We have a fragmented system that involves deregulated services, such as buses, and the nationalised rail service. We have fares issues in relation to the ferries. We are looking at what is subsidised and what provides concessionary travel. In many other countries, the concessionary travel system is more varied, but Scotland has 2 million people with free concessionary bus travel.

The fair fares review is looking at all those issues. There are plenty of suggestions about anomalies. I know that the committee has heard about the situation for accompanied people who have sight impairments and about challenges in relation to disabilities and rail services.

There are lots of individual issues—for example, can something be done for under-22s who use interisland ferries? We also want to set out parameters for what a fair system might look like. Fares are set in advance of a period, so the idea is to produce the report by the end of the year so that implementation of recommendations can start—but not be completed—from 2024-25.

I should not have invited that. [Laughter.]

I do not go back 20 years, but the member might.

She might be able to inform the committee about that, then.

There are key areas that have been under consideration for a long time; we are acutely aware of the bypass issue, and it would have been disappointing if the proposal had been knocked back at that point. However, that time is past. I have to deal with what is in my in-tray now and what is in front of me.

I will try to share as much as I can when I can, but I do not want to give you information now only to have to come back and tell you that it was incorrect. If you feel that you are not getting all the detail that you want, I give a commitment to try to follow up things in writing, where required.

I should say first that there is the general strategic approach, which is key, and then there are the individual issues that have been raised. I identified the issues with rail travel earlier, and I know that people are concerned about it. What you have highlighted happens in certain modes of transport, but rail was the issue that people raised concerns about, and I have replied to a number of members of the Scottish Parliament to say that the matter will be considered in the fair fares review.

That is why we ask the experts to advise us on the timescale and what is possible and when. However, we have the drive and intention to electrify the line. We just have to ensure that we put all our ducks in a row to ensure that it can happen. That is the realistic thing to do. The refreshed rail decarbonisation plan, which Mark Ruskell asked about, will help to do it.

I might refer to colleagues for the actual date but, in my opening remarks, I referred to a number of Scottish statutory instruments on pavement parking that will come to the committee. Some of the instruments under the provisions of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 have already been laid before the Parliament. Alison Irvine might be able to help on the final date.

There will need to be a lot of communication about what is and is not acceptable because, currently, some people think that it is acceptable to park on the pavement. Actually, it is not acceptable to do so now but, with the regulations, that will become more evident. We will work closely with our local authority colleagues on ensuring that it is clearly communicated to people.

People have a considerable amount of concern about the issue, and a number of people contact MSPs about it. People should feel comfortable using their pavements. That applies to everybody, but if people are wheeling in any shape or form—whether wheelchair users or mothers with buggies—and they cannot get through, how can they feel comfortable in their own environment and place? Implementing these provisions is about making people feel comfortable to be active and able to walk, cycle and wheel in their areas. Clearly, we do not want people to cycle on the pavements; I am referring to the wheeling aspect.

There was a lot of publicity on the matter when Sandra White’s Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill went through the Parliament. It was a high-profile issue and there was a lot of publicity. The committee and other MSPs might be able to help with that. There is a series of different regulations, but it might be helpful if, when we lay the 2 October ones for December implementation, we can all try to raise the profile of the issue.

No. The A96 was in the programme for government, which I can send to you if you want to re-read it. I am sorry that you did not get to ask a question about the A96 in the chamber last week because the Presiding Officer did not have time for that, but you will have received a written response.

There is an on-going review of work on the A96 and the results of the first stage were published in December. It is my understanding that there was a session in February—which I think was facilitated by Gillian Martin MSP—and that the review group, the minister and members from the north and north-east were invited to hear the next steps being laid out.

The challenge with the A96 comes from the sheer number of different options, because 11,000 options were put forward. You are probably interested in when the review will report. You seem to be suggesting that it should have reported before now, but it could not do so because of the sheer number of options. We are looking at producing an appraisal of those 11,000 options, and particularly of the 16 retained options, so that the report that you are expecting can be produced.

As they do in many situations, the solutions will come from those who are in the workplace. We must listen to them, rather than saying what we think will work. Dialogue is very important.