Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

The advice that would have been given to the cabinet secretary predates my time in office. I might bring the officials in to respond. I am not averse to sharing that information with the committee but, with regard to the advice that was considered, that would have been given last year.

I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the consultation. However, we need, first of all, to establish what works in the system. It is not all a challenge or a problem. There are some things that are great about our railways. In fact, as Bill Reeve will tell you, there are many things about our railways that are fantastic and that work really well.

We should not throw the baby out with the bath water, but the public clearly faces challenges and it is important to identify where they are. For example, where people feel unsafe returning to using our railways, we need to identify how we can best support them to use the railway network.

To me, the overriding point is that I would like people to feel a sense of pride in ownership of Scotland’s railways. At the end of the day, the trains will be publicly owned. They belong to the people, so they have to be fit for purpose and meet the needs of the travelling public.

I recognise that we have a journey to go on with that, but that is why I committed to the national conversation. It is really important that it is not just a box-ticking exercise and that it is not a case of the railways moving into public ownership and nothing changing. Something will have to change. It should change. However, when we make those changes, the public must feel that they work for them. If they do not work for them, we will have got it wrong and we will have to start again. That is really important. As a Government, we have to listen to and respond to the needs of the public. Public ownership gives us a real opportunity to do that.

As the committee is aware, industrial relations with the railway unions have been a bit fraught in recent months. I have been keen to do my best to listen directly to our railway unions. At the end of term, we had a good meeting on Teams with all the unions together, and, last week and the week before, most of my meetings with the unions were in person. I have been building relationships and listening to them, and I think that a lot of the things that the unions want are also what our passengers want. There is a natural link there, but we need to better understand that in Government and reflect it in the delivery of services.

I think that it has, but I can tell you where we are just now. At the current time, the offer has been made for a full board member, as a statutory place. That would mean that the trade union representative would have a statutory company director position. I know that an offer to that effect has been made to the unions.

I am aware that an individual has been nominated by the four unions, but, because the appointment process has not been concluded, the name has not been made public. Members will understand that I cannot share that information, but I am happy to have further discussions with the unions on the matter. We have discussed it in the meetings that we have had, and I do not think that there is disagreement in that respect. I might be wrong, but I think that a name has been put forward that the unions seem to be content with, and that person would be a full board member and would not be in, say, an observer post.

“A Vision for Scotland’s Railways” puts forward a number of different ideas, some of which I am supportive of. However, for others, we will have to look at the associated costings. Bill Reeve will give you some of the detail on that, but I have to say that some of what the unions have put forward would be financially unviable at this time.

On the fares freeze, I am not ruling out having a look at fares in the future, because I recognise the challenge around the fares increase that happened, I think, at the end of last year. As for the suggestions that Ms Lennon highlighted with regard to the under-24s and over-60s, she will know about our bus operators scheme for the under-22s, which I briefly talked to the committee about last week. Again, I recognise some of the challenges in that respect.

The answer to some of the concessionary travel issues lies in the fair fares review, because, as far as need is concerned, there is a requirement to look not just at rail in a silo but across the piece at, say, bus travel and joining up with ferry journeys to ensure that timetables work for passengers, that they can join up their journeys accordingly and that concessionary fares flow across those different modes of transport. I am not ruling out looking at these things in the future, but they cost a lot of money, which means that we will need to look at the associated budget lines. Preparatory work that officials have done on the unions’ “Vision for Scotland’s Railways” tells me that rather a lot of money will be involved and we will need to think again about how we budget for such things in the future. However, we will look at them in the future, with the support of the unions.

I am broadly sympathetic to a lot of the ideas in the document. The issue is how the Government finances and finds the budget for them, which will be the challenge as we move forward. Some of the things that we are facing just now are quite difficult. Given the cost of living situation, for example, we need to ensure that our public transport system is not only fit for purpose but affordable for people. I hear some of the criticisms that the unions have made with regard to fare freezes, and I am not ruling out looking at what that will mean for rail travel in the future, because it is really important that folk can afford to use our railways. That, of course, will be a wider challenge as we move into public ownership and ensure that our railways are not only sustainable but efficient.

Bill, do you want to say anything more about the unions’ document?

The existing rolling stock has been secured through lots of different leases and, initially, it will be necessary to maintain some of those in order to keep the ScotRail fleet available for use. We will look at future fleet procurement, which will offer us an opportunity to look at purchase or lease options. That will be decided with regard to the availability of capital and resource budget funding. Essentially, we need to look at the cost. Will leasing or buying be cheaper or more expensive? The funding mechanism will be explored actively as we look at how the fleet is procured and the balance of costs in that respect.

There are risks with ownership, too. In fact, I had a conversation with officials yesterday about what that would look like, and we need to factor in those associated risks if we are looking to purchase rolling stock in future. My view is that we should potentially look to own some of the rolling stock—it might provide greater value for money in the longer term as we will not be leasing the trains—but we will need to look at the financials.

Bill Reeve might want to say more about that.

First, we are really clear that a devolved railway that is public sector controlled and operated in the service of the public and which is, as Ms Hyslop talked about, fully integrated and is, as I said to Mr Kerr, truly accountable will deliver that better and more efficient service for Scotland’s communities. In the rail review, Scottish ministers and officials presented a clear case for the full devolution of rail powers, but the UK Government plan outlined in the white paper did not deliver on that.

I know that Transport Scotland officials are engaging with the Department for Transport on further clarity in relation to the details of the white paper. I will probably bring in Bill Reeve to talk about this, as I have not been involved in any conversations with GBR on the issue thus far in post. I have, though, familiarised myself with evidence that the committee took from GBR last week. I look forward to meeting GBR in due course. There are several issues about continuity and potential challenges to address, but I was heartened to see some of the comments from GBR last week about working closely together and about recognising devolution and the different roles and responsibilities involved in our railways.

There is a plan. If there were no plan, there would not be enough trains to allow us to run the network. It is essential that we have a plan in place. Bill Reeve will come in on the details.

As you will know, we have already announced our plans for electrification of the Glasgow to Barrhead line by December 2023, and the new Levenmouth line by spring 2024. We are also making good progress on finalising our proposals for electrification of the East Kilbride, Fife and Borders lines, and we continue to develop our decarbonisation plans across the entire Scottish rail network.

More broadly, decarbonising transport is one of the six themes that have been set out in the draft “Strategic Transport Projects Review 2: Summary Report”, which was, I think, published in February. I know that STPR2 was mentioned at the committee’s evidence session last week.

Procurement of new rolling stock forms an integral part of the decarbonisation action plan that Ms Hyslop mentioned, and we are building on the track record of electrification of Scotland’s rail network. Pre-pandemic, 75 per cent of passenger journeys and 45 per cent of freight services in Scotland were made on electric services. That is good work, but there is clearly more to do. To some extent, the pandemic has given us impetus to focus on driving that improvement further. Transport Scotland, Network Rail and ScotRail are working in partnership with officials to ensure that the programme moves forward.

That speaks to the wider opportunities, which Ms Hyslop touched on, to support passengers who might not have considered using rail in the past to travel on our networks, knowing that they are clean and decarbonised. Given its carbon footprint, people might be more inclined to choose rail now than they were in the past.

Bill Reeve will say more about the decarbonisation action plan specifically.

I think that a number of things will improve when ScotRail moves into public ownership. We have to have a railway that best meets customers’ needs. The challenges that you have just highlighted were at my doorstep when I was first appointed, which is why I was very keen to reshape some of the narrative around this in my statement.

The first thing that I as the minister need to address is the issue of industrial relations with our trade unions. I have spent a lot of time in the past few weeks meeting the railway unions and listening to their needs, because it is hugely important that, in the shift to public ownership of railways, we take the trade unions with us. I appreciate that there might be more questions on that matter later in this session.

With regard to service cuts, which you also mentioned, you will appreciate and understand—and we might come to this later in relation to the ScotRail timetable—that there were reductions in timetabling to reflect passenger demand. As we move forward, what we cannot account for—although we are trying to—is how patronage will be impacted by the pandemic as it plays out. At this moment in time, weekends are busier than weekdays, and as a result, ScotRail’s operation of its timetable has changed to reflect passenger demand. We want more people to come back to our railways and I want to support such moves, so we will need to look at that issue in due course. Indeed, ScotRail is absolutely committed to doing that.

As for ticket office closures, you will be aware that some of those proposals have been looked at again and that, as a result, ticket office opening hours have been increased and some ticket offices will now not be closed. I have not yet made a final decision on the matter, because I want to speak to the trade unions about it. They have some pretty strong views on it, as you will understand, and I am very alive to some of the challenges around accessibility and women’s safety.

It is worth pointing out, though, that there has been no consultation on ticket offices for over 30 years and that the way in which folk use our railways has changed in that time. People now buy their tickets online and are more likely to use tickets at train stations, for example, but we should not discount the need for that wider debate about ticket offices and their place in a modern railway network. Fundamentally, a railway in public ownership has to best meet passenger need. We as a Government need to be more responsive and public ownership will allow us to do that.

Bill Reeve might want to respond to the other points that were raised.