Chamber and committees

That is a fair observation from David Torrance. As he highlighted, there are a range of different ways in which islanders can get involved in some of the board activity more generally, without necessarily sitting on the boards of the public bodies themselves. A good example of that is the CalMac ferries community board, which is chaired by Angus Campbell, who is one of the petitioners. Since January, I have worked closely with Angus on a number of issues with the Clyde and Hebrides ferries network. That board is a good example of how islanders’ views can be taken into account, and there is not just the communities board for ferry services; a plethora of different boards exist in our island communities, particularly in relation to ferry services.

The committee might be aware that, in my update to Parliament on 8 September in relation to project Neptune, I outlined an alternative approach to resilience in relation to ferry breakdowns on the network, which looks to engage with a wide range of organisations as and when there are prolonged periods of disruption on the Clyde and Hebrides network. Members will be aware of some of the challenges that have occurred in recent months.

For example, over the recess, I convened a resilience meeting. That considered engaging a number of different representative boards on the relevant island communities—not just people who work in CalMac and CMAL, but people who live in our island communities. As the minister, I hold a responsibility to engage with island communities when there are sustained periods of disruption.

There are other forums in which islanders can have their views taken into account. One is the ferries community board, which I mentioned, but other boards and mechanisms exist in island communities.

There is a requirement for us to consider what more can be done. There are upcoming appointments to the David MacBrayne board—I discussed that with Fran Pacitti prior to the committee—and the process for those appointments will be shared with me later today. I am keen to safeguard the capacity to make progress in the future. I have given examples of two recent appointments that have evidenced progress in the past year, but it is important that we continue to drive that progress as a Government. I look forward to receiving further information on those new appointments later today, and I would be more than happy to share with the committee further detail of what that process looks like.

No. I am content to move on.

The issue of a cross-Government approach does not sit with me, as the Minister for Transport. I am not sure which minister it sits with. I will take that idea away and speak to officials about how we can better deliver that, because I recognise the tension that Paul Sweeney has identified.

There tend to be demographic and gender elements to board appointments, and, if we do not get the right people into those posts, it skews the representation of the public. There is an ask of Government around public appointments and how we can upskill the population and empower people to apply for those positions. I will take the matter away and speak to officials about taking a whole-Government approach. The responsibility does not sit with me, but I recognise the tension between getting the necessary skills and experience and taking cognisance of, in this instance, islanders’ views on the delivery of lifeline services.

Thank you.

Absolutely. I recognise that we can do more in this space in relation to training and supporting the development of the skills and expertise that are required for such appointments. Fran Pacitti might want to say more on why that is so important, but I recognise that there are challenges in that respect.

Before I came to give evidence, I was not aware that the committee was all male. I look at it and wonder whether there might be more that all parties could do on female representation in the Parliament. There is a challenge for the Government in delivering that, and there is always a challenge for political parties in matters of representation. Fran may wish to say more about skills and expertise and about the current expectation of how the bodies would engage with and support the development of skills in the future.

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.

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.