Chamber and committees

“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.

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

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.

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.