Seòmar agus comataidhean

To ask the Scottish Government what its priorities are for Scotland’s railways in 2022. (S6O-00582)

Scotland faces a climate crisis, but what impact will fares hikes have on passenger growth and modal shift? Scotland faces a cost-of-living crisis, so why rule out a fares freeze to keep costs down for commuters? Why hike fares in January, when even the Tories are waiting until March? After months of industrial unrest with the rail unions, and with fares hikes about to hammer passengers, our railways face a leadership crisis under the transport minister. Will he explain how his fares hikes are compatible with action on the climate emergency and the soaring cost of living that commuters face?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will explain its decision to increase peak and off-peak regulated rail fares by 3.8 per cent. (S6T-00385)

Scotland’s railway faces a leadership crisis under this Government. In a written parliamentary answer to a question that I asked, which was issued on Thursday, the transport minister said that his fares strategy remains under consideration. On Friday—a matter of hours later—the minister announced to the nation his brutal 3.8 per cent fares hike. When was the decision to increase fares taken? Does the minister expect the travelling public to believe that the answer that he gave me on Thursday is remotely credible?

Under the present Government, 1,300 beds have been cut over the past 10 years. That is one in six beds at the Inverclyde Royal hospital and one in five at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley. Before the winter crisis struck, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine said that Scotland needed 1,000 extra beds. Is it the Government’s intention to reverse the cuts to bed numbers? If so, by how much, and when?

The finance secretary has talked about an economic recovery and a green recovery, yet the green jobs budget is only £23.5 million. How many green jobs will it create?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its national health service recovery plan. (S6O-00514)

I thank Graham Simpson for bringing this debate to the chamber.

Upgrading the East Kilbride line has been a long-standing objective of campaigners through the decades. As we have just heard from Jackson Carlaw, the line serves growing populations across the south side of Glasgow, East Renfrewshire and East Kilbride. However, although those communities have changed dramatically over the years, the railway itself has not, and passengers have raised with me their frustrations with an increasingly dated railway. For example, I have met commuters on Thornliebank station platform and heard at first hand their concerns about the frequency of services, breakdowns and, at that time, excessive overcrowding.

The adoption of Network Rail’s electrification enhancement proposals was set to be a game changer, with sections of double track or loops between Hairmyres and Busby stations facilitating more trains to East Kilbride. The decision to take forward those enhancements was welcomed by the community served by the line; it was the flagship of the Government’s rail decarbonisation plan; and the Transport Scotland and Scotland’s Railway websites were peppered with references to double tracking on the East Kilbride line to facilitate a more frequent service and more double tracking at the single-line section between East Kilbride and Busby.

Make no mistake—the working assumption of the Scottish Government and its partners on the ground was that the electrification of the East Kilbride line included dual tracking after Busby. Moreover, the assumed dual track would have made it possible to improve the frequency of services to four trains per hour not just at peak times but beyond that. It is astounding that Scotland’s largest city and Scotland’s second-largest town are still connected by a two-train-per-hour service for so much of the day. The failure to improve rail links between two of our largest settlements represents a failure to improve rail links for my constituents in East Renfrewshire and everyone else in between.

The project would also alleviate pressure on Glasgow Central station by reducing platform occupancy times, which would bring benefits to the whole city region. The customer outcomes from upgrading the line as set out by Network Rail include greater punctuality, quicker journeys, more seating capacity and, crucially, more trains.

However, the Scottish Government has now chosen not to implement Network Rail’s proposals in full and, by its own admission, is limiting the network’s capacity to provide more trains on cost grounds. There is nothing too impossible, nothing too difficult or, indeed, nothing unaffordable about double tracking the East Kilbride line, and the Scottish Government is choosing to divert funds elsewhere rather than future proof the line. Such short-term financial decisions are to the long-term detriment of the suburban rail network, and the move will not deliver modal shift but further entrench car dependency.

The Scottish National Party has to come clean: it has no plan to build back services to pre-pandemic levels, never mind improve them. That is why it will not disown the discredited Docherty report and why it is raiding the budget for the East Kilbride line. The Tory Government’s decision to scrap the eastern leg of high-speed rail 2 was met with opposition across the north of England. In the words of Andy Burnham, levelling up

“means bringing forward your best solution, not a cut price solution.”

However, that is precisely what the SNP transport minister is doing in the west of Scotland. This is a cut-price solution, not the best solution, for our communities, and it is a betrayal of the passengers who have endured overcrowded and inadequate services for years and the local economies that are counting on rail improvements to boost their recovery.

My constituents in East Renfrewshire, where the line is already dualled, need double tracking after Busby just as much as the people of East Kilbride or Glasgow, because it is only by extending the double track that we can secure for the future the full benefits of Network Rail’s original proposals. Those proposals would mean more trains that would be quieter, quicker, greener and more frequent and could meet the aspirations of the passengers whom I met in Thornliebank and many more like them in Busby, Clarkston, Giffnock and all along the line.

The Parliament should stand united in telling the Scottish Government to get dualling back on track, and that is why Labour is calling on the SNP-Green Government today to reverse the decision to drop dual tracking and to upgrade the East Kilbride line in full.

My amendment to the business motion will extend business on Thursday by 30 minutes, with decision time being at 5.30 pm. There is no parliamentary event more important than the budget, and there has been no year in which the budget has been more important than this year. The people of Scotland, whom we represent, need the budget to be one for real recovery—a budget that sets Scotland on a path to a brighter and better 2022 and that helps to make the lives of the people we represent better. I sincerely hope that it can do so.

We, in the Scottish Labour Party, are determined to play our part in scrutinising Government and in asking questions on behalf of our communities. The Government is perfectly entitled to bring forward a ministerial statement on supporting culture in Scotland on Thursday. I do not know what will be in the statement, but I do know that it is not one of the number of statements that the Opposition has requested.

However, one thing is clear: we must also have additional time in Parliament for more questions on the budget. The Labour Party is currently permitted to ask only five questions in scrutinising the budget. The governing parties, the Scottish National Party and the Greens, will combine to have 15. That may be good enough for them, but we have many more than five questions to ask on behalf of our constituents—on jobs, hospitals, schools, buses, housing, the environment, our high streets and many more issues.

If the Scottish Government does not agree, that begs the question: what does it have to fear from scrutiny? The budget needs to be one for real recovery and jobs, and we need to do our job. If that means staying an extra half an hour on Thursday to do it, so be it. Scottish Labour is calling on Parliament to back our amendment. We do so in the hope that the budget can truly be made to kick-start recovery and make a difference for the people of Scotland.

I move amendment S6M-02457.1, to leave out “5.00 pm Decision Time” and insert:

“5.30 pm Decision Time”.

I applaud all the work that is being done as part of the 16 days of action against gender-based violence, from the international level down to the work that is being done by local councils and organisations in my West Scotland region, which have chosen to establish their own 16 days initiatives. I applaud Paul McLennan for his important motion and for securing the debate.

It is a truly shocking state of affairs, however, that this year marks the 30th anniversary of the global 16 days campaign, and that that campaign is apparently needed now more than ever. The appalling and sickening murder of Sarah Everard in March was a reminder, as though one were needed, that women cannot feel safe on our streets.

As other members have done, I urge every man who is listening to really think about that and what it must feel like to feel vulnerable to physical violence and sexual attack from the moment that you leave a home or workplace and enter a street or any public space. For most men, we rarely, if ever, have to think about that, but for women, it is automatic—every day, all the time.

I have talked to women in my family and office who have spoken of the daily precautions that they take to avoid the threat of male violence: walking, even on a busy street in daylight, close to the road edge of pavements in order to avoid alleyways and doorways; carrying their keys between their fingers in case they need an improvised weapon without notice; and, of course, just not walking home, just not travelling on public transport or just not going out at all because of all the worries and logistics that it entails.

If men had to live like that, I suspect that the problem would have been dealt with a very long time ago. However, most of us do not; we rarely have to think or worry about it. Well, we should think about it. We should talk about it, as Jim Fairlie said, and we should have the political will to do something about it, as Pauline McNeill and Carol Mochan said. We should try to imagine what it feels like to live like that day in, day out. It is an outrage that anyone should have to live like that, never mind half the human population.

What is more, many women are not safe from violent men even in their own homes. According to the figures that Russell Findlay referenced, a woman is killed by a man in the UK every three days. Most such women die at the hands of domestic partners. Many suffer long-term abuse prior to their deaths at the hands of those men.

As Stephen Kerr said, the Covid pandemic has made matters worse for women for whom home is anything but a sanctuary. UN research has found that, since the pandemic began, women on a global scale feel significantly less safe and secure. That is because of male violence. Of course, not all men are violent predators, as Joe FitzPatrick said, but we must take collective responsibility for our collective behaviour as a sex.

As the motion states,

“all men must take action to prevent and eliminate violence against women and girls”.

We must appreciate that women and girls do not know who might be a threat. We must be sensitive about our behaviour and speech, and how it might be interpreted by others. I agree with Maggie Chapman and many other members that we must call out and challenge unacceptable male behaviour whenever we see it.

Clearly, there is a huge role for Government, the police and public policy. I agree with Paul McLennan that real change is needed urgently—certainly before we debate the subject next year. I commit to working with him and all other members on this important issue.

I also agree with Mr McLennan and others that the onus is on men—all men—to recognise the reality of life for our daughters, wives, partners, friends and mothers. Men need to face the fact that women live every day with the spectre of male violence. That should sicken us and call on us to act.