Seòmar agus comataidhean

John Mason makes a good point. There was an allocation in this year’s budget, but it is, of course, a changing picture. It depends on how many people get back on to the railways and whether we can see a modal shift.

We know that modal shift takes time. That is an important point in this debate, because it is about changing habits that have formed over a lifetime—a lifetime in which Governments of all shades have prioritised investment in roads and cars over investment in public transport.

Radical interventions in public transport fares clearly make a difference. Nearly 750,000 young people in Scotland now have access to free bus travel, and more than 137 million of those journeys have been made in just over two years. The national entitlement card for bus travel goes further by offering young people 50 per cent off train fares. We are already creating a generation whose first choice is public transport.

Some green shoots of progress are already emerging from the interim evaluation of the off-peak-all-day pilot, which was published earlier this week. Although the picture is yet to fully emerge, the data shows us that 53 per cent of new rail passengers in the pilot period had previously chosen to travel by car. It shows us that a third of existing rail users made at least one additional rail journey that they would ordinarily have made by another travel mode, with two thirds of those journeys normally made by car. If we want to achieve long-term modal shift, we need to give people the security of knowing that peak-time rail fares are gone for good. Only then can commuters start to plan their work and travel options around fixed rail services that are cost competitive with running a private car.

Modal shift is an important objective for the off-peak all-day pilot, but it is not the only reason why securing cheaper and simpler fares matters. Budgets are still tight for many people across Scotland. Although inflation might have levelled out, the cost of living crisis has a long tail, with prices remaining high in many sectors. I hope that John Mason acknowledges that, although the pilot has been important in driving modal shift, it has also been important as a cost of living measure. High rail fares, particularly at peak times, coupled with a complicated pricing structure threaten to make rail an unattractive option in the future. We cannot stand still on this. Rail must continue to grow its passenger demographic, not shrink it.

For those who commute to work at peak times, the cost pressure is even more stark, as I will outline. Before the pilot, someone travelling at peak times between Edinburgh and Glasgow paid £28.90, and someone travelling between Glasgow and Stirling paid £16.10. With the removal of peak-time fares, those prices have been slashed—by half in the case of the Edinburgh to Glasgow route.

Cheaper rail fares will make train travel more attractive to commuters and leisure travellers, and there are early indications from the pilot evaluation that that is having an effect. During the pilot, 78 per cent of new rail passengers chose to get the train because of the pilot. Put simply, they got on board ScotRail because the tickets were cheaper—it is that simple. It cannot be right that it is cheaper, easier and simpler to choose private cars over public transport, so reforming antiquated and unfair structures such as peak-time fares is an important part of the picture.

However, we also need to think bigger. Creating incentives to reduce fares is just one side of the price equation. We cannot secure sustainable funding for transformative green transport solutions through driving up rail passenger numbers alone. We need to be brave and bold, and measures such as congestion charging and workplace parking levies in the cities are needed to get a better balance between private car usage and the use of public transport. We know that the Scottish Government has done initial work on demand management, and I look forward to seeing the final 20 per cent reduction plan. However, we also need councils with strong leadership that can stand with the Scottish Government and drive through measures that will transform our cities for good. We also desperately need to see progress on integrated ticketing, which the Government has often promised but has not yet delivered, and which should go a huge way to improving the passenger experience and delivering more affordable fare packages.

ScotRail’s now being in public ownership is our chance to deliver on a people’s vision for ScotRail—one that makes rail affordable and accessible to as many people as possible and that encourages folks to get out of cars and on to our incredible rail services. Getting rid of peak-time fares is a very important step on that journey.

I am enjoying hearing Graham Simpson’s not just acceptance but enthusiasm for green policies, but I am interested in what his views are on demand management. We can keep offering the carrots of reduced fares, flat fares and free travel, but there is a point at which we have to rebalance the cost of private car usage with public transport. Would he support demand management in, for example, the city of Edinburgh, if the council and local taxpayers wished to introduce it? That could lead to transformative investment in public transport in that city, as it could in many other cities, while at the same time rebalancing the cost, which, as he knows, is vastly skewed towards private car usage and away from public transport at the moment.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide further details of the process that it will follow to develop a just transition plan for the Mossmorran industrial site. (S6O-03540)

To ask the Deputy First Minister by what date the Scottish Government will decide which of the national park nominations will be taken forward to the next stage. (S6F-03205)

Mr Munro, you spoke earlier about the toxic environment that has been created around discussion of this individual project. Mr Wilson, you mentioned in your opening comments the impact on the creatives, artists, participants and others, including the negative impact on social media and in the wider media. Will you explain what that impact has been?

You mentioned that themes around sex and sexuality have always been part of art and culture. Given the controversy surrounding this individual project, do you see the potential for there to be a chilling effect? Might artists and creators be more reluctant to bring forward challenging and controversial projects as a result of the kind of furore and public discourse that we have seen in relation to this?

Obviously, it is difficult for you to manage that public discourse. If it turns into a culture war, it is very difficult for you to get through that. Nonetheless, do you see that there were perhaps key points, such as when the Times letter came out, when there was a need for clarity? Were there key points when Creative Scotland could or should have provided more information, or do you think that you did that but it was perhaps not heard because of an overwhelming culture war on social media around the topic?

Are there lessons for politicians and the media about how issues such as this award are discussed? I am thinking of the facts behind such controversies and the impact that such situations have, particularly on artists and marginalised communities, in a febrile, judgmental environment.

I underline the importance of Zero Waste Scotland. It is a trusted body that is able to look independently at some of the big issues around how we move to a circular economy. It has done some incredible work.

The move to make Zero Waste Scotland a public body and put it firmly and squarely into the public bodies legislation is good. It underlines the organisation’s status. That is hugely important because, going forward, we will need the independent and scientifically robust work that Zero Waste Scotland does. I know that it works closely with industry on that.

Zero Waste Scotland’s role is critical and it is good to see it being underlined in the bill. I put on record my thanks for the leadership of Iain Gulland, who has been phenomenal over the years.

Does the member agree that part of the issue is that some aspects of waste processing have naturally fallen more in the realm of the energy strategy and thinking about how we meet energy needs—that is particularly the case with energy from waste—and less in the circular economy space? Historically, the issue has fallen between the stools of energy and waste, but you seem to be suggesting that it should absolutely be seen as part of waste processing infrastructure.