Meeting of the Parliament 26 February 2025
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