Seòmar agus comataidhean

In my conversations with the unions, I heard frustration about the fact that people who are identified as behaving antisocially will be back on the train the next day or in a couple of hours. That is demoralising for staff. We have to re-examine the provisions in the legislation and work with the BTP to get it right.

Like Bill Reeve, I share the view of the unions on the matter. I want to ensure that public ownership of the railways does not rule anything out and that we consider all the opportunities that are open to us to support staff. Nobody deserves to go to their work and face abuse. Some of the conditions under which our railway staff worked during the pandemic were challenging.

That is an important question. As I said in my opening statement, Scottish Rail Holdings is wholly owned by the Scottish Government and has been set up to give that oversight and management of the train service, which will be delivered by ScotRail Trains. Ministers, as shareholders of SRH, are responsible for it, and ministerial responsibilities include keeping Parliament informed of SRH’s performance. If members have views on how best we can do that, I would be keen to hear them. Should that be done on a quarterly basis? Would this committee like to be updated quarterly? Keeping Parliament informed is important, as I want us to have a responsive approach to running Scotland’s trains in the future, and that means that the Government has to listen and act accordingly.

Ministers also have responsibility for approving SRH’s strategic plan and its budget. I think that that answers Jackie Dunbar’s points about value for money and the overall accountability to the Parliament in general and this committee in particular.

Again, if Jackie Dunbar or other members of the committee have views on how best we can share that information with members after 1 April, I am keen to hear them. I want to be as transparent as possible, and it is important that we do that, given that the service is under public ownership.

Bill Reeve might want to say more on the value-for-money aspects of the strategic arrangements that have been established, or Jan Spy might want to say more on the legalities of the approach that we have adopted.

You are.

On our responsibilities, I mentioned in response to Jackie Dunbar that ministers will be required to keep the Parliament informed of the performance of Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd as well as approve SRH’s strategic plan and budget. That accountability is built into the new arrangements, and it will allow for the kind of greater scrutiny from members such as Mr Kerr on behalf of their constituents that we do not have under the Abellio franchise.

Before I was transport minister, I raised concerns on behalf of my constituents about a reduction in services in the local area. I am aware that, at the moment, patronage has not regained its level prior to the pandemic, and I recognise that the ScotRail fit for the future consultation, which was undertaken during the pandemic, has sought to reduce some services. However, on—I think—14 February, ScotRail committed to reinstating more than 150 services, which is an improvement on the outcome of the initial consultation. My view is that we need a railway service that meets passenger demand. At the moment, patronage is not there yet. Bill Reeve can outline the statistics for the committee, but I think that it is at around 60 per cent of what it should be.

I will pass you to Bill Reeve to tell you about the specific expenditure.

We will obviously have to replace by 2030 the stock that Liam Kerr mentioned. He raised the issue of a break clause with me last week in the chamber. I have spoken to officials about how we might be able to deal with that. I do not think that there is currently a break clause in the contract—Bill Reeve can correct me if I am wrong—but we are, of course, planning for the future, because those trains will not be with us forever. They are older trains, as Mr Kerr knows—some of them date back to the 1970s—so it is essential that we do that planning and build in the electrification requirement that we will need for our decarbonised network of the future.

There is currently a real challenge in encouraging people back safely on to the railway. You mentioned challenges with your local service; I am happy to take such issues to ScotRail. I raised a question with ScotRail just last week about carriages on the Markinch train service. I recognise that we are seeing a patronage shift, with folk returning to rail.

We also need to acknowledge—as we discussed on our directors call yesterday—the current cost of living and fuel prices, and what that means for people choosing whether to use public transport in a way that they might not have used it previously. We need to think about how our public transport networks, including ScotRail, prepare for a return to patronage, and how we can best support ScotRail now that people are coming back to our railways.

It is important that we get our messaging right in that regard. We need to ensure that people return safely; I have had a number of conversations with the rail unions about how we might do that. For example, we could have a communications campaign to support people to come back to our railways.

Fiona Hyslop is absolutely right to suggest that we need to look at stock, because we need to ensure that there is enough space on our trains for people to feel safe. There is still a requirement to wear face coverings on our trains; people need to feel that they can safely go back to using the railway to access their work and employment. We also need to support the transition back to a semblance of normality after the pandemic is over. It is hugely important that we do that, and that we communicate well, in that respect. I have worked with the trade unions on that, and I am looking at how we might communicate better through the national conversation.

The convener said that, as we move to public ownership, no substantial changes have been identified. However, public ownership means that our railways are accountable to ministers. If there are problems, ministers are answerable to Parliament and to this committee, and we can enact change directly in a way that we were not able to enact it previously.

I am really keen for the national conversation to help us to gather data and provide the public with a sense of pride in, and ownership of, the newly publicly owned ScotRail. It is hugely important that we support a safe return to our railways, as Fiona Hyslop mentioned, by working with our rail unions and with local authority partners and other stakeholders, and that we think about how we might communicate better. Transport Scotland officials have undertaken a bit of additional work in that regard; Bill Reeve might say more on that. Ensuring a safe return is a challenge that the unions have raised with me on a number of occasions.

That question is potentially linked to people who are still too fearful to come back to rail, and to people who have never considered using the railway in the first instance. That second point speaks to the wider question of affordability; we might come on to speak about fare increases. Members will be aware that fares in Scotland are 20 per cent cheaper than fares in the rest of the UK. However, I acknowledge that there has been a 3.8 per cent increase in fare prices that might put some people off.

The Government is currently undertaking the fair fares review, which is looking across modes of public transport to see where we might be able to join up journeys better. That is a key way in which we could encourage people who might be reluctant to use rail to do so. For example, we could join up rail provision with bus provision, and we could join up our approach to ticketing—we have provided funding to bus companies so that they can introduce smart ticketing, for example.

The fair fares review, although it is still currently at the planning stage, gives us an opportunity to look more broadly at how we might encourage people out of their cars, how we could support a modal shift to our railways and—as Fiona Hyslop mentioned—at how we might reach people who might not, in the past, have considered using the train.

Ms Hyslop asked about battery-operated trains and hydrogen as a potential opportunity. There are parts of the rail infrastructure and network that lend themselves to that more readily than others do. We are considering the opportunities to bring in that technology on the far north line and other lines, where electrification might not work.