Chamber and committees

The policy absolutely requires the co-operation and enthusiasm of the local councils that will deploy it. We are doing it in a slightly different way from Wales, where there has been an everything-all-at-once approach. In fact, I spoke to the Welsh minister, Lee Waters, about its launch just last week. I think that there are different views and opinions on whether that approach will be the most effective. At least everyone will know about it, as it is a national, all-at-once roll-out.

In Scotland, however, there has been more of a phased approach, partly to ensure that the appropriate roads are being designated. In Wales, the limit is 20mph unless there is an exception, whereas in Scotland, there has been far more consideration by local councils as to which roads should have 20mph limits. Highland Council has been a pathfinder in that regard and it is already rolling out 20mph limits.

We know the arguments for this approach, and I note that Mark Ruskell’s member’s bill focused on the safety issue in terms of lives saved and injuries averted. The roll-out has already started in many areas. I know that many councils are drawing up lists of which roads will be affected, and they are working with communities on what is appropriate and what is not. In the past, some of the areas where we have had 20mph speed limits seemed to be appropriate, but some caused more difficulties, so taking a considered view is important. Local councils are rolling that out; they are committed to the policy and are working on it.

I have been pleased to hear that local councils are pretty enthusiastic about some of the changes. People now have a different view of their towns than they had in the past, probably as a result of the pandemic, when they liked to use their towns—they had to, in a sense—and walked around them more often and more safely than they had previously.

We talked about pavement parking earlier, and the issue here is similar. It looks as though things are on track. It might not be in my gift, but in my regular discussions with Councillor Macgregor, council leads and regional transport partnerships, I ask how things are going. So far, it looks from the experience in the Highlands that roll-out is progressing well.

You are right to identify the zero tolerance culture across the workplace and for passengers. How that is implemented, from a management and deployment point of view, is a matter for ScotRail. As I said, in my short time as minister, I have already had a number of conversations on that and I will continue to have those conversations.

When we talk about staff, we also need to look at the position of women. Recently, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen—the ASLEF union—came to the Parliament to celebrate its 100th woman driver. There was also an event in Parliament on women in rail, which was hosted by Graham Simpson.

There should be zero tolerance of bad behaviour towards any staff. If we are trying to encourage more women into rail work, we must ensure that they feel comfortable in that workplace. That is why we have to look at the issue from different perspectives. Bill Reeve, do you want to add anything?

Our position, which was taken by the previous minister, is that the ban should continue. That is particularly important late at night and for women travelling by rail. Anyone who travels by rail knows the problem of being on a train when other passengers have taken excess alcohol. That is our current position.

That was a specific area that the bus task force, which the former transport minister put in place, looked at. It brought everybody together—operators, Transport Scotland and everybody else—to look at a number of bus-related issues. I chaired the final meeting of that group early in the summer.

We have had 84 million journeys by under-22s, which has helped to boost numbers. The challenge seems to be that over-60s have not come back to bus travel as strongly as other passengers have come back to bus and other types of public transport. That could be for a variety of reasons. More study of behaviours is probably needed, but it could be that people have decided that they prefer travelling by car because, post-pandemic, people are still concerned about health and general issues. Alternatively, people might have got used to using the car and have not come back to public transport. There could be a number of reasons. Perhaps the work patterns of people in that age group have changed. We know that many people in that group have decided not to go back to work, even if they were eligible to do so and wanted to go back to work. There are a number of areas to consider, but a particular target is about trying to get the over-60s back to bus.

Discussions have included how to improve use of buses for leisure travel, which is about timings and availability. To go back to my point that Saturdays are now the busiest time for rail, I note that we are trying to interpret that from a behavioural point of view. A lot of people who work in a hybrid way want to get out of the house and do something at the weekend. There are various behaviours; I am sure that policy analysts are looking at them, but the main concern with bus travel is about the over-60s in particular, and how to encourage people in that group to get back on the bus.

People have to feel safe, comfortable and confident to use bus services, so this is about reliability. Obviously, that is an issue for many modes of public transport—it is about giving people confidence to travel.

Part of the work is how we ensure that everything is aligned and that we can do the work, finance it and ensure that we have the trains that we will need, and so on. There is the question of timing. The aim is for the decarbonisation to happen by 2030—that is what we want to try to achieve.

Many members will have heard this already, but I will repeat it. I was deputy convener of the committee when the ferries inquiry was taking place, and I took part in the evidence sessions, but at the time of production of the final report, I was no longer a committee member—I was a minister. It was appropriate that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition responded to the committee’s report, which I thought was a very good one. I hope that members will recognise that the response was also good, in that it addressed all the issues raised.

The report is absolutely live and active in my considerations, but there are some competing issues. For a period of time before the committee made its recommendations on the governance review, there had been questions about the need to look at a change in governance. At that time, the ferries community board chaired by Angus Campbell had carried out its review but had not yet reported. Its report has now been published on Transport Scotland’s website. The board’s view was that the merger should be between CalMac and CMAL, which is not the same as the committee’s view. To be fair to it, I think that the committee also said that we need to be cognisant of what the communities want.

We want simplicity and improvement at all levels. I am acutely aware of that, having spent the summer visiting and speaking to people from a number of island ferry communities. The committee itself heard a lot of evidence directly. There may be tensions, to which the committee itself alluded, about what could happen, and about what might be legally appropriate or the consequences of that. I am looking closely at that, and I know the committee’s interest in the underpinning rationale of what we will be able to do and what might be desirable.

I would say that the value that the Government places on the players—Transport Scotland, CMAL and CalMac—is that they all have different strengths and abilities strategically. The connections between Transport Scotland’s ferries division and CMAL need to be strong, and CMAL clearly has the relevant expertise. I am struck by the need to look not only at ferries but at how ports, harbours and other assets are dealt with.

The factors in play will need to include the decision about governance, which comes following the previous project Neptune work. In addition to the governance issue, there are also the islands connectivity plan and the issues around the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services 3 contract. As the committee has identified, those matters are all connected.

We need to take a fairly major decision, and I will also need to ensure that Cabinet is involved in that, which is the process that we are currently involved in. I cannot prejudge that and tell you the timeline, because I am dependent on decision making across Government, but you will hear fairly soon.

You have that effect, convener. [Laughter.] My apologies; I should not have said that.

You will need to let me know what that evidence was; we can then follow it up.

It is really important for MSPs on this committee and elsewhere to be aware that there will be no closure of ScotRail ticket offices in Scotland. The effective campaign that has been run across the UK, for what would be a damaging policy elsewhere, has impacted people in Scotland, and as a result some MSPs have written to me about constituents who are worried about their local offices closing, so I want to affirm that no ScotRail ticket offices will close.

I wrote to Huw Merriman, the UK Minister of State for Transport, to express concern about the policy. My concern relates to people who have disabilities, in particular—that is a major issue and the UK Government needs to account for it. We have said that, should Avanti West Coast’s Glasgow Central office close, people would still be able to buy tickets via ScotRail offices; that option will be there.

Taking a wider look at rail, ScotRail is still looking at how it can most effectively deploy staff, primarily as an operational matter. However, one thing that we know—members have heard it directly from the rail unions—is that there are safety issues. Antisocial behaviour is an issue, and the presence of staff—whether on platforms or on trains—makes a big difference in that regard. The travel safety officers that have been deployed are making a difference already. The issue is whether staff will always be behind a ticket desk or whether they will support other work in stations. Work on that is on-going, and we are looking to review it and bring it to a conclusion to give certainty to staff. We want to work with trade unions on that, and we have a very effective working relationship with them; I point out that we do not currently have any rail disputes in Scotland.

The main thing to remind ourselves of in this area is that buses are deregulated and that we are talking about private commercial operators. That does not mean that we cannot try to bring everyone together to take a strategic view, which is why the bus task force was established—the aim was to address a number of the issues that you raise, including the availability of bus drivers.

For a period, it was the availability of bus drivers that led to the withdrawal of services; the issue was not necessarily that there was no custom. I know that you have written to me about that. There has been active work on recruitment. I have discussed the immigration aspect and whether we could have an access list or priorities for entry. We have pursued that issue for some time with Richard Holden MP. For example, he has been discussing what progress we might be able to make on helping Ukrainians to drive our buses and the systems that are involved in that, and he will update me on that.

Local areas have had campaigns to recruit drivers. In West Lothian, the bus companies, together with the council and the college, did a big promotion to encourage people to drive buses. The feedback from the operators is that there is less pressure now on driver recruitment than in the past, but that does not necessarily mean that drivers do not get poached from one company to another, which can cause issues from that point of view.

On the connectivity point, you have to identify when people should intervene and when they should not, and who has the power to intervene and who has the power to subsidise, which are the powers that councils now have. They have had powers for some time to set up their own companies, but that has not happened to date.

The franchising regulations have just been laid, and I know that the committee is interested in that. To take the example of the X1—I knew that you might ask about it, so I tried to find out a bit of the history of it—my understanding is that the decision to withdraw the service was taken by First Bus in 2020, and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, the transport authority, assessed the need for a replacement service following the cancellation of the X1. However, due to other transport links in the area, including rail and bus links, it saw no case to put in place any form of subsidised fixed-route supported service. The decision was made by the relevant transport local authority in that area; whether it would make a different decision now is up to it.

The overall point goes back to my answer to Jackie Dunbar about the fair fares review. You are right to make the point about accessibility, because if you do not have a bus to go on, how can you make that shift? It is not just rural but semi-rural areas where people have to rely on cars to get to work because no buses run at the time that they need them.

There have been powers, and there are powers, for councils to subsidise buses and prioritise them. I do not want to say, “It is up to councils and that is it,” because they are under pressure as well, but bus has to be an integral part of the solution.

The laissez-faire deregulated market has not served us in the way that we might have expected, so how can we help councils take more control over the key routes that they think are important? That is why we are bringing forward those franchising regulations under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019.