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.

ScotRail is outperforming the majority of rail operators elsewhere, but we want to drive improvements in performance. My understanding—I will ask Bill Reeve to check me if my figures are incorrect—is that the performance rate for passenger satisfaction was 89 per cent until August, and we were looking for it to be over 90 per cent. However, the most recent announcement was just last week, and that showed an increase in performance levels on passenger satisfaction.

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 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.

On the initial phase of the community bus fund, the figures that I have are much smaller than those you reference. It would be £5 million in capital and £750,000 in revenue to support that, which would be for the initial planning of what councils might want to do locally in relation to the community bus fund. You are probably talking more about the issues around bus partnerships and what can happen there. The initial spend is for local authorities’ plans for what would be effective, such as bus prioritisation and how bus partnerships might work.

On the available funds, including the one that you refer to—I will get the name of that, and I can write back to the committee if I am wrong—my understanding is that the initial funding is to help to work out priorities in relation to private operators running certain areas and subsidising them.

On the scale of franchising, it will not happen overnight, and we do not say that it will, but we have the legislative backing to enable it to happen. Those are the key choices, and you, as a committee, will need to take a view on what should be supported and subsidised with public funds. There are subsidies for many different types of public transport. If we as a Government and you as a committee decide, along with Parliament, that bus travel should be given priority, you can communicate that. The cabinet secretary is responsible for the budget for our area and advice from the committee is always helpful in deciding public transport priorities, but you cannot have everything. We have big decisions to take.

There was an original proposal that would have seen a reduction in the number of offices that were staffed; as I said, however, there are now not going to be any closures.

With regard to the time and the capacity, there is still an issue to be finally resolved around how we get the service improvement that is needed, and how we give a sense of assurance that there are staff available at stations. The issue is how much time staff will be spending behind the ticket office desk as opposed to helping people with disabilities or other needs at the station, as those needs and expectations may have changed from five or 10 years ago.