Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1930, which was lodged by George Eckton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that a requirement of future rail contracts is that customers be given information on the cheapest possible fare as a matter of course, and to recognise the vital role of the existing ticket office estate in delivering on that aim.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 7 February, when we agreed to write to the then Minister for Transport on the outcomes of the fair fares review. We have received two responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, the first of which alerted us to the publication of “Fair Fares Review—Main Report”, noting that it contains a number of recommendations relating to fares and ticketing.

The second response states that the Scottish Government had been working to refresh its smart and integrated ticketing strategy delivery plan, which it duly published back in August. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport also tells us that ScotRail is in the early stages of trialling an account-based travel or pay-as-you-go scheme, with progress also being made to introduce split-ticketing functionality to the ScotRail website and app. It is already a pay-as-you-go scheme on the railways. I am sure that that is what we used to call it in the old days. Pay as you go—I thought that meant that you bought a ticket. It is fancy language for buying a ticket.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, the first of which details a freedom of information request to ScotRail about split ticketing, while the second sets out the petitioner’s on-going concerns about the limitation of split-ticketing options via ScotRail’s ticketing platform, the impact of reduced hours for station ticket offices—which I think has been the subject of a debate in the chamber—and the need to invest in digital system upgrades to ensure that the ask in the petition can be realised.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

As there are no other suggestions, are colleagues content to close the petition on the basis of the cabinet secretary’s response and as detailed by Mr Golden?

Members indicated agreement.

Our final new petition, PE2120, which was lodged by Tam Wilson on behalf of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to permanently abolish peak fare pricing on all ScotRail-operated rail routes.

Members will be aware that a pilot for the removal of peak-time fares ran between October 2023 and September 2024. Transport Scotland’s analysis of the pilot showed that, although there was a limited increase in the number of passengers, the pilot did not achieve its aims of encouraging significant modal shift from car to rail.

The evaluation also said that the pilot produced benefits of between £1 and £1.25 for every £1 spent, which compares favourably with some major transport investment projects that are being pursued by the Scottish Government.

In its response to the petition, Transport Scotland stated that the rail system relies heavily on the revenue generated during peak hours, and that abolishing peak fares would require diverting a significant amount of public funds—something between £25 million and £40 million annually—which the Scottish Government says is simply unaffordable in the current fiscal climate.

The response goes on to highlight the discounts that ScotRail has introduced to its season and flexipass tickets, and includes Scottish Government commitments to develop proposals for a new rail fare offering and investment in Scotland’s railway.

The petition touches on an area of current party-political and public debate. In that context, we have received a submission from the petitioner in which he acknowledges the fiscal challenges faced by the Scottish Government but says that he believes that the cost of inaction on the matter might be higher in terms of exacerbating environmental issues and social inequalities. He urges the Government to reassess the permanent removal of peak fares as part of its broader efforts to reduce the cost of living, combat climate change and improve public transport access for all.

It is perhaps worth noting, for the benefit of anyone who might be following the progress of the petition, that the Parliament agreed to a non-binding motion that called on the Scottish Government to reverse its decision to reintroduce peak fares on Scotland’s railway, and agreed that making public transport more accessible, affordable and reliable is key to supporting more people to use it.

In so far as the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to do something, the Scottish Parliament has, through the non-binding motion, progressed, in its own way, that very request for action. In the light of everything that we are hearing and the on-going debate, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Good morning and welcome to the 19th and final meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Agenda item 1 is to agree to take in private agenda items 4 and 5, which are to look at our petition signature process and the forthcoming work programme for the new year. Are colleagues content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

We have two petitions for which we would seek to bring together our respective ministers and the Lord Advocate. Are members content with that proposal, on the back of seeking further information in the first instance in both cases?

Members indicated agreement.

The petition will be kept open, along with the petition in the name of Alex O’Kane, and we will speak to the minister in respect of both.

Agenda item 3 is consideration of two new petitions. As I always do, I say to anybody who might be tuning in because they know that their petition is being considered for the first time that, in advance of the consideration, we invite the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to provide the committee with a briefing on the issues raised. We also seek a preliminary view from the Scottish Government on the issues raised. We do both those things in order to expedite the progress of our consideration of the petition.

Mr Torrance has produced a list of suggestions as to what we might do. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings to an end the public consideration of our business this morning. We look forward to seeing those of you who are avid followers of our detailed consideration of public petitions on 22 January 2025.

Mr Torrance, you have taken us by surprise with that list of recommendations.