Official Report 1081KB pdf
Net Zero and Energy, and Transport
Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions, and the portfolio on this occasion is net zero and energy, and transport.
I invite members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question and I ask them to cut out any lengthy preambles and limit themselves to a single question. I make a plea for responses to be similarly brief.
National Transport Strategy
I remind members of my voluntary entry in the register of members’ interests.
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken to implement Scotland’s national transport strategy. (S6O-03669)
The national transport strategy was developed collaboratively with partners and underpins all decision making that is related to transport, with regional transport partnerships developing strategies for their area to align with it. Delivering its vision is a shared endeavour, with responsibilities across the Scottish Government, operators, local authorities, business, industry and users. I co-chair the national transport strategy delivery board alongside the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and it includes members from partner organisations.
Last December, we published a report to Parliament outlining the steps that we have taken to deliver the strategy, alongside our third delivery plan for 2023-24. The fourth plan will be published later this year.
The Scottish Government’s national transport strategy is based on four priorities: reducing inequality; taking action on climate change; delivering economic growth; and improving health and wellbeing. Scrapping peak fares on ScotRail has driven a shift from road to rail. Four million extra train journeys have been made—two million of them because people have been incentivised to leave their cars at home. Does the cabinet secretary not understand why people are angry about her announcement that the Government will force up some rail fares by 48 per cent? Does she not accept that that decision fails on every single one of her Government’s four national transport strategy tests? Will she do the right thing while there is still time and reverse this disastrous decision?
There are a number of portfolio questions on this topic. I will address the member’s questions directly. He is quite correct to identify that the Scottish Government’s national missions include tackling child poverty and tackling the climate emergency.
On the measure of modal shift, the peak fares trial failed, unfortunately. The amount of car journeys that transferred to rail was 0.1 per cent. In addition, the discount that has existed over the past year has seen many existing rail users benefit by hundreds if not thousands of pounds, but the assessment, which I encourage him to read, shows that the majority of those who benefited were on middle to high incomes. On those two measures alone, the report shows that his analysis is incorrect.
With the discounts that are being provided, a flexipass between Falkirk and Edinburgh will cost £13.40 per return journey for five returns, compared with the current off-peak fare of £12.10. With an annual season ticket, travelling four days a week, the fare will be £10.04. That is a reduction. If the member listens to what I have said and is prepared to promote the discounts that are being announced now for the coming year and beyond, he will see that some people will be paying a similar amount to what they have been paying during the peak fare removal trial. He will see that if he looks at the figures.
That is not an auspicious start on the back of my request for brevity. Bill Kidd, let us see whether we can do any better.
More than 150 million free bus journeys have been made by children and young people in Scotland since the introduction of free bus travel for under-22s. Will the cabinet secretary set out how that Scottish Government initiative is working towards the vision and priorities of the national transport strategy?
One year on, the evaluation of the scheme has shown that, by making bus travel more accessible, it is already opening doors to new opportunities and reducing travel costs for families across Scotland. By making sustainable travel easier and cheaper for Scotland’s children and young people, that transformational policy is giving them the very best chance to succeed in life, as well as supporting them to play their part in cutting emissions and taking climate action in line with the vision of the national transport strategy.
The reintroduction of peak fares on the railways will mean huge fare increases across the country. If I want to get a return from East Kilbride to Glasgow, it will cost me 55 per cent more, and a return journey from East Kilbride to Edinburgh will cost me 84 per cent more. How does that fit in with the Scottish Government’s ambition to cut car journeys by a fifth by next year?
The member’s latter point is an incorrect assessment of what the plans are in relation to the reduction of car journeys.
In relation to the member’s travel, as he is a regular commuter by train, he can use a flexipass, which will have a permanent 20 per cent reduction, or he can use an annual season ticket, which will have a 20 per cent reduction.
The figures that I have set out in relation to the discounts that are being introduced just now show that people will be able to have reduced fares that are, in many cases, similar to the off-peak fares. I will be delighted to send the member the East Kilbride figures so that he can promote the discounts that will be available for regular commuters, as he is, to his constituents in the wider central region.
ScotRail Peak Fares
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide further details of its position on the reintroduction of peak fares on ScotRail trains. (S6O-03670)
All MSPs and the public can read the report evaluating the peak fares removal trial on Transport Scotland’s website and I would encourage them to do so. Although there was a limited increase in the number of passengers during the year, the scheme did not achieve one of the key aims of encouraging a significant modal shift from car to rail. It mainly benefited those people who already used rail, saving them hundreds if not thousands of pounds through subsidised discounted fares and, although some lower-income passengers benefited, it was mostly middle to higher-income passengers who did.
Given the financial challenges that we face and the significant additional subsidy that is required to continue the pilot versus its limited contribution towards the Government’s missions of tackling climate change and child poverty, the pilot will end on 27 September. To mitigate the impact, we are reducing the cost of season tickets and flexipasses by 20 per cent, and I encourage all members to promote that.
The cabinet secretary clearly does not understand the economic argument that the cost for someone who lives in Edinburgh to go to Glasgow will go from £16.20 to £31.40, which will simply force more people into their cars. Was a proper economic and environmental study carried out? If so, will it be debated in Parliament before the final decision is made?
The decision has been made. It was always a trial. In fact, we extended that trial not just once but twice. I was keen to see it succeed, which is why it was extended until September.
I will give an example of the promotions that I have already outlined in Parliament. A Glasgow to Edinburgh return is currently £16.20 all day; with the offer that has just been announced for 20 per cent savings on season tickets, a return will cost the equivalent of £14.82 per day for an annual season ticket holder if they are travelling five days a week. For those people who use a flexipass, that same return journey from Edinburgh to Glasgow will cost £21.25. Those discounts, from September, will offset the current situation between peak and off-peak fares. A £16.20 off-peak fare is very attractive compared with the figures that have been cited today.
I will try to take a further couple of supplementaries, but they will need to be brief, as will the responses.
My constituents are interested in the actual costs of their commute. Will the cabinet secretary set out what savings are available to the average commuter from Paisley using popular routes?
The specific savings that are available will be individual to the commuter and the route that they commute on. With the 20 per cent discount on season passes, for those commuting to work more frequently, it means that the equivalent fare per journey is, in some cases, lower than the off-peak fare and, in all cases, cheaper than paying for day-return tickets at any time.
Alternatively, flexipasses offer savings for those who do not commute regularly or frequently. Flexipasses consist of 10 tickets over a two-month period. For passengers on the Paisley Gilmour Street to Glasgow route, who currently enjoy a £4.90 all-day fare, if they travelled five days a week on an annual season ticket, it would be the equivalent of £3.25 per day. For those who travel less regularly and would prefer a flexipass, a daily fare would be £4.85, compared with the peak fare of £7.20.
I hope that the cabinet secretary will reflect on the deep disappointment of thousands and thousands of people across Scotland at the return of peak fares. Scrapping peak fares led to an increase in passengers—around 7 per cent—and more income for ScotRail. If bringing back peak fares results in passengers abandoning train travel, that will mean less income for ScotRail. If that happens, will the cabinet secretary consider reversing the position?
I have already said that I was personally disappointed that a successful evaluation was not reported. The 6.8 per cent increase in use was at the maximum level. At the lower level, the assessment was less than 3 per cent. Unfortunately, the increase in journeys was at the beginning of the pilot; latterly, it tailed off. The assessment was made around the beginning of July, so it does not include the disruptive period. However, I have also said that, should the United Kingdom Government start to invest more in public services—and we get consequentials—I am open to reconsidering the position.
Decarbonising Transport
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will review its goal of decarbonising transport, in light of its reported decision to increase fares and reduce services on Scotland’s railways. (S6O-03671)
We continue to decarbonise our transport with additional funding to support Scotland’s electric vehicle charging network, and to support confident switching to electric cars. We are on target to provide 6,000 EV chargers by 2026.
On rail, we recently electrified the Barrhead line, and we are electrifying the East Kilbride line, with the provision of a travel interchange. Only yesterday, I announced approval for the procurement of a replacement train fleet for our intercity services. We have just announced funding of £41.7 million for 252 low-emission buses.
Unfortunately, the peak fare removal trial was unsuccessful: just 0.1 per cent of car journeys moved to rail. I am hopeful that the current temporary timetable will return to a full timetable shortly, and I am pleased that rail unions are recommending to their members that they accept the latest pay offer from ScotRail.
As the member has heard, I have taken steps to introduce discounts of 20 per cent on annual season tickets, and permanent discounts of 20 per cent on flexipasses.
Transport is now Scotland’s biggest emitter of CO2, yet rail passengers face a double whammy of fare hikes and cuts to more than 530 train services a day, compared with 2019. The United Kingdom Climate Change Committee has accused the Scottish Government of having no plan to reduce car kilometres, and the Government undermined the peak service trial with cuts to services and a lack of advertising. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the Government has dismantled travellers’ ability to make greener transport choices, is driving up costs on the railways and driving down services, and has, seemingly, abandoned its own goal of decarbonising our transport system?
I completely reject that analysis. I have talked about the increase in electric chargers. We have the most comprehensive electric charging system outside London, which is encouraging people to switch to electric vehicles. I also point out that, if we want to tackle car use, investing in buses would probably be our preference. We have limited choices. Do we invest in rail, where, as we know from the evaluation, the impact is more on middle to upper-income passengers and does not encourage more people to switch from car? Investment in other modes might be a better use of public funding. I am still committed to trying to make rail more attractive to more people. However, 75 per cent of passenger journeys on rail are already on electrified lines. We are improving what we are doing to support the bus fleet. That is a strong argument on decarbonisation. I am very pleased about that. I recently met the Climate Change Committee and discussed our proposals. The committee knows that we are proposing to bring forward a 20 per cent car reduction—
Thank you, cabinet secretary. We will need to have briefer responses.
We have a brief supplementary question from Beatrice Wishart.
It is not just railways that need decarbonising. Ageing ferries are Shetland’s biggest carbon emitters and many need to be replaced. Will the Scottish Government outline its policy on short subsea tunnels for Shetland, as such a project would be a contributor to the Scottish Government’s goal of decarbonising transport?
Beatrice Wishart will know that it is the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government who is working with the Shetland ferry replacement task force. I am open to work on both ferries and tunnels. The big infrastructure spend that would be required on tunnels needs innovation—and it needs independence. Having the capability as a state to do big infrastructure projects such as subsea tunnels—the Faroe Islands rely on the Danish state to underwrite their tunnels—is a positive argument for changing how we fund our public services.
Will the cabinet secretary offer examples of achievements in the decarbonisation of Scotland’s railway under the Scottish National Party and give an indication of what impact the new intercity fleet is anticipated to have in that regard?
The new intercity fleet has a requirement to reduce emissions. As Evelyn Tweed will know from her constituency, the Stirling-Dunblane-Alloa line has been electrified. We know about the Edinburgh to Glasgow line. As I have already indicated, the electrification of the Glasgow to Barrhead line was completed recently, and we are working on the East Kilbride line.
Dumfries to Glasgow Train Service
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with Network Rail and ScotRail with regards to improving the Dumfries-Glasgow train service. (S6O-03672)
Transport Scotland officials regularly meet ScotRail and Network Rail Scotland to discuss rail services. Train services in Dumfries and Galloway have been improved through ScotRail’s previous timetable changes, which resulted in a consistent hourly service between Dumfries and Carlisle and a two-hourly service between Dumfries and Glasgow. Like many other routes, the Dumfries to Glasgow service has been affected by the current ScotRail temporary reduced timetable. I am hopeful that there will be a return of normal services, and I am keen for that to happen as soon as possible.
The Dumfries to Glasgow rail service is a vital link that connects communities in the south to Scotland’s cities. Constituents report that the service is slow and that the fleet servicing the line is dated. We have heard that, if the journey time is faster, such as by electrification, Dumfries and other areas of Dumfries and Galloway could become commuter towns for Glasgow, helping to address depopulation. Will the cabinet secretary agree to meet me to discuss how we can improve that important line?
The Scottish Government is committed to decarbonising its passenger rail network. That is set out in our decarbonisation plan, which is a dynamic document that is due for a refresh. That is under way, and we will examine how decarbonisation can best be achieved. The plan commits to all passenger diesel trains being replaced. The order in which and programme by which that is done will depend on business cases and available budgets.
Although there is no timeline for the electrification of the line from Glasgow to Dumfries, and it is yet to be confirmed, I am happy to meet Emma Harper to discuss that important matter in more detail.
It is not surprising that Emma Harper did not mention the 80 per cent fare hike for a ticket from Dumfries to Glasgow, which will rise from £24 to £43.
The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has highlighted the flawed trial evaluation process, with the first survey being carried out in December, when there are fewer commuters, and the second survey being carried out in July, when many commuters in Scotland are on holiday. How can the cabinet secretary justify the decision to scrap the trial, which will result in exorbitant fare increases for hard-pressed rural commuters?
I will send Finlay Carson more detail on the season ticket reduction for Carlisle to Dumfries, but I can briefly tell him that someone will pay £8.91 for a return journey if they use a season ticket five days a week. Using a flexipass and discount, they will pay £15.95.
On the evaluation process, I note that December is a busy time for the trains. We had not wanted to do the second evaluation survey during the July period. However, because of the Conservative Government calling the election, we were—[Interruption.]. No, genuinely, because it was a popular policy, we were asked not to do the research during the earlier June period and we had to postpone it to July. That is a matter of fact, whether Finlay Carson likes it or not. I did not like it and he does not like it, but it is a matter of fact.
Can the cabinet secretary explain why commuters who use the Dumfries to Glasgow Nith valley line face the largest hike in rail fares when peak fares are reintroduced? A peak-time return from Dumfries to Carlisle will increase from £7.60 to £23.50. That is a 211 per cent increase. Nowhere else in Scotland do people face such big differences between peak and off-peak fares as will be experienced by those who travel from Dumfries station. Why are people in my area being discriminated against as a result of the utterly illogical way in which ScotRail fares are set?
I am happy to ask ScotRail to provide an explanation directly to Colin Smyth. However, he makes a very important point about anomalies between fares and fare miles. One of the things that we did in taking rail into public ownership was to require ScotRail and Scottish Rail Holdings to provide a system that delivers a fairer system of fares. I am due to receive a report on that next year. That does not address the point that Colin Smyth makes as of now, but I will specifically take it up with ScotRail.
We are 20 minutes in and we are only halfway through the questions, so the questions will have to be briefer, as will the responses.
Pothole Repairs
To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to assist local authorities with repairing potholes, in light of reports of the detrimental impact that large numbers of potholes are having on drivers across Scotland. (S6O-03673)
I very much appreciate the road maintenance challenges and the importance of a safe, well-performing road network. I certainly do not minimise the importance of the point that the member has raised.
However, local road maintenance is the responsibility of local authorities, which allocate resources based on their local priorities. The 2024-25 local government settlement increased local authorities’ share of the budget and delivered record funding of more than £14 billion, which represents a real-terms increase of 2.5 per cent. The independent Accounts Commission confirmed that that followed real-terms increases in 2022-23 and 2023-24.
It is for locally elected representatives to decide how best to deliver services to their communities. The Scottish Government has increased the maintenance budget for the trunk road network, for which it is responsible.
The number of potholes recorded by local authorities is on the rise, with 2,463 having been recorded in East Dunbartonshire alone. Years of brutal funding cuts mean that our local authorities lack the resources to afford essential road repairs, and we know that the Scottish Government is set to make damaging cuts to the budget. How does the Scottish Government intend to address the many worries of drivers, who pay high prices for the damage that is caused by potholes and fear that the issue might never be fixed?
For the sake of brevity, I will repeat the point that I just made. Such decisions are for local authorities. The Government has increased the amount of money that is provided to local authorities, and local authorities will prioritise their spend.
A75 (Safety)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve road safety on the A75. (S6O-03674)
The Scottish Government is committed to improving safety on our trunk roads, including the A75. Since 2007, more than £152 million has been invested in the A75 to ensure its safe and efficient operation.
We are progressing a number of actions to further improve safety on the A75, including the introduction of a speed management scheme on the A75 at Crocketford, the introduction of signalisation at Cuckoo Bridge roundabout and junction improvements on the A75 at Haugh of Urr. Our annual assessment of trunk road safety performance has identified sections of the A75 by Mouswald, Glenluce and Twynholm for further investigation this financial year.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer and for mentioning Mouswald. I would like the whole road to be dualled, but it is clear that that is not going to happen under the Scottish National Party. Therefore, will be cabinet secretary take away and consider the very reasonable request from some deeply concerned and desperate constituents at Mouswald for a couple of double white lines to be introduced, to prevent dangerous overtaking and potentially save lives at that location?
I will undertake to look at that. I can tell Oliver Mundell that Transport Scotland has incorporated the Mouswald junction into the investigation on the A75 from just west of Breconrae to east of Craigie Bank, which is scheduled to be undertaken in 2025-26.
COP29 (Priorities)
To ask the Scottish Government what its priorities are for COP29, which will take place in Baku later this year. (S6O-03675)
Scotland is committed to playing our part at COPs, working with international partners to secure a global transition to a net zero and resilient future in a way that is fair and just for all.
Although our plans for COP29 are still being developed, we anticipate that they will focus on driving international action on equitable and transparent climate finance; using our leadership of Regions4 and the Under2 Coalition to build climate ambition and action; showcasing our net zero journey; and playing our part, as good global citizens, to advance international relations.
As is usual at COPs, in ensuring that the voices of women, young people and the global south are heard at COP29, Scotland will continue to play a bridging role across all those aims.
Scotland can rightly pride itself on being a pioneer of the loss and damage fund, as it became the first country in the global north to commit funds for loss and damage at COP26. By doing so, Scotland recognised that those in the global south are disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if the fight against climate injustice is to be meaningfully continued, not only must the loss and damage funds that were committed to at COP28 last year be distributed as quickly as possible to communities ravaged by the climate crisis, but that must be done in a way that does not further increase the debt burden for countries in the global south?
I absolutely agree. The Scottish Government’s climate justice approach recognises our moral responsibility to support vulnerable communities in the global south to address climate-induced loss and damage. The communities that are least responsible for the global climate crisis are often most severely affected by it.
Scotland welcomed the agreement at COP28 on operationalising the loss and damage fund of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. I recognise the fundamental role that Humza Yousaf played in that and the leadership that he has shown on loss and damage. The fund must be urgently mobilised to ensure rapid and equitable access to sufficient funding. It is crucial that a portion of the fund is ring-fenced to provide finance directly to communities in the form of grants, not loans. The urgency of the climate crisis and its disproportional impact demand that we act now.
I will take a couple of brief supplementary questions.
Given the sustained failure by the Scottish Government to meet our climate targets, would demonstrating how we could reduce our homes, buildings, transport and land emissions not be a fundamental contribution for us to make if we are to have credibility at COP29?
Sarah Boyack will hear no disagreement from me, except on her first point. We are demonstrating our credibility. The programme for government, which was announced yesterday, set out some of the actions are being taken not only in my portfolio but across many portfolios, including that of the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, who is sitting beside me, and in land use. A climate change bill will be brought to Parliament and a heat in buildings bill is also part of the programme for government.
Does the cabinet secretary think that the Scottish National Party Government can go to COP29 with a single ounce of credibility now that it has ditched its climate change targets and has this week diverted £460 million of ScotWind cash away from the climate emergency and towards filling the black hole in the SNP budget?
Mr Lumsden will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree in the slightest. We have already halved our emissions and have plans to do an awful lot more. We are bringing forward a new climate change bill that will mean we will have a credible plan towards 2045, as we always have done. This is a high priority for the First Minister and his Government. It is threaded through not only my portfolio but every single portfolio in Government and the action that must be taken will be taken across the board.
A9 Dualling
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the dualling of the A9. (S6O-03676)
The Scottish Government is progressing with the A9 dualling delivery plan that was set out to Parliament in December 2023. Work will begin on the Tomatin to Moy section in the coming months, following contract award in July. That will be the start of continuous work on A9 dualling until the programme is completed. I announced the three shortlisted bidders for the next section, from the Tay crossing to Ballinluig, in August. Once those two sections are completed by the end of in 2028, 45 per cent of the A9 between Perth and Inverness will be dualled.
The Scottish National Party’s failure to dual the A9 is a complete betrayal of the people of Scotland. Between January 2020 and December 2023, non-dualled sections of the A9 accounted for 90 per cent of fatal accidents. That travesty comes solely at the hands of the SNP. Does the cabinet secretary accept that? What guarantees are being given that the dualling of the A9 will be completed by 2035 at the latest?
I can give that commitment, because it is set out in the plan that we reported to Parliament last December. I am conscious of the issue of fatalities. There have been different numbers of fatalities in different years.
It is really important to recognise that the work that we are doing means that contracts are already being let and that work is commencing. As I said, there will be continuous work on the A9 until it is completed in 2035, with 45 per cent of that to be done by 2028.
I call Fergus Ewing to ask a brief supplementary question.
[Inaudible.]—bringing forward the completion date for dualling of the A9, which is presently 2035. I ask the cabinet secretary what progress is being made on that plea and consideration thereof. Secondly, will she make an oral statement in Parliament to provide a full update about such progress for a swifter completion?
I am afraid that I missed the beginning of the member’s contribution. However, he and others met me and the First Minister to discuss the A9 dualling and I undertake, as the First Minister did, to keep the programme under review to identify whether there is any way to make any progress in terms of speed. The other issue that the member raised at that meeting was the ordering. We have to balance market capacity, impacts on road users and the challenging financial constraints, but the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee will receive regular updates on the A9, as we have promised. Looking at acceleration would require careful consideration and it will not be immediate but, in keeping that under review, I undertake to keep the member and, indeed, Parliament informed of any progress.
I apologise to those whom I was unable to call. As members will see, we have overrun quite a bit and we need to move on to the next item of business. There will be a brief pause to allow members on the front benches to change positions.