Hansard

Scottish Labour agrees that rail fares in Scotland must be more affordable and that rail travel must be an attractive alternative to car use. We are committed to the removal of peak fares as the first step in making rail travel more accessible and affordable, so that we can deliver a rail service that works for passengers and increase patronage.

I recognise the need for investment in ScotRail. We need to make progress on rolling stock replacement and we need a long-term investment plan for upgrading rail infrastructure, which will require the Government and private businesses to work in partnership. However, increasing the burden on passengers at this point in time places downward pressure on passenger numbers as the gulf in affordability between rail travel and the alternatives grows. The ending of the pilot removal of peak fares came between two ticket price increases, so passengers were hit with three price increases in just over a year. Before drawing comparisons with the rest of the UK, the cabinet secretary might want to reflect on the inflation-busting 8.7 per cent increase in prices that we had in Scotland last year.

Greater reliability is key to increased patronage and revenue, but, if prices continue to rise—particularly in the face of service performance issues—people will just be unwilling or unable to pay them. Household budgets are challenging, and the reality is that the car is, far too often, the more affordable option. If we are serious about reducing car use and related emissions, the approach of making other travel options more and more expensive by comparison is counterproductive.

The plethora of restrictive cheaper deals is confusing and complicated, and pressing ahead with ticket office closures does not help passengers to navigate the system. The process of how and when peak periods are applied is inconsistent and unnecessarily complex. The cabinet secretary has been keen to highlight the flexipass as a money-saving option for passengers, but it does not apply to all stations or routes. Indeed, two of Scotland’s cities—Stirling and Perth—were added to the scheme only recently.

The Government’s amendment suggests that, since the pilot ended, passenger numbers have continued to grow. However, the reasons for that can be questioned. For example, are fewer service reductions taking place? Is that comparison really like for like? Can we expect that trend to continue in the face of ever-increasing fares?

Transport Scotland’s analysis of the peak fares pilot is one of the most inconclusive that I have read. Data was routinely not collected, particularly at busy stations, which suggests that the 6.8 per cent increase could be an underestimate. The costs are not exactly clear, but, if the top figure of £40 million is accepted and the Scottish Government said that it required a 10 per cent increase to be cost neutral, almost 7 per cent is not far off. Although the pilot ran for a year, it was not actively promoted, so how would someone who did not regularly use the train know that the offer was available? The majority of the pilot also took place during a period of industrial dispute and a reduced timetable—hardly favourable conditions.

Post-pandemic, there is an argument that peak fares are increasingly unfair. Workers who have to physically attend work—those who are in retail or service delivery—must still travel at those peak times while the “middle-class passenger” whom the Transport Scotland report identifies as benefiting often has more flexibility to work at home and avoid travelling at peak times. It is time to remove the inconsistent and unfair application of varying prices that makes people pay a premium for travelling to work by rail.

Although we are focusing on rail fares today, the Government’s amendment also mentions bus provision and asks us to consider progress on buses. However, the progress that it has made is extremely limited. Rather than improving services for passengers, the Scottish Government has overseen a reduction in routes. The number of bus routes has plummeted by 44 per cent since 2006, although many were critical for rural and peripheral urban areas. Before the bus partnership fund was paused, in 2024, it had allocated hardly 5 per cent of the £500 million that was intended for infrastructure improvements. The zero emission bus challenge fund is now scrapped, and there is glacial progress on franchising.

The bus and train services that are being delivered to the public are far from good enough. Getting them right would mean more people using public transport and a reduced reliance on cars. However, to achieve that, the services must be reliable and affordable.

I move amendment S6M-16572.2, to insert at end:

“; recognises that ScotRail requires investment and sustainable funding, but believes that passengers should not carry the burden of this while services are underperforming.”