Seòmar agus comataidhean

This time last year, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport talked about how flexi and season passes were going to be the way forward and the way to reduce costs. Was there any analysis of how successful that approach was, and did that lead the Government to changing its view and reintroducing off-peak fares all day? I just thought that that was the main answer that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport gave this time last year.

Will the minister give way?

I join members in thanking Bob Doris for securing this very timely debate. It echoes the debate that I led on the same topic in February, but I think that we are now in much happier times on the issue. Alongside my Scottish Green colleagues, rail unions and commuters, I am delighted that peak rail fares are now gone for good.

It has been quite a journey to get here. A six-month pilot that introduced off-peak all-day tickets was secured by the Greens, working with the Government, in 2023. It was extended to nine months before ending a year ago. Now, the scheme is back, and commuters are enjoying those savings once again.

Scrapping peak rail fares is all about making travel cheaper and simpler at a time when many households are still struggling to make ends meet. Peak fares have always been a tax on workers who have no say in what time they travel to work. As pre-Covid work patterns started to return in 2022, the absurdity of spending £30 a day to travel from Edinburgh to Glasgow hit home for many workers. Workers having to spend most of their morning’s wages just to pay for their commute was never right. It was simply not credible to run a nationalised rail service with fares set at extortionate levels. That marginalised rail as an option that was available only for the well paid or for those who, like us in this chamber, are on expenses.

The nine-month pilot got results. It resulted in a nearly 7 per cent increase in passenger numbers and an extra 4 million journeys by rail, half of which would have been otherwise taken by car. With transport accounting for a third of Scottish carbon emissions, it was a win for the climate, too. However, the policy clearly needed time to bed in to convince more people to make the switch.

The magic of the railways is that they shrink Scotland. They make job options viable that would otherwise require people to move house or to sit in spirit-crushing traffic jams for hours on end every day. As a result, they help to keep children in schools in the communities where they are settled. They allow people to choose between having one or two cars—or even no car at all.

However, the power of the railways to shrink Scotland works only if rail is affordable. It takes time for everyone to take stock of a big change such as the scrapping of peak fares and to make choices about where to live and what job to take in the future. It will take time to bed in, but now that certainty has been given that peak rail fares are gone for good, it will enable more people to choose rail as a more attractive option for travel.

It is important that the simple daily savings are understood better so that people can make such choices. Perth to Glasgow is a popular fast commute by train, and it is now £20 cheaper than the old peak price. Stirling to Edinburgh is another really busy commute—it is the one that I take—and the cost of it is down from nearly £20 to about £12 a day.

The introduction last year of better deals on passes was also welcome for those who were prepared to make a commitment to regular travel by rail, but the passes were never a substitute for a cheaper flat fare that meets the demands of a post-Covid world.

I will always remember the queue of people at Queen Street station—I was in that queue—on the day that peak fares were brought back in by the Government. It was chaos. People were confused and angry about having to upgrade tickets because they had missed the off-peak fare by just a few minutes. That is gone now—peak fares are gone. I am pleased that the Government has listened to those passengers, to the rail unions, which have been persistent in their campaigning on the issue, and to the Scottish Greens. We have now ended peak fares for good.

I am struck by just how important electrification is going to be in all areas of our lives. Beyond the important UK Government decision on electricity market reform, decoupling gas from the electricity price and allowing CFDs—especially the new CFDs that you have outlined this morning—to reduce costs over time, what can householders do? How can they be supported to reduce their electricity costs?

At the moment, the market is providing low-cost tariffs. For example, under EV tariffs, people pay 8p or 8.5p per kilowatt at night, typically, as opposed to 25p to 30p per kilowatt during the day. What supplementary measures can the Government take to support people? Battery storage in the home would enable people to shift a great proportion of their electricity consumption to the night time and, as a result, they could benefit by signing up for those far cheaper rates.

I do not know what the picture should look like for householders and consumers, but, beyond the big question of electricity market reform, which householders are not able to influence, what measures can people take in their homes? What should the Government be doing to support them on that journey?

Do you think that those variable, far cheaper electricity prices will be a fixed feature for consumers and householders? Can consumers and businesses that supply technology such as night-time battery storage be certain that it will always be possible to buy cheaper electricity at certain times and thereby save on bills?

Thanks, convener. I turn to buildings—both homes and other buildings. Earlier, you put it to us that there is a real need to switch to much more efficient technologies that are lower cost for consumers but also much lower carbon. I ask you to reflect on the change that we have seen in expectation. In the 2020 climate change plan update, the Scottish Government had a very ambitious programme—well, it was not a full programme as such, but it contained an ambitious target of a 63 per cent reduction in emissions from the building sector to 2030. That clearly represented an enormous ramp-up of a range of technologies, although the programme at that time did not really specify how that would be achieved. That differs quite a lot from what you are now putting forward in the balanced pathway, which sees a much greater adoption of technologies than in the third and fourth budgets.

Can you offer a bit of narrative as to what you think has changed around the expectations on building carbon reduction in recent years and what is now the realistic pathway?

So you really see the reduction in electricity price as a trigger, whether it is for transport, for home heating or for people shifting over to electrifying technology. At the moment, we are not quite there in terms of a market signal being sent to consumers that it is obvious that they should switch to an electric vehicle and an air-source heat pump.

We will be future proofing entry into those markets.

Okay. I think that you are advising decarbonisation in non-residential buildings earlier than in residential buildings. Will you explain that?

I perhaps take a different view, convener. To me, the 6 per cent figure sounds pretty pitiful, to be honest. As someone who lives in a rural area, I could quite easily reduce my mileage by 6 per cent just by organising my day a little bit better, by joining up with other families when taking my kids to activities, for example.

I think that Eoin Devane is making a point about the real reduction coming from urban areas, but in the CCC’s advice, I do not see what the game changer could be if we are to significantly reduce vehicle mileage. For example, some cities in Europe have completely free public transport systems. If that is put in place and funded through congestion charges, could that result in a much greater reduction—say, 30 per cent—in vehicle mileage in urban areas? It could mean that there simply would be no point in driving any more if people are charged to drive but had a completely free, well-funded public transport system.

I feel that we are in a climate emergency. What is the game changer here? Many projects have been tried across Europe, and you have collated some of the best practice on that. However, none of this feels like the big, big shift that is needed. If we are sitting here debating a 6 per cent reduction—or one journey in every 20—that does not really feel to me like a shift in behaviour. I know that I am being provocative, but I am interested in finding out what the big ideas are that could really shift things fairly and in a way that actually benefits people.