Meeting of the Parliament 26 February 2025
I welcome the opportunity to reply on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. We believe that rail needs to be affordable, that ticketing is too complex and that new stations are needed to connect more communities. We are ambitious for rail in Scotland.
It is regrettable that the debate comes less than 24 hours after the Scottish Parliament passed the 2025-26 budget. As the Greens, the Government and others have acknowledged, my party approached the budget talks constructively. We secured big changes for the communities that we represent and for Scotland as a whole, and we are willing to sit down and talk through ideas. That is why it is hard to understand the timing of the debate. Less than 24 hours after tax and spending plans were agreed, it is not serious or credible to ask the Parliament to back a package of changes that would cost £50 million this year. There is no indication of where that money should come from.
If the proposal is that the money should be moved around in the transport budget, that could mean taking money away from buses, ferries, walking and cycling improvements and fixing potholes. I have a particular interest in the delivery of infrastructure upgrades for areas that are less well connected—the rural and island communities, who need working, reliable ferries and progress on fixed links. I imagine that all parties would be willing to look at proposals if they were brought back to the table for the next budget, in which policies could be properly costed, funding identified and priorities balanced.
Scottish Liberal Democrats have long campaigned to get cars and lorries off the roads, moving passengers and freight on to our railways as part of a package to tackle the climate crisis. Getting more people and goods on to trains will reduce congestion, improve air quality and help to tackle the climate emergency. It means connecting more communities, too. In government, we paved the way for the Borders railway and a station for Laurencekirk. However, the Conservatives’ amendment overlooks Newburgh, in Fife, where my colleague Willie Rennie has fought tirelessly for a new station.
In the long term, we need to decarbonise our planes, ferries and cars. Right now, we should also do what we can to ensure that, where public transport is available, it is a safe, feasible and convenient way to get from A to B. I know that there were concerns about the previous peak fares pilot and whether the Government did enough to get behind it. There is a question about the extent to which it was hampered by the pay row that culminated in the chaotic emergency timetable that plagued services last summer, when cancellations and overcrowding were rampant. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers was among those who questioned the methodology that was used to evaluate the trial. Thousands of real-world experiences illustrate the barrier that the return of peak fares represents for commuters.
On greater affordability, reforms to ticket incentives and discounts could drive up passenger uptake. Complicated rail fares are also a barrier to passengers. We have tiered super off-peak, off-peak and peak fares, which are further complicated by their use at differing times along parallel routes. Passengers find it difficult to know which ticket will best get them from A to B, and the terms and conditions are often complicated. Although cheaper fares might be available, calculating them and finding time to research alternatives is another barrier to rail travel. It is also difficult to be 100 per cent certain that a ticket is the right one until a rail staff member confirms that. Passengers would rather avoid the stress.