Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is constant dialogue on all those issues. It is good that we have regular dialogue with unions and management about how to improve the railway and other modes of transport.

On the national conversation, you might be aware that, around April, we had a change of First Minister and of ministers and that, subsequently, my appointment took place. There has been quite a lot of flux and change.

In coming into post, my view is that we should focus on delivery instead of general conversation—we do not need a national conversation for us to engage with all those issues. An opportunity exists for regular dialogue, particularly with the management, the operators and the interest groups. Monica Lennon referred to mobility access groups and the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, which has particular leads on rail and has been quite clear about its needs and views. We are also embarking on the peak fare removal pilot, so a lot of activity is happening in this area.

As minister, I am keen to focus on delivery and I do not think that the national conversation will take place in the way that previous ministers envisaged. Now that I am the minister, my view is that I need to focus on delivery, which is what I will do.

As the committee will know, many such issues stem from the need for resilience in the fleet. The focus on delivery of the six ferries is absolute.

However, within that, there is the issue of operation and how that could be improved by driving up standards of management and communication. There are issues in relation to CalMac’s communication and relationships, and it knows that. When I met CalMac, I made clear my views and concerns about its lack of customer focus, and it has acknowledged that and is making steps to improve what it does. At the end of the day, that is an issue for the board that has oversight of CalMac.

The way in which we can address some of the issues is through the standards for the CHFS 3 contract and the expectations of whoever will be delivering that. The ferries community board report made strong points about what the expectations would be, and we can try to build those into the contract. The committee’s report raised a number of other issues and listed the principles by which any new contract should be judged.

Driving change and improvement can and should be done through the contract change as well. Change and improvement also require acute and fastidious ministerial oversight, although there should not be any interference in things that are a matter for the board or for management. I reassure the committee that, having spent a considerable amount of time looking at the ferries issues, I will take a keen and active interest in that.

I am expecting to see such schemes among the comparators that Alison Irvine has talked about. What is interesting is that those are reduced fares—not zero fares—to encourage activity and use.

On the initial phase of the community bus fund, the figures that I have are much smaller than those you reference. It would be £5 million in capital and £750,000 in revenue to support that, which would be for the initial planning of what councils might want to do locally in relation to the community bus fund. You are probably talking more about the issues around bus partnerships and what can happen there. The initial spend is for local authorities’ plans for what would be effective, such as bus prioritisation and how bus partnerships might work.

On the available funds, including the one that you refer to—I will get the name of that, and I can write back to the committee if I am wrong—my understanding is that the initial funding is to help to work out priorities in relation to private operators running certain areas and subsidising them.

On the scale of franchising, it will not happen overnight, and we do not say that it will, but we have the legislative backing to enable it to happen. Those are the key choices, and you, as a committee, will need to take a view on what should be supported and subsidised with public funds. There are subsidies for many different types of public transport. If we as a Government and you as a committee decide, along with Parliament, that bus travel should be given priority, you can communicate that. The cabinet secretary is responsible for the budget for our area and advice from the committee is always helpful in deciding public transport priorities, but you cannot have everything. We have big decisions to take.

There was an original proposal that would have seen a reduction in the number of offices that were staffed; as I said, however, there are now not going to be any closures.

With regard to the time and the capacity, there is still an issue to be finally resolved around how we get the service improvement that is needed, and how we give a sense of assurance that there are staff available at stations. The issue is how much time staff will be spending behind the ticket office desk as opposed to helping people with disabilities or other needs at the station, as those needs and expectations may have changed from five or 10 years ago.

This is obviously a big challenge for everybody. We are all seeing the impacts of climate change globally and also locally. Within our responsibilities, transport, as one of the major emitters, has to take steps forward.

I said in my opening remarks that we anticipate that the electrification of the Barrhead route, which is a major line, will complete by December. The Government also announced that work will commence at East Kilbride. I know that the member has an interest in the Levenmouth rail line, which is ready for electrification as part of the wider work that needs to take place, and, clearly, the next steps relate to the Fife-Aberdeen lines. All of that work is subject to setting out plans, budgets and so on.

In relation to the commitment and vision, other parts of the UK look enviously at what is happening in Scotland, because there is determination and activity here. In fact, I am due to speak at a major rail conference this afternoon, and there is a lot of interest from elsewhere as to what is happening in Scotland. There are a lot of challenges, but there is also a lot of activity and commitment from partners to deliver on decarbonisation. Mark Ruskell was right to say that there will be a refresh of the rail decarbonisation plan.

We treat the performance standards very seriously, and we will ensure that their delivery is reinforced. I have done that already in looking at the next plans across the UK—I have made it quite clear to those who are in charge of them that I expect the performance standard to be part of the plans and expectations for performance.

Passenger satisfaction is strong, but on rail performance, we are not delivering on the standards that we have set, in which we are clear about what we expect to achieve. You are right to identify that, but all that I can say is that we are driving that improvement forward. It is going in the right direction—your issue is the pace and how we can deliver that.

With regard to customer focus, since ScotRail has been under public ownership and control, that aspect really has been driven forward, as any of us who regularly use the rail system will know. In terms of time and delivery, we need to ensure that we have a reliable but safe railway; we will be looking at performance management in that regard, and I am sure that the committee will come back to that to identify how the performance standard is being reached.

That is why we ask the experts to advise us on the timescale and what is possible and when. However, we have the drive and intention to electrify the line. We just have to ensure that we put all our ducks in a row to ensure that it can happen. That is the realistic thing to do. The refreshed rail decarbonisation plan, which Mark Ruskell asked about, will help to do it.

I might refer to colleagues for the actual date but, in my opening remarks, I referred to a number of Scottish statutory instruments on pavement parking that will come to the committee. Some of the instruments under the provisions of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 have already been laid before the Parliament. Alison Irvine might be able to help on the final date.

There will need to be a lot of communication about what is and is not acceptable because, currently, some people think that it is acceptable to park on the pavement. Actually, it is not acceptable to do so now but, with the regulations, that will become more evident. We will work closely with our local authority colleagues on ensuring that it is clearly communicated to people.

People have a considerable amount of concern about the issue, and a number of people contact MSPs about it. People should feel comfortable using their pavements. That applies to everybody, but if people are wheeling in any shape or form—whether wheelchair users or mothers with buggies—and they cannot get through, how can they feel comfortable in their own environment and place? Implementing these provisions is about making people feel comfortable to be active and able to walk, cycle and wheel in their areas. Clearly, we do not want people to cycle on the pavements; I am referring to the wheeling aspect.

There was a lot of publicity on the matter when Sandra White’s Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill went through the Parliament. It was a high-profile issue and there was a lot of publicity. The committee and other MSPs might be able to help with that. There is a series of different regulations, but it might be helpful if, when we lay the 2 October ones for December implementation, we can all try to raise the profile of the issue.