Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. I have not been ignoring your officials, minister; I just assumed that you would bring them in if you felt that there was anything appropriate that they could add.

Today has been helpful with the issues that we have been exploring with our petitioner. Minister, would you like to say anything further in conclusion?

I understand. Mr Ewing will go next.

Are colleagues content that we proceed on the basis of the suggestions made by Mr Stewart and Mr Ewing?

You are just here to speak to the petition. Do colleagues have any recommendations for how we might proceed?

I would certainly be willing for the committee to try to tease out an explanation. Transport for London deals with tens of millions of people using the system. The Glasgow pilot is referred to as being useful but not necessarily cost-effective on a commercial basis, which may reflect the numbers involved in relation to the cost of setting it up. I do not know. Any citizen of Glasgow who travels abroad is surprised at how far behind the smart technology is in the largest city in Scotland. There is more that we could tease out in relation to that.

It strikes me as peculiar that we have introduced barrier technology at a series of stations but that we cannot programme the barriers to be pay as you go. I would not have thought that that was impossible.

Who should we try to pursue these issues with? Meanwhile, we should write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd is covered by the consumer duty legislation. If it considers that SRHL is not covered, we should ask what action it proposes to take to ensure that it is. It would be a deficiency if it is not.

I was also struck by what Mr Eckton said in his latest submission about how easy it is to miss the advertising on fares. We should ask SRHL about the action that it is taking to ensure that people can easily identify that. I would be very interested to know what advertising it does and how it evaluates whether that advertising has been successful.

Are there any other thoughts or comments?

That is a perfectly fair observation. The actions that we have discussed can be linked back to the actual aim of the petition, but I agree that we have to be careful. Although I welcomed everything that Monica Lennon had to contribute, it invited us to stray slightly beyond, in a number of areas, the specific ambition of the petition.

We are always willing to receive an additional petition from another party on all those other matters. If we opened up an inquiry in the broadest possible terms in relation to every petition, we would—to extend your metaphor, Mr Ewing—be trawling very deeply.

Are members content to proceed on the basis of the various recommendations that we have had?

We can see if that works. Ultimately, the project would have to be taken forward by others, but I take the point that it would have to include a much wider range of views to be certain that it was viable, in addition to any capping proposal that might proceed.

Quite a bit of the evidence that we have heard was not so much about the ambition around the delivery of various principles. Alexander Stewart will ask a couple of questions in relation to that.

I go back to the medication-assisted treatment standards and the importance that you attach to their being embedded—I refer back to that word. To what extent did the work that you did suggest how far adrift we were from the delivery of that principle?

Thank you.