Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. It is lovely to be back at this award-winning committee. That is me trying to get in with you all.

I was listening patiently at the back of the room. I was in West Lothian, which is not my region, at an event where Callum Isted was mentioned. He is a superstar with lots of fans, so I wish the committee well with your endeavours on his petition.

I wanted to come along to support George Eckton’s petition because the issues that he has raised are of no surprise to me or my staff, given the emails that we get. Even before the pandemic, people would get in touch out of frustration about the price of rail travel and the reliability of services at times.

I have taken on the role of patron of Disability Equality Scotland, which has helped me to appreciate even more the points that Mr Eckton has made about the ease of getting information. I commend him for the efforts that he has made. I have looked at the correspondence between him and the Advertising Standards Authority. It should not be so difficult to get cheap fare information. The issue of access to staff and ticket offices is really important, too.

This issue has been of interest to me since before the pandemic, especially in the context of the climate emergency, because we need a modal shift to get people on to Scotland’s sustainable rail network. We can do that only if the public have confidence in and can afford to use our rail services.

I know that your predecessor committee looked at a previous petition that was lodged by Mr Eckton. The petition was closed on the basis that the Scottish Government had given undertakings, but, from reading the petitioner’s submissions, it looks as though they have not been fulfilled.

Colleagues might know that I am a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I do not speak on behalf of the committee today, but I note that we have had the chance to ask the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport and his officials about the fair fares review. It is frustrating that we do not have a clearer timeline for its completion. It was indicated that it will be “early 2023”, but, from my experience in the Parliament, that could become the summer, and then summer could become winter or Christmas. We need certainty, which is why I feel that, although the fair fares review is looking at wider issues, Mr Eckton’s petition should be considered and should inform that work.

This meeting is timely. I was looking at today’s newspapers, in which there are reports that ScotRail’s commuter numbers are down by 40 per cent, which means that revenue is down—it looks as though it is down by around 20 per cent on pre-pandemic figures—so making people feel confident about the service is a big issue. Part of the explanation for commuter numbers being down is that people who have the option to work from home are choosing to do so. However, many workers are taking into account the cost of getting to work and getting around, so, if they have the choice, many are saying that they will work at home and that they will not go to the office.

I am concerned for those constituents who, due to medical appointments or other issues, cannot be flexible about when they travel and are therefore not getting access to the most affordable fares. We should be abolishing peak-time fares—that should be looked at in the fair fares review.

As I said, I cannot speak for the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, but, in his petition, Mr Eckton is clearly raising matters that are of interest to that committee. I note what Transport Scotland has said, and I note the information that has come from Transport for London—it was very helpful that Paul Sweeney prompted it to send that.

It is important to look at good and other practice where we can, but it is also really key for Mr Eckton’s aspirations that we have a rail service in Scotland that is properly staffed. If committee members are not aware of it, I point them to the document, “A Vision for Scotland’s Railways”, which was prepared by Scotland’s four rail unions and published in October 2021.

In Parliament, we often talk about challenges instead of solutions. That document has lots of good policy in it and, to be fair to the Scottish Government, some of it has already been actioned. It is important to look at the document, because, to achieve the sustainable rail network that we want to see, the executive summary says that we should

“Reduce ticket prices, abolish peak fares and simplify the ticketing system”.

My understanding is that the Scottish Government has not formally responded to that document from the four rail unions. I declare an interest in that I am a member of Unite the union and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group. It is a good document that has cross-party support.

I am really pleased to have the chance to speak in favour of the petition, and I will be happy to answer questions. I hope that it is an issue that can be kept open and explored by colleagues across the Parliament and the Government.

Of course.

Do you have an assessment of it?

There is a lot in that answer. My question was whether it is fair to put prices up by 4.2 per cent. You did not answer that, but you did suggest that things will not get better in the immediate future, which sounds quite gloomy. Does that mean that households should brace themselves for further increases? The 4.2 per cent increase is pegged to CPI, but we know that inflation is now at about 11 per cent or even higher. What will increases look like in future years? You talked about customers’ high expectations. Will we see higher prices?

Do you have a view on the fairness of the charging scheme?

I am keen to come to Alan Sutherland in a moment but, Johanna Dow, what increase will non-domestic customers see in their bills?

I turn to Alan Sutherland for the view of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. I asked Douglas Millican about the fairness of the charges. What is your view?

You mentioned the Scottish ministers. I have looked back at what the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport said about the price increase. Back in February, he said:

“every pound raised is re-invested in our water industry.”

Many customers will therefore be wondering why you have £500 million in cash reserves. I know that you will be able to give some explanation for that, but have you looked at what more can be done to support customers? Clearly, you understand that many people in Scotland are struggling to afford household bills, regardless of their expectations of quality of service. Can you say a little more about the reserves? From reading some of the papers, my understanding is that they sit at about double what they would normally be. Can we expect that to continue in the coming years, or will you use those reserves in any way to help customers with their bills?

Are the price caps fit for purpose? Are they appropriate? If the maximum charge is based on the consumer prices index plus 2 per cent and if inflation is about 11 per cent—which might increase—will that still be the best approach?

I know that it is never polite to talk about people’s salaries and remuneration, but I will put this question to Dame Susan Rice, because it would not be fair to put it to the officers. I just want to get this on the public record.

There has been a lot of interest in the bonus structure for senior officials. We are talking at a time when members of the public are struggling to afford the absolute basics in life, including water charges. There has been mention of considering efficiencies. Is there any on-going reflection or review of the bonus structure for Scottish Water officials?