Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, and thank you for supporting our evidence session this morning. This is a relatively straightforward—and, I think, non-contentious—question to start with. Different benefits have qualifying deadlines and cut-off dates for when people can apply. The bill seeks to repeal the Covid measures in relation to deadlines. Do the witnesses believe that, with that provision removed, there will still be sufficient flexibility for applying late or after the deadline for benefits?

I was impressed by our witnesses’ answers to Mr Balfour’s question about what more they would like to see in the bill. Ms Collie rightly called for greater financial support and greater consistency in that support across groups. Ms Cahill spoke about improved pathways, which would have a financial implication, although not as much as direct financial support. Of course, it is not for committee witnesses to say where that money would come from, and they should champion the corner of the people they represent. I am, however, conscious that the Scottish Government spends £1.1 billion more on entitlements for those who are vulnerable and needing support than it receives from the United Kingdom Government. Clearly, there is a divergence between the funds that are available to support those who need extra help and the extra help that is required because of the UK situation. Genuinely, I am not drawing you on any of that; it is just the context to my question.

What advice would you give to the Government or the committee? With the limited budget that we have, we and the Scottish Government have a difficult job in weighing up how to determine in what area to invest any money. If £10 million were to become available—Ms Collie, I am afraid that that is not the situation—some would argue that the Scottish child payment should be further increased, others would argue that the entitlements for that benefit should be increased and some would suggest spending it on a wholly different area, such as carers. How does the committee or the Scottish Government reconcile those competing demands? You should make those demands, and I would expect you to do so—and you do it so powerfully, passionately and persuasively—but how do we reconcile those tensions?

Good morning.

I will go back a little bit to dig beneath the statistics on performance and satisfaction. First, the good news is that although we are not there yet, both are improving, which is positive. I note, on performance, that ScotRail contends that two thirds of delays are for reasons that are outwith its control. Getting to 91.2 per cent compliance is positive, although of course we do not know what the figure is if we strip out, for example, failings with Network Rail, trespassing on the line and adverse weather. Should we report on performance, having stripped out matters that ScotRail is reasonably not able to deal with directly, in order to see what its performance is as Scotland’s national operator that is now in public control? I am not sure whether that is reported on anywhere.

It absolutely makes sense.

The current situation is that ScotRail is doing pretty well. It has to do better, and things are improving, but where statistics show a need to do better, it will sometimes be the case that Network Rail needs to do better, rather than ScotRail. Sometimes the cause of delay will be severe weather, and not ScotRail. It seems that it would make sense to have a performance statistic that was based on matters that ScotRail can directly control.

That is not just so that the numbers would look better for ScotRail. In a few years, Network Rail could be organised and do a lot better, with its performance improving. ScotRail’s performance could diminish, which could be masked by improved performance by Network Rail or by a particularly mild winter. How do we report so that we can hold Scotland’s national train operator to account—or commend it for improved performance, as is the current situation. Do we have any such stripped-out data reported consistently?

That is very helpful.

Mr Samson, before I move on to my next line of questions, I know that passengers just want trains to run on time according to schedule, and to get to where they want to go efficiently and in comfort. People here in Scotland like to get a seat more than people elsewhere in the UK do. We still have to improve the passenger experience, of course. What are your reflections on whose fault or responsibility delays are, or are you just focused on the overall passenger experience?

I mentioned Springburn station; this is not specifically about Springburn station, where I went for a site visit. On that visit, Scotland’s Railway was there—rather than Network Rail or ScotRail, so both were represented—as was Sustrans, Glasgow City Council and a local charity of which I am a trustee that is interested in town centre regeneration. The jury is out on whether the work will bring the positive outcomes that we all want, but there seemed to be much closer collegiate partnership working than I have seen previously. Are you aware that that is the case, Ms McLeod, or was I just fortunate on that particular day?

For brevity, I will roll two or three questions together. They are about opportunities relating to the purchasing of new rolling stock. How will ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper go about procuring new rolling stock in the future? For instance, will new trains be procured through rolling stock leasing companies—I put on record that I have some dissatisfaction with that model, to be honest—or will it be done directly by operators or some other public body?

Also—I said there was a lot in this question—how will rail users be involved in the design and layout of new rolling stock? There are three aspects: procurement, design and dialogue with passengers.

I see Joanne Maguire and Kathryn Darbandi scribbling away furiously. I do not know who wants to come in first.

I apologise, Mr Hynes, but I will pause you there. The rolling stock operating companies, or ROSCOs, are effectively financing arrangements with leaseback. If I am right, under previous iterations, there was no control from the purchaser about where the work went to construct and maintain the trains. Scotland’s Railway has a lack of flexibility to direct some of that work and, if possible, through procurement, to create, maintain and preserve jobs in Scotland. Is that a reasonable reflection?

Mr Henry was very helpful in bringing clause 50 to life, because it can be quite abstract until we see the detail. When I was listening to some of the explanations, I was furiously googling bus-lane infringements to see what the clause could mean in practice and I think—I could have it wrong—that the Scottish Parliament sets the maximum fine for breach of a bus lane by statutory instrument to a maximum of £60, with variations of £30 if you pay early and an additional 50 per cent if you do not.

In the rest of the UK, the fine is £130 in London, and I think it is up to £70 elsewhere. Just hold that thought for a second. If clause 50 was applied to automated vehicles and used to set the fines regime for infringement across the UK, could we end up with a two-tier system in Scotland, in which drivers of vehicles pay one set of fines and the liable individual for the automated vehicle pays under a different fines regime? Is that a two-tier system that would be undesirable within Scotland?

That is helpful. Just for clarity—Mr Henry might want to come in on this—I will give an example of a two-tier system in Scotland between automated vehicles and vehicles that have to be driven in the way that Mr Mountain would drive his vehicle, or perhaps in a safer way than Mr Mountain would drive his vehicle. We could have a two-tier system for bus-lane fines, and for parking infringements, speeding and low-emission zone breaches. The list of where there could, within Scotland, be a two-tier system for vehicles committing the same infringements is quite extensive.