Seòmar agus comataidhean

The issue of a cross-Government approach does not sit with me, as the Minister for Transport. I am not sure which minister it sits with. I will take that idea away and speak to officials about how we can better deliver that, because I recognise the tension that Paul Sweeney has identified.

There tend to be demographic and gender elements to board appointments, and, if we do not get the right people into those posts, it skews the representation of the public. There is an ask of Government around public appointments and how we can upskill the population and empower people to apply for those positions. I will take the matter away and speak to officials about taking a whole-Government approach. The responsibility does not sit with me, but I recognise the tension between getting the necessary skills and experience and taking cognisance of, in this instance, islanders’ views on the delivery of lifeline services.

Thank you.

We need a respectful tone in that dialogue as well.

Officials have been working closely with their counterparts in the Department for Transport and the UK Government. Most recently, they met on 19 May, I think. There has been good collaborative working. Good progress has been made on the provisions relating to the Crown estate and Crown lands, and I am grateful to all who were involved with that. I hope to be in a position to write to the committee fairly soon—I hope that that will be later this week—about the matter. Detailed discussions about the water and building regulations and some road aspects will follow.

As I mentioned to Mr Kerr, this is a hybrid bill, so there is enough time available in 2022, and potentially into next year, to work carefully through some of the issues and concerns. Discussions are on-going between Scottish Government officials and those in the UK Government.

Although it might be normal practice in England to disapply environmental regulations for major construction projects, that is not the policy in Scotland, as Mr Ruskell knows. The Scottish Government’s position is that anything that could impact on the water environment must be authorised by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and carried out in such a way as to protect our water environment to the extent that is reasonable. In other Scottish infrastructure projects, the controlled activities regulations requirements have not been disapplied. For example, the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Forth Crossing Act 2011 were hybrid bills, passed by the Scottish Parliament, that gave the Government the powers to construct the Borders railway and the Queensferry crossing respectively.

The overarching aim of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 and building regulations is to secure the health, safety and welfare of building occupants. Therefore, further details about the depot are needed to evaluate how the proposals would impact on the building standards that would normally apply. Again, that will be discussed in detail by the relevant teams, and a new position will be reached with the relevant ministers, including, in this instance, my colleague Patrick Harvie, given his responsibilities in that area.

Yes, that is correct.

No. I agree with the sentiment of Ms Lennon’s question. No worker should feel under pressure to work on their rest days. However, I go back to my initial point to the convener: rest-day working is not something that suddenly occurred as of 1 April 2022. It has existed for a number of years, and it is how trains right across Great Britain, not just in Scotland, operate. The service depends on drivers volunteering to work on their rest days. On whether it should be phased out, it is a historic practice and I am perfectly committed to working with the trade unions to have those discussions in future, as we move forward. However, that practice has historically been part of how train drivers work and operate. Bill Reeve will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that drivers are compensated for working on their rest days.

I will be brief, convener. The Scottish Government has consistently supported high-speed rail, but not just to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. To realise its full benefit, high-speed rail infrastructure needs to be extended further and faster to reach Scotland. Notwithstanding that, we welcome the proposal to locate one of the HS2 train stabling and light maintenance depots in Annandale, near Gretna, and the highly skilled jobs that doing so should create. Scotland will also benefit immediately from faster train services upon completion of phase 1 of the HS infrastructure.

Although our position is one of support for the bill overall, and for the depot, it is right that we take the time required to scrutinise the implications of legislative consent. That is why the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, Michael Matheson, recommended that the Scottish Parliament consent only to some clauses in the bill while we work through the other issues with our UK Government counterparts. Along with my officials, I will be happy to cover the detail of those clauses in answering the committee’s questions.

In recent days, as you might understand, I have read some press reports and I have participated in numerous media appearances on this matter. I must say that, when we talk about having a respectful tone between Government and trade unions, I do not find the use of that word to be particularly respectful. I do not think that it is accurate, either. As you know, at the start of my appointment, I spent a great deal of time with our trade union partners to try to bring them into the conversation about the future of Scotland’s trains. The unions must be part of that to make it a success. We are not in private ownership any more—this is public ownership—and the Government is, of course, accountable to all of Scotland, not just ScotRail trains or Scottish Rail Holdings.

With regard to my accountability, I am the Minister for Transport, so I accept responsibility. However, we have an industrial dispute, and it would not be appropriate—it does not happen in any other part of Government—for ministers to be in the room taking part in those negotiations. ScotRail is the employer. I am committed to working with ScotRail to ensure that the process works and that we get a quick resolution. That is what passengers want to see. I have got to say that, as somebody who takes the Edinburgh to Fife line pretty much every day to come to Parliament, I want to see that as well. Therefore, these are challenging times.

It is important to say that this is not happening only in Scotland. There are other parts of the Great Britain rail network that are impacted by driver shortages at the moment as a result of industrial disputes. Of course, later today, we will hear the result of the ballot of Network Rail staff by the RMT, which affects a number of train operators. Therefore, I recognise that there are challenging times ahead for the rail network—not just in Scotland but everywhere in the UK.

The UK Government can take a view on how it wants to engage with the trade unions. I heard some of that reported in the press over the weekend. I am committed to working with our trade union partners in a respectful dialogue with an understanding that ministers cannot be in the room. Equally, I will work with ScotRail to ensure that we get a resolution that leads us to restore services as soon as possible, which takes me back to the convener’s point. We must restore services to allow passengers to get to their places of work or go to late-night concerts, wherever they might be in the country.

I recognise that, right now, passengers are scunnered—I said that yesterday. The services that passengers are experiencing are not good enough, and we need to restore services. However, it is also true to say that we will not get to a restoration of services until we get a resolution between ScotRail and ASLEF, the train drivers union. I am committed to ensuring that we get to that place as quickly as possible to give passengers the reassurance that they need to ensure that nationalisation is working.

Yes, that would be preferable—absolutely.