Chamber and committees

Yes, that is correct.

No. I agree with the sentiment of Ms Lennon’s question. No worker should feel under pressure to work on their rest days. However, I go back to my initial point to the convener: rest-day working is not something that suddenly occurred as of 1 April 2022. It has existed for a number of years, and it is how trains right across Great Britain, not just in Scotland, operate. The service depends on drivers volunteering to work on their rest days. On whether it should be phased out, it is a historic practice and I am perfectly committed to working with the trade unions to have those discussions in future, as we move forward. However, that practice has historically been part of how train drivers work and operate. Bill Reeve will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that drivers are compensated for working on their rest days.

I will be brief, convener. The Scottish Government has consistently supported high-speed rail, but not just to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. To realise its full benefit, high-speed rail infrastructure needs to be extended further and faster to reach Scotland. Notwithstanding that, we welcome the proposal to locate one of the HS2 train stabling and light maintenance depots in Annandale, near Gretna, and the highly skilled jobs that doing so should create. Scotland will also benefit immediately from faster train services upon completion of phase 1 of the HS infrastructure.

Although our position is one of support for the bill overall, and for the depot, it is right that we take the time required to scrutinise the implications of legislative consent. That is why the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, Michael Matheson, recommended that the Scottish Parliament consent only to some clauses in the bill while we work through the other issues with our UK Government counterparts. Along with my officials, I will be happy to cover the detail of those clauses in answering the committee’s questions.

In recent days, as you might understand, I have read some press reports and I have participated in numerous media appearances on this matter. I must say that, when we talk about having a respectful tone between Government and trade unions, I do not find the use of that word to be particularly respectful. I do not think that it is accurate, either. As you know, at the start of my appointment, I spent a great deal of time with our trade union partners to try to bring them into the conversation about the future of Scotland’s trains. The unions must be part of that to make it a success. We are not in private ownership any more—this is public ownership—and the Government is, of course, accountable to all of Scotland, not just ScotRail trains or Scottish Rail Holdings.

With regard to my accountability, I am the Minister for Transport, so I accept responsibility. However, we have an industrial dispute, and it would not be appropriate—it does not happen in any other part of Government—for ministers to be in the room taking part in those negotiations. ScotRail is the employer. I am committed to working with ScotRail to ensure that the process works and that we get a quick resolution. That is what passengers want to see. I have got to say that, as somebody who takes the Edinburgh to Fife line pretty much every day to come to Parliament, I want to see that as well. Therefore, these are challenging times.

It is important to say that this is not happening only in Scotland. There are other parts of the Great Britain rail network that are impacted by driver shortages at the moment as a result of industrial disputes. Of course, later today, we will hear the result of the ballot of Network Rail staff by the RMT, which affects a number of train operators. Therefore, I recognise that there are challenging times ahead for the rail network—not just in Scotland but everywhere in the UK.

The UK Government can take a view on how it wants to engage with the trade unions. I heard some of that reported in the press over the weekend. I am committed to working with our trade union partners in a respectful dialogue with an understanding that ministers cannot be in the room. Equally, I will work with ScotRail to ensure that we get a resolution that leads us to restore services as soon as possible, which takes me back to the convener’s point. We must restore services to allow passengers to get to their places of work or go to late-night concerts, wherever they might be in the country.

I recognise that, right now, passengers are scunnered—I said that yesterday. The services that passengers are experiencing are not good enough, and we need to restore services. However, it is also true to say that we will not get to a restoration of services until we get a resolution between ScotRail and ASLEF, the train drivers union. I am committed to ensuring that we get to that place as quickly as possible to give passengers the reassurance that they need to ensure that nationalisation is working.

Yes, that would be preferable—absolutely.

I might bring in Kevin Gibson on the specifics of the legalities that are involved in that. However, it would of course be for the Scottish ministers to consider and scrutinise the publication of any material from the Auditor General to ensure that we have trains that are running at best value for money and meeting passengers’ demands. It will be incumbent on ministers to scrutinise the detail of that accountability through the reporting process, as happens across a number of different organisations in Government. I do not think that there is any difference in the way in which ScotRail Trains Ltd and Scottish Rail Holdings will be held to account via that process, if that answers the question.

I will bring in Kevin Gibson on the specifics of how it operates elsewhere.

I hope that there will not be a delay, but it is for the UK Government to state its position directly to the committee. The position that it has taken in discussions with the Scottish Government and its officials is that, because the additional clauses relate directly to the authorisation of a high-speed rail project—a reserved matter—legislative consent is not needed. The UK Government has quite a pure interpretation of that. It considers that any impact on devolved matters will be entirely incidental. Our view is that that is too narrow an interpretation of legislative consent, given the potentially significant impact on devolved matters.

I do not want us to get into conflict. There are months, if not years, to resolve the issues, because it is a hybrid bill. Ahead of the meeting, I discussed that with Kevin Gibson. We are not yet clear from the UK Government what the associated final timescales will be, because it is a hybrid bill, which is quite an unusual legislative feature. Kevin Gibson can say more about that, because he is a lawyer.

I do not want to get us into conflict. The associated timescales are in the UK Government’s gift, but Scottish Government officials will work very closely with UK Government officials to get to a resolution, because we all want this to work.

We disagree with the UK Government’s interpretation of the legislation, because it overcuts devolved competence. We can go into some of the specifics of that later. However, we want high-speed rail to work, and we want officials to work together to make sure that it is a success. That should not come at the cost of devolution being eroded, Mr Kerr. I am sure that, as a member of the Parliament, you would agree with that.

No. I do not think that anyone foresaw that that would happen a month after public ownership. As I outlined to you, the convener and the committee in March, I spent a lot of my time during February and March meeting trade union representatives and listening to them to ensure that they were part of our vision going forward. I am still committed to working with them on a number of areas. For example, we have heard from the trade unions that they have concerns about the safety of their staff on our trains. There are also concerns about women’s safety on our trains and concerns about the vision for Scotland’s trains. I want the trade unions to be part of that and to feel as though they are part of it. I am quite clear that they did not feel as though they were part of it under the Abellio franchise.

To answer your point, Ms Lennon, we need to get to a resolution. I do not think that we could have foreseen the situation on 1 April. There might have been rumblings, but I worked very hard to build relationships with our trade unions, so I am quite disappointed by some of the most recent press reports that we are hearing. Ultimately, however, we need to get a resolution between ScotRail, the employer, and ASLEF, the train drivers union, to allow for the restoration of services. I am committed to working with both parties on that to ensure that we get to that point.

The approach that has been taken to similar projects authorised by acts of Parliament has been that building standards and the CAR requirements continue to apply. As I mentioned in my response to Mr Ruskell, both the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Forth Crossing Act 2011 conferred broad powers on the promoter to construct the works but did not disapply CAR or building standards requirements. Given those precedents, we are not currently in a position to recommend that Parliament consents to the disapplication of those regulatory requirements in Scotland.

However, the hybrid bill process in the UK Parliament is a lengthy one, as I have mentioned in response to other committee members. Therefore, we are continuing to discuss those issues with the UK Government, and I am happy to keep the committee updated on the progress of those discussions.