Graham Simpson
Reform UK · Scotland
“We have a deluge of speculative applications for AI data centres across the country. We have heard already that the area that I represent, North Lanarkshire, is designated an AI growth zone.”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Murdo Fraser: Perhaps Mr Simpson has an explanation for that. Graham Simpson: I have personally congratulated Douglas Lumsden for winning that by-election. However, the only reason for the by-election was that I managed to get double jobbing banned.”
“If anything additional is needed—such as regulatory changes—as a result of this emerging technology, we need to be alive to that as well. I have been in post for three weeks in this area, but I want to ensure that this is taken forward. There is a great deal of interest in the issue across rural portfolios.”
“I move, That the Parliament recognises the importance of affordable bus services connecting people to employment, education and essential services; welcomes the success of the free bus schemes available to 2.4 million people, including all those aged under 22, over 60 and disabled people; believes that more can be done to make it easier a…”
“I want fare capping to succeed, as it has down south and as have similar schemes when tried elsewhere in Europe and indeed in these isles. The evidence is there already. In London, bus and tram travel is capped at £5.25 a day and £24.70 a week.”
“At the end, if franchising gets that far, there is the added hoop of having to get the whole scheme approved by an independent, unelected panel that is convened by the traffic commissioner for Scotland, who is a United Kingdom Government appointee. After years of effort, the whole thing could fall at that point, which is wrong.”
The complete record
Every one of 357 lines we hold for Graham Simpson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
“That point was made by members on the Conservative benches and it was made by Jamie Hepburn, who said that the problem is with the conflation of issues and the perpetuation of inaccurate myths. Many speakers have conflated migration with illegal migration, and illegal migration with small boat crossings. The reality is that illegal migration is a very small proportion of total net migration, and small boat crossings are a vanishingly small proportion of that. For the Conservative Party to continue to conflate the issues and to perpetuate such myths and tropes is to feed the real anxieties and fears that exist in our community. That is where there is a problem. If anything is racist, it is that conflation, because it is not right.”
“Will Daniel Johnson give an example of what body language he thinks is indicative of his theory? Daniel Johnson: Mr Findlay might need to watch the video. His hesitancy and awkwardness when he opened the debate spoke volumes. Let us be clear. A number of people have made the same point— Craig Hoy: Lie down on the psychiatrist’s couch, why don’t you? Daniel Johnson: I believe, Deputy Presiding Officer, that members are able to intervene if they want to, and that they do not need to speak from a sedentary position. Is that correct? The Deputy Presiding Officer: That is correct. Continue, Mr Johnson. Daniel Johnson: Many people have made the same comment that it is not racist to want to talk about migration, and it is not.”
“It has not been terribly edifying. Willie Rennie was absolutely right—in some ways, we can sum up the debate by referring not to words but to the awkwardness, the body language and confected outrage that we have watched across the chamber. The only thing that I disagree with Willie Rennie on is that it is not just the people who are standing behind Russell Findlay who look awkward; Russell Findlay himself looks deeply awkward— Russell Findlay: Will the member take an intervention? Daniel Johnson: If you think—if Russell Findlay thinks that he needs to intervene 30 seconds into my speech, I will, but I was about to complete my point. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Briefly, Russell Findlay. Russell Findlay: That is the Willie Rennie and Daniel Johnson school of body language.”
“We must stand firm in our commitment to international law, to the 1951 refugee convention and to the principles of justice and humanity that underpin it. Let us remember who we are speaking about: people who have fled persecution, torture and war; mothers protecting their children; students who want to learn; engineers; nurses; artists; dreamers; and new Scots who bring strength, creativity and courage to our communities. The answer to the challenges that we face is not to close our doors but to open them wider and to build a Scotland where everyone belongs and where every person has the right to safety, dignity and a home. Scotland’s strength lies in its compassion and that compassion is never a weakness; it is our power. 15:45 Daniel Johnson (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) : This is a tough debate to sum up.”
“The decision to suspend local connection rules was a decision rooted in fairness to ensure that someone who found themselves homeless could seek help wherever they were, and not be shunted between councils like a parcel that no one wanted to open. That is not unsustainable; that is humane. What is unsustainable is the UK Government’s callous immigration policies that perpetuate the hostile environment that forces people into destitution and criminalises compassion. What is unsustainable is the failure to create regular safe routes for asylum, leaving people at the mercy of traffickers and dangerous crossings. The Parliament must not legitimise racism and division. We should not allow the Tories to redefine compassion as weakness, or solidarity as threat.”
“It is caused by decades of political neglect, by treating homes as investment vehicles for the wealthy instead of as places for people to live, by allowing rents to spiral and social housing to vanish, and by the cuts to local authority budgets imposed by Westminster that have hollowed out the very services that support people in crisis. If there is anything unsustainable here, it is the cruelty of a system that spends millions on detention, deportation and militarised borders rather than on ensuring that every person, regardless of where they were born, has a safe place to call home. Scotland can do better. Scotland is doing better by choosing compassion over cruelty, inclusion over fear.”
“Russell Findlay listed things that he claims are not racist, but it is racist to blame an entire group of people for the issue that his UK Government created, it is racist to spread misinformation and cause fear and alarm by saying that migrant gangs are going to murder children in schools, and it is racist to spit on people in the streets just because of the colour of their skin. I have witnessed all of the above and more by Tories or other far-right groups in this chamber and on the streets of Aberdeen and Dundee, where I have been proud to stand in solidarity with other community members and anti-fascists against the racist anti- immigrant protests. Let us be clear: the lack of affordable housing in Scotland and across the UK is not caused by refugees.”
“15:41 Maggie Chapman: Over the course of the debate, we have heard some of the same tired toxic rhetoric from the Conservatives—language that tries to divide, to sow fear and to cast desperate people as threats to our society. However, the truth remains: people who are seeking safety are not the cause of our housing crisis nor of our fiscal challenges; they are the victims of those crises. Those crises have been created and perpetuated by the same Conservative Governments that now want to wash their hands of responsibility.”
“The voters will not be fooled by this apparent about- turn today. Labour’s record is no better. Under Keir Starmer, Labour offers tough rhetoric but weak results. The number of small boat crossings continues to rise, with up to 1,000 boats a day arriving on UK shores. Then we come to the SNP. Scotland has become a magnet for migrants, which can be attributed to policy decisions taken here. It is putting a strain on public services and community cohesion. I go back to my main point that the public will not be fooled by the parties that gave us the problem. We need a Government that is serious about securing our borders, restoring integrity to the system and ensuring that immigration works for Britain, not against it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the closing speeches.”
“I will start by apologising to Russell Findlay, because I actually agree with him on something—talking about immigration is not racist. However, I have to say that the Conservatives have quite some nerve bringing this issue to the chamber for a second time, given their record in office. After more than a decade in government, they presided over record levels of net migration— nearly 700,000 last year— Russell Findlay: Will the member take an intervention? Graham Simpson: Despite the promise by Rishi Sunak to stop the boats, the Conservatives failed to do so. This the party that gave us the Boris wave of immigration. Russell Findlay: Will the member take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Findlay, resume your seat. Graham Simpson: Far from curbing immigration, the Conservatives increased it.”
“That is different from the mandatory proposition that is being advanced by the United Kingdom Government, which is, as my colleague Gordon MacDonald indicated, a distraction from the real difficulties that the Government faces. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Time Bar (Sam Eljamel) 5.”
“In a Scottish Government document from 2021 entitled “A Changing Nation: How Scotland will Thrive in a Digital World”, we were told that the Government would introduce a digital identity service that would apparently be “trusted and secure” and would enable users “to prove who they are, and that they are eligible for a service.” Now that the First Minister is apparently against such intrusion into our lives, can we assume that those plans will not reappear? The First Minister: There is a fundamental difference here, which is about the opportunity to access public services through digital means if individuals wish to do so.”
“The bill centralises too much power in ministers’ hands by leaving key decisions to secondary legislation with limited scrutiny. There are some good measures on homelessness; I want Awaab’s law; and the measures on domestic abuse are good. However, I cannot vote for the bill because of the rent control measures, which will be extremely damaging. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. 21:02”
“I lodged amendments to help students, but none of those made it—not even the one that said that councils should include student housing in their local housing strategies. I proposed exempting build-to-rent and mid-market rent properties from ruinous rent controls. Even though the cabinet secretary agreed with that, those amendments did not make it either. We have ended up with a system in which those sectors will be exempted through regulations so as not to stifle investment, but the private rented sector will not be exempt. Quite why that will not stifle investment is beyond me—because it will. Rent controls are a blunt instrument. They do not address the root causes of housing unaffordability, which are a chronic lack of supply and planning bottlenecks.”
“This has been a real marathon; however, it has felt as though we have run this course before—as we have. Many of the stage 3 amendments, which have been debated over three long nights, were also debated at stage 2, when they were mostly not moved following promises of talks with the Government. Some of those talks took place, but some did not. We have ended up with a bill from which good ideas have been jettisoned, and the Government has got its own way on everything. The bill is well intentioned but fundamentally flawed. It risks undermining the very goals that it claims to pursue—affordable, quality housing and a thriving rental sector. Instead, it introduces sweeping rent controls that will deter investment, reduce housing supply and, ultimately, hurt the very people it aims to protect.”
“Taken together, the amendments in the group are a clear signal that we must do better by collecting better data on rough sleeping, so that we can better address the issues that arise as a consequence. The Deputy Presiding Officer: A couple of other members wish to make brief contributions, so I call Jeremy Balfour, to be followed by”
“However, because not everyone sleeping rough will register as homeless, that data needs to be supplemented with real-time information. In London, organisations supporting people who are sleeping rough collect and submit real-time data, building an accurate picture across the city through a process called the combined homelessness and information network, or CHAIN. The Scottish Government has had some useful recommendations from the measuring impact task and finish group, and my amendment would ensure that those recommendations are considered and that the need to improve the vital data is kept on the agenda. As Jamie Halcro Johnston has already indicated, my amendment would support and complement the aims of his amendments in this group, and the Greens will support both his amendments.”
“Although there is a degree of overlap between our proposals, I believe that we are both trying to achieve the same objectives, which are to improve understanding of rough sleeping and to prompt clear action from the Scottish Government to bring it to an end. I believe that, in creating a clear duty for the Scottish Government to aim towards, my amendment 237 would provide not only accountability but the necessary impetus towards change in the coming years. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Maggie Chapman to speak to amendment 46 and other amendments in the group. Maggie Chapman: My amendment 46 aims to improve the quality of the data on rough sleeping that we gather and have access to. Rough sleeping numbers in Scotland are assessed by asking questions when people make a homelessness application.”
“Nothing done to tackle rough sleeping would prevent the Scottish Government from also addressing wider issues, such as insecure accommodation. It goes without saying that rough sleepers experience the highest level of harm as a result of their homelessness. Sadly, many rough sleepers may not have time to wait for other issues to be resolved. One area of frustration is the lack of clear statistics on rough sleeping being maintained by the Scottish Government. We are often left to rely on charity counts, which can fail to fully identify the hidden side of rough sleeping. I therefore welcome Maggie Chapman’s amendment 46, which would require a review of data on rough sleeping within two years and the Scottish Government to set out any actions that it plans to take as a result of that review.”
“16:00 During stage 2 consideration of the bill, the minister pointed to the ending homelessness together initiative, which has made welcome steps towards co-ordinating policy between the Scottish Government and local authorities. The programme that my amendments propose aims to complement those objectives, particularly the expressed wish to end rough sleeping. Ending homelessness together recognises that the response to Covid-19 resulted in a “dramatic” reduction in the numbers of people sleeping rough, which demonstrates what can be achieved when the will exists within Government to do so. We all recognise that addressing homelessness will require tackling multiple distinct problems, but that should not be an either/or situation.”
“As I have highlighted, some people refuse help, but many times when help is refused it is because complex needs do not fit in with the support that is available. Housing first was obviously a model that came up again and again as an effective—albeit very costly—way of dealing with that. Every rough sleeper represents a failure to meet an individual’s needs. Most have been failed many times and at many stages in their life by a range of public and other agencies and bodies. What is common to them is how immediate their needs are and the positive benefit of decisive interventions. Often, the stability of housing is only the first step, but it is an essential step in ensuring that other interventions can be effective.”
“The amendments deal with the really important issue of rough sleeping. In the previous parliamentary session, I was lucky enough to go with the Local Government and Communities Committee on a visit to Sweden, where we looked at the housing first model. That had virtually eliminated rough sleeping in Sweden, but I well remember being told that it could not totally eliminate it, because some people choose to rough sleep. It is incredible to think that some people choose to do so, but, in relation to amendment 237, how would Jamie Halcro Johnston address that issue? Of course, amendment 238 calls for an action plan, which is different. Jamie Halcro Johnston: I welcome Graham Simpson’s intervention. That issue has come up in the discussions that I have held with a number of bodies.”
“A model terms and conditions document and a model complaints procedure are being produced, so let us give ourselves the option of ensuring that they are enforced in future. That is why I will move amendments 373, 374, 389 and 390. 15:30”
“They recognise that a lot of student tenants feel unable to have their concerns and issues reliably addressed by their providers. They are often simply ignored or left in limbo for months on end, and they have little option for redress or resolution. Similar to the approach to the model terms and conditions, amendment 374 would require ministers to publish a model complaints procedure—that is, the one that is already being progressed, as the cabinet secretary has acknowledged—and would give ministers the optional power to make compliance binding at a later date. All that my amendments would require ministers to do is what they have already committed to. The amendments would simply give them the option to take further action, if it is necessary, at a later point.”
“Amendment 373 offers the best of both approaches: it would let the Government’s on- going work continue while allowing the Government to retain the power to go further if it is required in the future. I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary is opposing it without specifying why. She believes that voluntary guidance is sufficient, but we already have voluntary guidance that has proven insufficient, which is why we are engaged in the exercise. I urge the Parliament to support amendment 373. It would not mandate anything beyond what is already happening, but it would give us the option to return to the matter and enforce the guidance that will be produced anyway if providers do not voluntarily adhere to it. Amendment 374 and consequential amendment 390 deliver on another PBSA review group recommendation.”
“As I said, amendment 373 would mandate that affordability must be reflected in the model terms and conditions. It does not specify how, because doing so in primary legislation would be too restrictive. The exercise is on-going, so the amendment simply sets out that that is one point that needs to be covered. We can all acknowledge that the likely outcome of the stage 3 proceedings is that PBSA will not be covered by the general rent control provisions. Amendment 373 is an alternative way to tackle the issue of extortionate costs in the sector, which all parties have acknowledged. It comes from a frustration about the pace of delivery on student tenancy reform. Crucially, it would also deliver on a PBSA review group recommendation.”
“If nothing else, retaining that option, as I said, should push providers to accept the standards voluntarily. The cabinet secretary has not yet explained why the Government believes that a voluntary code is sufficient. Indeed, she acknowledged that many PBSA providers do not sign up to the existing voluntary standards—most do, but far from all of them. Writing guidance for those that already provide high-standard accommodation seems to be a bit of a pointless exercise. Some of the biggest providers—Vita, Student Roost and IQ— are not signed up to Unipol, at least according to its website. Why does a Vita tenant deserve less protection than a Unite Students tenant? The biggest issue that student tenants face is cost, as evidenced by the campaigning on it by the NUS and student unions across Scotland.”
“It does so for no other reason than that the threat of potential regulation would be an incentive for providers to comply now voluntarily. The cabinet secretary has not given the Parliament a reason to vote against amendment 373. She has argued that work is already under way, which I am glad about. The amendment would ensure that that work has its desired effect. It would do three things: ensure that the work must be completed and that the document must be published, specify that the terms and conditions should address affordability, and give ministers the power to put the model on a statutory basis in the future, if they believe that to be necessary. It would make the model comparable to the existing model tenancy agreement that the Parliament agreed for the private rental sector years ago.”
“Let us be honest: there is little point in producing a document of very good quality if it then disappears on to gov.scot/publications, because it is not enforceable, and those who want to forget it will simply decide to do so. Voluntary guidance will be followed by providers that already provide a good service. The cabinet secretary referred to Unipol guidance, which is a voluntary accreditation scheme for PBSA providers. By definition, if a provider is uninterested in good practice, it will not get accreditation and will not be bound by the guidance. The providers that do not get accreditation will need to be compelled to meet the standards that we expect of them, so ministers should retain the option of being able to compel them. Amendment 373 does not require ministers to do that; it simply gives them a regulation- making power.”
“I was struck by the comments of Edward Mountain, who also raised the issue of guarantors and has proposed a scheme in which landlords could increase the level of deposit. That seems to me to be a neat solution that should not be dismissed out of hand, so I will support it, too. Ross Greer: The issues that are raised by amendments 372 and 388 have been covered, so I will not move those amendments. Amendment 373 and the consequential amendment 389 would simply mandate that ministers must publish a model terms and conditions document for student tenancies that covers private and institutional providers. They would also empower ministers to make the model Ts and Cs binding at a later date via regulation if they think that it is necessary to do so.”
“As we have heard, Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 370 builds on that, with a call for guidance on the strategies. She has my support on that, as she often does, and I will also support her other amendments in the group. I turn to some of the other amendments in the group. Maggie Chapman raised the issue of deposits for foreign students and called for a review, which does not seem unreasonable. We debated the issue at some length at stage 2, and it definitely needs to be tackled. Maggie Chapman also calls for the Scottish Government to set up a guarantor scheme. I wonder about the cost of that. I sympathised with the proposal, but one of the advantages of being in my current position is that I can change my mind during debates, as I have done already, so I will probably not support that proposal.”
“I have just one amendment in the group, which is amendment 239. At the moment, councils do not have to factor in the needs of students when producing local housing strategies; they do not have to mention student housing at all, which is a rather bizarre situation. At stage 2, I proposed that we rectify that, but I agreed to hold off from pressing an amendment, as the cabinet secretary at the time said that she would work with me on the issue. I have discussed it with the current cabinet secretary, and she sympathises, but that has not translated into out-and-out support. She sympathises with a number of my other amendments but cannot quite bring herself to back them. The amendment is an easy fix that would mean that councils could not overlook the needs of students when writing their housing strategies. I intend to press it.”
“The furlough scheme is very welcome, but it is contingent on the company providing evidence of orders. When does the Deputy First Minister need to see that evidence? How many orders are needed to meet the requirements of the scheme? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please be as brief as possible, Deputy First Minister. Kate Forbes: I will be brief, because I am afraid that any information about orders is commercially sensitive. I look forward to the point at which members can quiz me on any orders that are forthcoming but, at this point, I am afraid that I am unable to answer any questions on orders. Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill”
“When we took evidence, one of the key points that we heard was that victims felt as if they were completely ignored and that they were a witness in their own case. They felt that they did not have any involvement. Amendment 104 would give victims the opportunity to talk for themselves in the court. It would allow the judge or sheriff to read out the statement, and the judge or sheriff would have the opportunity to shorten the statement. The amendment would give victims the ability to do something that the committee heard that they have not been allowed to do.”
“The full statement could be read out, or the court could be made aware of the key points. Audrey Nicoll: I am concerned about amendment 104. I understand the rationale for it, but has Sharon Dowey considered what support or guidance would be provided to a survivor in preparing their statement? Reading that out in an open court has quite big implications for them, and they might seek guidance on what to include and what not to include. Sharon Dowey: At the moment, there is support from Scottish Women’s Aid and Victim Support Scotland, and there are people in the court who help victims along the way. If we should be directing funds towards that to make sure that we deal with victims in a trauma-informed way, that is something that we should look at.”
“It could be a long statement or a short statement, so the amendment allows for discretion in whether part of the statement is read rather than the full thing, as obviously there are time constraints in court. Angela Constance: The effect of amendment 104 would be to make it mandatory for the victim statement to be read aloud in court, either by the victim, if they request to do so, or by the judge or sheriff, if the victim does not wish to. My interpretation of that is that the statement would have to be read out, either by the sheriff or by the victim, and that the only discretion that would be available would be for the statement to be read in full or only in part. Sharon Dowey: Yes—that is where the discretion is. The statement could be read in part, so it could be shortened.”
“I just want to be clear on the wording of the amendment. Perhaps Sharon Dowey can clear this up. The amendment says that, if there is a victim statement, it “must be read aloud in court”. That is the wording of the amendment. Irrespective of whether a victim wants their statement to be read out, it “must be” read aloud. Is that correct? Sharon Dowey: In drafting the amendment, my intention was to allow a statement to be read aloud in court if the victim requested that. Victims do not have that choice at the moment. It would mean that either the victim could read it, if they requested to do so, or they could get the judge or the sheriff to read it aloud.”
“It called for more reliable and frequent services, safer waiting areas, better route planning and the ending of negative attitudes towards young passengers. It has been fantastic to work with members of the Scottish Youth Parliament and it behoves us all to listen to young people when we are designing public services such as transport. 13:20”
“They called for the extension of the free travel scheme to people up to the age of 26— they did not put a cost on that, I have to say—and recommended improvements in affordability, accessibility and frequency of public transport services. A key theme that emerged from the question-and-answer session was the critical need to involve young people in transport decision- making processes. The free bus travel scheme for under-22s has made a significant difference to the lives of young people, but challenges remain around the availability and reliability of services. Earlier this year, I joined the Transport, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee of the Scottish Youth Parliament to discuss transport and young people.”
“We also called for “transport authorities to implement lived experience participation with those most affected by transport inequalities.” The Scottish Youth Parliament and Sustrans presented to the CPG meeting in October 2024, and they both highlighted the critical role of transport in shaping the lives of younger people. As we have heard, we had great presentations from David McGilp MSYP and Islay Jackson MSYP—two fantastic and impressive young people. They outlined the youth perspective on public transport, building on their all aboard campaign, which helped to secure free public transport for under-22s. They emphasised the importance of making transport accessible to all young people, especially those in rural and island communities.”
“We must create a fair and reliable transport system that everyone can access. We held a series of valuable evidence sessions to consider those different experiences when it comes to accessing transport. Each of the groups raised issues, which included unaffordable fares, poor transport connectivity, inaccessible services and safety concerns. All those issues have been mentioned during the debate already. Our report made a number of recommendations to the Scottish Government and transport authorities to achieve a transport system that works for everyone. Those include “defining transport poverty and better data collection and metrics to facilitate better monitoring”.”
“I thank Sarah Boyack for bringing the debate to the chamber. The background to it was a great piece of collaboration between the cross- party group on sustainable transport and the Scottish Youth Parliament. It was a really good example of how a cross-party group can be effective in the Parliament. The cross-party group held an inquiry into inequalities in transport. Transport has a vital role in delivering a fairer society and enabling everyone in Scotland to have equal access to daily life, work, education and community wellbeing. However, there are gaps in the current system, which mean that women, children, disabled people and low-income households do not have equal access to transport. Those groups experience barriers that are related to cost, availability, safety and convenience of the transport network.”
“The Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise must come clean: she must see that she has a responsibility to the Parliament to lay the financial resolution and accept what the Parliament has already said. If there are problems, they can be ironed out at stages 2 and 3. That is what the process is for; it is not to allow the Government to block things through silly games. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Michael Marra is the final speaker in the open debate—briefly, please. 18:12”
“I thought that his contribution to the debate was the most passionate that I have ever heard from him about anything. He gave a fantastic speech because he feels strongly about this. He is absolutely right, as is everyone who has spoken in the debate in support of Liz Smith’s bill. We cannot have a situation in which the Parliament votes for a bill at stage 1 only for the Government then to block it without a vote. We have already had the vote, but the Government has blocked the bill, because it will not lodge a financial resolution. That is appalling. If the Government can do that on this occasion, it could do it again and again. I was astonished to find out that it could—perhaps I should have known, because I have a member’s bill and I am very concerned that someone might play silly games with it.”
“We heard all about that at stage 1, when the motion on the bill passed. The issue is not whether it is a good idea or not, because it is—the Parliament has spoken. The issue is the quite extraordinary situation that we are in whereby the Government has not lodged a financial resolution, which could kill off the bill. I find it incredible that the Parliament can vote for a bill at stage 1 and the Government can stop it through process and by playing silly games. That is a disgrace. Martin Whitfield: This is the first time that this has happened in the history of the Parliament. Is there a danger that the Scottish Government is tempting this to happen in the future, which, in effect, would mean the end of members’ bills? Graham Simpson: Mr Whitfield is quite right.”
“It is very difficult for members to get members’ bills through this Parliament. It takes a long time and a lot of work. I know that because I have a member’s bill that is really up against it time-wise. However, I am speaking in this evening’s debate because I think that it is appalling that Liz Smith has had to lodge such a motion. We have had the stage 1 debate and we should be proceeding to stage 2. Today’s debate is not really about the bill. There was a stage 1 debate in which members spoke passionately about their experiences of outdoor education when they were youngsters. I remember going to a centre that my state school had in the lake district. That gave me my love of the outdoors and hill walking, which has enhanced my life and which I have passed on to my children. Everyone can have a story like that.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Sarah Boyack to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. 16:48”
“Really, there is no first-class offering on ScotRail services any more. There is not a leisure first-class offering, as is the case on services that are run by LNER and some other UK train operating companies, so what is the point of it any more? ScotRail gets a little bit of income from it, if, say, a passenger is travelling from Edinburgh or Aberdeen to London. However, overall, on those key commuter routes, we should be freeing up the seats and allowing people to sit anywhere, because the good news is that peak rail fares have gone and I think that we are going to see increased patronage of our railways— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Ruskell, you need to conclude. Mark Ruskell: —and getting rid of first class is a good step towards that.”
“I was impressed by how much attention ScotRail is able to give customers through those customer service points. It is able to offer all kinds of advice and support, but I wonder whether that message is really getting out there. However, I still agree with Katy Clark that we must monitor the changes in ticket office opening hours, and I have concerns about vulnerable passengers. I will finish by talking about first-class ticketing. The discussion on this today has really just been between me and the cabinet secretary, and I am impressed that she came to the debate with a list of all the services on which there is no first-class seating. However, if there is no first-class seating on the service from Dunblane to Edinburgh, why do we have it on the service from Glasgow to Edinburgh?”
“Yes, there is a need to restore some services, but I do not think that simply going back to the pre-Covid world would be acceptable. I will take the intervention if it is brief. Kevin Stewart: I am glad that Mr Ruskell has highlighted the changes in travel patterns. Does he agree that, if we went back to the pre-Covid timetable, we might lose weekend services that are doing very well and bringing a lot of income into our national railway system? Mark Ruskell: That was my point—that peak usage now is leisure usage, and that is very much at the weekend. Yes, we should restore services, but we have to see where we are at. A number of members have talked about safety. Like Jamie Greene, I went to one of the customer service centres that ScotRail runs—I went to the one in Dunfermline, which is for the other half of Scotland.”