Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

I might bring in Kevin Gibson on the technicalities, but I should say that the bill is a hybrid bill, so there is time left in 2022, and potentially into 2023, to resolve some of the issues. As Mr Kerr has outlined, we are in agreement with the UK Government on a number of the clauses that require the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament, but the Scottish Government has identified nine relevant clauses in total, in addition to those on which the UK Government has asked the Scottish Parliament for legislative consent.

My officials, supported by legal advice, met the UK Government team to discuss that point after the bill was presented, and the view of the Scottish Government is that the Scottish schedules in the nine clauses that I have mentioned relate to matters that would alter devolved legislative controls and that have a devolved purpose. For example, they might affect the water environment, building standards or planning. In line with section 28(8) of the Scotland Act 1998 and devolution guidance note 10, the Scottish Government’s view is that those clauses require the Scottish Parliament’s consent. Many of the clauses relate to land-use planning. Planning permission is required, and the development of land is regulated for planning purposes, regardless of the nature of the underlying project.

In summary, both Governments have different interpretations of the Sewel convention. The practical implications of the bill are not yet clear. However, as I mentioned, we are working through those issues. This is a hybrid bill so, over the coming months, and potentially into 2023, officials will be working very closely to try to get to a resolution on some of the issues. We support the overall purpose of the bill, but we have reservations about some of the specifics, as I have outlined.

Kevin Gibson, would you like to say more?

My memory of the discussions with the unions is that there was a feeling that it is unfair that the legislation does not extend to railway workers in the way that it covers other parts of society.

I do not want to exclude it from the national conversation but it will probably not part of it, because I want to follow the matter up with justice officials. We will do that after the committee meeting, and I would be happy to share information with Ms Lennon on it. We might have a specific legislative fix that might not be part of our wider national conversation. Although I do not want to exclude it at this point, they are probably two separate things.

As Ms Lennon will know, it is not off the table, because we are still in negotiations. I have discussed a number of things with the unions, not least their views on ticket office closures. We are having conversations at the moment, and those engagements are on-going directly between officials, ScotRail and the unions, but, as I have said, the issue is not off the table. I have heard Mick Hogg’s comments on the matter, and I think that the committee would be surprised if we took ScotRail into public ownership and did not have a no compulsory redundancy policy. However, we are not there yet, because we have not established a pay deal. I would be very keen to get to that place with the unions, but, as those negotiations are on-going, I do not want to prejudge anything.

I am not personally in favour, but the matter is still on the table, because the negotiations are on-going.

As I mentioned in my answer to Natalie Don, I have received a submission that sets out a number of options. I will be arriving at a decision on the matter imminently, and I will be happy to share that with the committee.

The current associated timescales might take us to 2023, but I am keen to see results sooner than that. I will speak to officials about how we can do that and how we best join up the different modes of public transport so that we do not look just narrowly at rail travel. It is important that we do the preparatory work in that respect.

We should also be cognisant of the fact that travel patronage patterns are not what they were two years ago and not what I hope they will be in two years’ time. As far as looking at the data is concerned, it is difficult to prejudge how the public might feel in, say, three months’ time. As I mentioned earlier, another wave of coronavirus, such as omicron or some equivalent, might put people off returning to public transport. We need to be cognisant of that, too.

I do not have timescales to share with Ms Lennon just now. However, as I have said, I have the submission that has been made, and once I have made a decision on what the fair fares review will look like, I will be more than happy to share that with the committee. Given that we are in the planning and preparatory stages, I do not have that detail to hand just now.

I am happy for you to do so. I was of the view that it has been.

The answer is accountability to ministers. The holder of the ScotRail franchise is now accountable directly to ministers, and ministers are accountable to the Parliament and to this committee.

Mr Kerr, you talked about passenger need. I think that in the debates and conversations that we have in the chamber and in this committee, there is a place for us to discuss how we meet passenger need. It is a hugely important issue.

You also touched upon a number of different challenges that we have talked about during this morning’s meeting. I am alive to all of them, but we have to be pragmatic and realistic here. The fact is that people walked away from—or were not able to use—our railways during the pandemic, because they were being told to stay at home by the good public health advice that was given. At the same time, however, we were providing emergency funding to allow the railways to continue. As a result, we need to look at the sustainability of the revenue structures that we have in place for our railways.

There are no proposals for fare increases. I think that what you are talking about is a historical point that was raised at the committee’s previous evidence-taking session when it was mentioned that fares had increased by 3.8 per cent. There are no proposals for future fare increases that I am aware of. As for ticket office closures, I have given an undertaking to the unions that I will work with them on that issue, because I recognise the strength of feeling in that respect.

I think that all of this comes back to what will be different with this new approach. It is about accountability and ensuring not only that ministers are held to account but that we deliver a railway service that best meets communities’ needs. As a Fife MSP, I know about some of the challenges that we faced with the Abellio contract in the years leading up to where we are now. Indeed, those challenges were very real. There were not enough seats on trains; trains were being cancelled; and there were delays. I am very much alive to all of that. Do I think that all of that will go away with public ownership? I hope that some of it will, but at least there will now be accountability to Parliament and ministerial oversight of the process. Those things are hugely important.

Secondly, some of the people will be the same, but they are experts in their field, and they are the people whom we would want to be in charge of running ScotRail Trains Ltd. The new framework agreements, which of course will be shared with the committee as and when they are published, will allow for ministerial oversight. I think that that is the main difference here. As ministers are accountable to Parliament, and as ScotRail Trains Ltd is accountable to ministers, there will be greater democracy in how we hope to run Scotland’s trains. We have not had that under the franchising network system with Abellio and, as I have said, I recognise some of the challenges that have existed in relation to that in the past.

Bill Reeve might want to say more about the opportunities that this approach presents but, to my mind, it is all about accountability.

We have seen a complete shift in patronage, with people using railways at the weekend and not as much during the week, when they work from home. We have to be cognisant of that when we consider the delivery of the timetable and what that means for the travelling public. Would I like to see more trains in the future? Absolutely, but to justify that action, we need to get patronage up to its level prior to the pandemic.