Seòmar agus comataidhean

I take your point entirely, and I think that it is really important. Anecdotally, from my experience in representing Barlinnie, the largest prison in Scotland, and having visited it on several occasions, prison officers have described to me quite candidly that they have repeat customers who they liberate on a Friday, who then go into the city centre to shoplift, purchase and take drugs—usually in an unsafe way—and who will likely then be arrested and back in prison on the following Monday. Those people are, in effect, serving life sentences in short bursts.

When I participated in the unofficial overdose prevention pilot in Glasgow, we frequently had people turning up to the ambulance who had just come straight from Barlinnie prison or Low Moss prison and were seeking a safe place to inject.

You made a very important recommendation, but I want to know whether there has been any indication from the Government that it considers that recommendation to be an urgent action that it is willing to expedite. Are there any indications of the timescales for adjustments?

That is certainly helpful for when we come to future evidence sessions. Would Dr Hunter like to make any points in relation to my questions?

I thank Monica Lennon MSP for coming along today and offering such a compelling account of why the petition is so important and why the committee should consider it.

I was struck by the submissions from Transport Scotland and Transport for London. According to Transport Scotland,

“ScotRail delivered a pilot for Account Based Ticketing ... allowing for fare capping and tap in/tap out technology. The pilot took place on the Cathcart Circle ... for a period of four months and although proving to be a good customer proposition it was deemed unsuccessful on commercial grounds. Since ScotRail has been transferred to public ownership ... an account based ticketing trial has been included within its business plan”.

I am not satisfied with that response. It is totally inadequate, particularly when viewed in contrast with the submission from Transport for London, which says:

“The core principle of our fares system is to make it as simple as possible”.

TFL has a “best value promise” that,

“when travelling using pay as you go ... on Oyster or contactless”

debit or credit card,

“customers just need to touch in and out when travelling on our services and we ensure that customers pay the cheapest fare for the journeys they make.”

The cheapest fare is no more than the cost of the equivalent travel card, and there is an automatic refund when a journey has not been completed. The contrast between the two submissions is striking—it is night and day. It is the greatest contrast between submissions to the committee that I have seen in recent times, and I think that there is an opportunity for the committee to probe further.

It is interesting that I knew nothing about the pilot, and I do not know how many Glaswegians knew about the pilot. However, I note that TFL says that it issues

“press releases publishing changes to fares, and advertising campaigns to highlight the cheapest way to travel around London (these can be seen in media advertising and on our services).”

It goes on to say that it has seen “strong growth” in the adoption of pay as you go, with

“over 70 per cent of all journeys now made using PAYG.”

I take the point about population density and scale, but, nonetheless, there are cities of equivalent size to Glasgow that have that technology and it works very successfully. I wonder whether, sometimes, there is risk aversion, leading to our not persisting with a measure that might initially make a bit of a loss but that, in the longer term or even in the medium term, would result in a perception change and in a lot more people using a service because it has become much more convenient for them to do so. Perhaps we can be too timid.

I agree, and the point that Mr Ewing makes is important. Perhaps the removal of the road in a broad sense is a bit of a provocation, but the petitioner goes into that question in more nuanced detail in his comments; he talks about specific interventions that would reduce the road’s impact such as capping or constructing buildings above the road. There are areas where it is overengineered—for example, the Townhead interchange was built for a flank of the motorway that was never built. That is a massively overengineered solution that could largely be deconstructed without having any material effect on traffic. There are ways in which that could be done.

The point that the petitioner is perhaps trying to drive at—pardon the pun—is that the issue has never been seriously reflected on by Transport Scotland, and it is only recently that the city council has started thinking about it. It feels like there is an opportunity for the committee to be a catalyst.

Thank you very much for that. I really appreciate it.

Another important point that I noted that the task force raised was that people who use drugs should be provided with naloxone on liberation. That seems to be a relatively straightforward recommendation to implement. Is there any indication at this stage that the Government is adopting that policy and that it will instruct Police Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service to do that? I know that you mentioned that you are awaiting a detailed report.

That is great. Does Dr Hunter have any points to make on that?

Thank you. Your points are really important and help to colour the overall context of this policy area.

I recall Dr Neal’s evidence, which was very helpful. In particular, she broached the idea of a member’s bill as a potential remedy and did not find that convincing. I tend to agree with her. She said that we simply require an amendment to the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, as that would be a smoother and more coherent remedy. I recommend that we seek the Government’s agreement on that.

Yes, convener. That is certainly a positive indication from Glasgow City Council that it is seriously investigating the matter, not least as it has submitted a levelling-up fund application worth £50 million to the UK Government to finance the capping of the M8 at the Mitchell library at Charing Cross. However, the asset itself is owned by the Scottish Government, and Transport Scotland as the agency.

It would be good if the committee could establish the exact nature of the co-operation that is required from all levels of Government, from the council to Transport Scotland, to deliver the best outcome for the city. We have not fully established that. It is one thing for Glasgow City Council to have a position, which, although it is positive, is not necessarily specific in its actions. The council has put in one levelling-up fund bid, but there is no indication from the Scottish Government, via its agency Transport Scotland, of what its intentions are, at either a strategic or an operational level, to effect the proposed changes or to co-operate with the council.

Furthermore, the points that Dr Wood makes about the international dimension, given some of the work that that chap has done, are really important. Perhaps there is some merit in requesting a response from Transport Scotland or from the minister in relation to the matter. We can then assess what the Scottish Government’s position is in the light of the evidence that we receive.