Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with you. Bill, do you want to come in?

Convener, I want to start by acknowledging the very serious fire incident near Glasgow Central station over the weekend and paying tribute to the emergency services for their exceptional efforts throughout Sunday and into Monday. That there have been no reports of serious injuries is a great relief to all, and it is testament to the professionalism and dedication of those services.

You will be reassured to hear that I have been constantly briefed throughout. Yesterday morning, I met Network Rail and ScotRail as they assessed the on-going challenging implications of plans to restore the use of, and services at, Glasgow Central station, when it is safe and able to be reopened.

Turning now to the purpose—

That is determined by the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, which the committee looked at. That strengthens the position on ownership.

I know that the committee has very limited time and a lot of work pressure, but the supplementary LCM precisely addresses what was left outstanding from the public ownership legislation. What is needed for the 2024 act and the bill is to make sure that we—and, indeed, the UK Government—have powers in relation to the transfer of assets at the end of a period of ownership or after a change of decision, whatever that decision might be, by a future Government.

We would not want that to be the case. The access arrangements are still reserved, so those issues are primarily for the UK Government. As I reflected, the bill gives us some locus on access and how that affects our services, including cross-border and freight services. Those issues will be an important focus for the operation of GB railways.

It will probably be both. We can probably do a better and improved service, but we cannot do as much as we would like to do, had we got more powers.

Thank you so much for your co-operation in taking evidence on the LCMs.

09:48

Meeting suspended.

09:51

On resuming—

Turning to the purpose of this agenda item, I thank the convener and the committee for inviting me to give evidence on the Railways Bill legislative consent memorandum and the supplementary memorandum.

I have repeatedly called for the full devolution of rail in Scotland to strengthen the integration of track and train, but the UK Government is not prepared to make that change at this time. I have therefore made it clear that Scottish ministers will not accept any reduction in our existing devolved powers and that Scotland must benefit from rail reform to the same extent as the rest of Great Britain. As presented, the bill respects those requirements and I and Transport Scotland officials have had long and extensive engagement with the UK ministers and Department for Transport officials to secure that position for Scotland.

The Railways Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 5 November 2025 and amended at committee stage in January. The Scottish Government considers that the bill, as amended, engages the legislative consent process because it contains provisions that will alter the Scottish ministers’ executive competence, so we lodged the LCM on 12 December. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee reported on 5 March. Following welcome UK Government amendments, we then lodged a supplementary LCM on 20 February. The Scottish Government’s clear position is that both should be approved.

The bill will create a new body—Great British railways—that will operate, maintain and allocate access to rail infrastructure across the UK. GBR will also deliver passenger services that are currently the responsibility of the secretary of state. Scottish ministers will retain current devolved responsibilities, including securing the provision of ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper services and specifying and funding rail infrastructure in Scotland.

The bill will introduce new provisions that will strengthen Scottish ministers’ accountability for rail infrastructure in Scotland, including a new and improved infrastructure funding regime and, importantly, new powers for Scottish ministers to issue guidance and directions to GBR on areas of rail outputs that we specify, fund and for which we set strategy. My officials at Transport Scotland will undertake a detailed options appraisal to identify the best approach for Scotland’s railway. As part of this work, they will engage fully with industry partners and stakeholders. This Government is clear in its commitment to retaining the benefits of ScotRail delivering services in public ownership, and the bill does not change that.

Under the legislation, Scottish ministers will have the power to commission GBR to deliver rail passenger services on their behalf, which could enable passenger services to be delivered in a more integrated way, but that is by no means a requirement of the bill and no decisions have been made on that option at this stage. Approval of the LCM simply acknowledges that power, should Scottish ministers ever want to use it at some point in the future.

I support the policy intent of the bill, particularly its ambition to maximise the benefits of greater integration while respecting devolved arrangements. That support, of course, remains subject to full scrutiny of the final bill text and to the Scottish Parliament’s legislative consent process, should there be final House of Lords amendments. I am, however, keen that the elements securing the powers and responsibilities for Scottish devolution are secured and supported by this Parliament in this parliamentary session, if that is at all possible.

I know that the committee will have questions on the Scottish Government’s position on the bill, and I look forward to addressing them.

There is far more integration here than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Railways Bill tries to replicate, across the rest of the UK, the benefits that we have had from the integration of track and train. Lord Hendy, the rail minister, has publicly stated that. Currently, integration is handled through an alliance and agreement between ScotRail and Network Rail. The bill will enable a far more formal position on that. The form that that takes will be up to us, but there are provisions to ensure that, on any issues relating to Network Rail, there will be a greater connection between the Secretary of State for Transport and us. In some respects, that will depend on what option is taken, which will be for a future Parliament to scrutinise. The framework of the bill allows us to decide which way we want to go, but it will be for a future Scottish minister and a future Parliament to assess that.

We could base things on the existing alliance. There could be the potential for a joint venture or for a subsidiary. The important point is that the secretary of state, in some instances, would make agreements with us. Indeed, there are elements throughout the bill that provide for consultation with us, should decisions be made by the UK Government and the secretary of state in relation to Network Rail. Normally, it is the other way around. A lot of that is still in play, and that will come later.

The impact on passengers runs through what the UK Government wants to do as part of the Railways Bill. As far as the operation of devolved aspects is concerned, an important part of the development of the railway is that public ownership means that we can focus on passengers and make sure that the organisations that represent passengers can have input and make an impact. Obviously, what we are doing now is dealing with the bill as it stands, as opposed to the operation of services and how they will be run. That issue is separate from the legislation.

I was saying that we need a different form of funding arrangement. The issue is how much we can borrow in order to have a different form of funding. Again, this is not necessarily to do with the bill, but I am keen on looking at Eurofima, which involves a cheaper form of funding. Green bonds are a good suggestion, but that is limited by how much we can borrow. We must not think that that is a magic bullet—it could work only if we had far more fiscal powers than we currently have.