Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will bring in Bill Reeve on that. However, before we leave the subject of rail reform, I note that we anticipate that there might be a need for a legislative consent motion. Obviously, the committee would have a role in relation to rail reform. The timing of that is outwith our control, but I know how busy the committee is, so we will keep you as informed as we can on that.

You are right, which is why I said in my opening remarks that, however good some of the performance figures are, I am not satisfied that we are meeting what is required and expected. That is why I have regular meetings with ScotRail and Network Rail chief executives to identify what improvements can be made.

Obviously, the disruption of the Covid period shows when compared to the 2008 to 2010 figures that you talked about, but we want to see that improvement drive. There has to be consistent improvement in activity and performance. A whole variety of things affect performance, but it is not where I want it to be, and it is not where we have specified that it needs to be. Therefore, in terms of accountability and public ownership, we are trying to drive performance forward. It is the people’s railway, and people expect it to provide a service that is continuously improving. That is what I am trying to focus on just now.

I will ask Bill Reeve to come in, convener, if that is okay.

There are alternative fuels. You might have seen the news this week that ScotRail has been looking at alternatives to diesel that would have fewer emissions. Across different modes, people are looking at whether there are other sustainable fuels that could be used. I do not have the detail on that, but I am sure that we could get a briefing from ScotRail about what it is trialling, because it did that during the last week.

As Mr Reeve said, if you were able to hear it, the 1.6 per cent figure is for this year. We have not been as subject to temporary timetables this year as we were last year, so I think that we are in a better position. There were temporary timetables in place during a period last year when we were discussing drivers’ pay, but we are not in that position this year, which is probably why—unless Bill Reeve is about to correct me—we are now seeing an improvement. That does not mean that there will not be temporary timetables from time to time, but that sort of thing has been less evident this year. Therefore, that 1.6 per cent figure has been very helpful indeed.

Cancellations are measured against the temporary timetable, too. Coming back to the premise of your question about cancellations, fewer temporary timetables have needed to operate this year. That is why you are seeing an improved position compared to the previous year’s 2.2 per cent.

You are correct to identify that there are different elements to reliability. Signalling issues were certainly affecting the Inverness line, in particular, yesterday, and the rapidity with which they are repaired is very important.

However, I think that your point is more about planned improvements. We put great emphasis on that in the funding, the strategy and the specification that we provide to Network Rail, but we do not micromanage delivery, because its responsibilities and internal management are still tied to its ownership by the UK Government.

As for improvements on the north-east line, we are looking at the Dundee and Arbroath area, in particular; I know that work is planned in that respect, and the issue is how we co-ordinate those planned improvements. I suppose that you would be better asking Network Rail how it manages its work, if delays as a result of signalling or other failures are regularly occurring in certain areas. That would be the sensible thing to do, and I am sure that it will look into the matter. Obviously, we can relay to Network Rail your particular interest in the Montrose area.

I do not know whether Bill Reeve has anything to add.

As we have heard, congestion can happen for lots of different reasons, not least cross-border or freight traffic, although there can be other issues. It is probably best to address those questions to ScotRail directly.

That is an assertion of opinion, as opposed to—

Public ownership has been good news. I know that certain parties do not agree with that, and they are entitled to that opinion.

Yes.

The committee will know that the privatisation of the bus system took place in the 1980s and into the 1990s. The Scottish Government is not in control of the bus system. No changes were made during the 1990s and into the 2000s by the then UK Labour Government.

In 2019, we took a collective decision in the Scottish Parliament to make changes to the bus regulatory provision by providing different options, such as bus partnerships and franchises. As the committee will know, because you have gone through all the legislation, all the relevant statutory instruments have been put in place to allow local authorities or regional transport partnerships to take more control of our bus systems.

I do not know whether Fiona Brown can give us an analysis of people’s behaviour over that time; it will certainly be related to the number of routes that are available. For those private companies that are operating the majority of the routes, some routes are more profitable than others.

The experience of the pandemic had a very severe effect on bus patronage, more so than on other modes of transport. On the return to pre-pandemic levels, I am aware that the introduction of free bus travel for under-22s, particularly coming out of the pandemic, was seen as a helpful stabiliser to the income levels of bus companies that could otherwise have been in an even worse situation. I have reflected on the fact that, coming out of the pandemic, a lot of the bus patronage from older people was significantly reduced. We know that because we can see, particularly from concessionary travel use, that patronage is starting to increase, which is a good thing.

I have been cabinet secretary only for the past two years, and I am not quite sure what happened from 2007-08 onwards, whether it was more people increasing their use of cars or whatever. We should keep a close eye on the change in patronage. Finding ways to encourage people to use buses is important. Reliability and affordability are important. That is why the bus infrastructure fund, which is part of the active and sustainable travel funding, is important. We know when buses are reliable because there is greater communication now about when buses are likely to turn up through the apps and so on. People also have to wait for buses outside, and the bus infrastructure fund will be used by some local authorities for shelters and so on. That is particularly important in rural areas, where timings and so on might be variable.

I will ask Fiona Brown to say whether there is any analysis of what has happened over that extensive 20-year period.

You have just explained it. It is a vicious cycle where reduced patronage leads to fewer services and fewer services leads to reduced patronage. That needs to be addressed by local authorities and regional transport partnerships using the powers that they have to improve that in a more strategic way.

There is also a point about how the costs of services are kept low. Obviously, there are fuel costs, but there are also bus driver issues that I think still exist in some parts of the country, although they might not be as severe as they were perhaps two years ago. Bus driver availability also impacts different points on routes. We have to break out of that cycle.