Chamber and committees

Yes, that would be preferable—absolutely.

There are two points to make. That is not an accurate description of what has been happening in recent days. On Friday, I spent a considerable part of the day with ScotRail and, yesterday, along with Bill Reeve, I met representatives of ScotRail to discuss some of the challenges of the current situation. However, it is not the case that the Scottish ministers are in the room negotiating with ASLEF; as the employer, ScotRail is in the room. I understand that ASLEF and ScotRail are meeting today to move the talks forward.

It is essential that we restore the previous timetable. However, you will appreciate that ScotRail cannot fulfil the previous timetable, because it does not have enough drivers to do so. ScotRail, like many train operators across the United Kingdom, depends on drivers working on their rest days. Drivers working on their rest days is a historic thing that exists in the rail industry; it has not come into existence since nationalisation. It relies, primarily, on the good will of drivers.

I understand and respect that ASLEF is in dispute with ScotRail. It balloted its members on the pay offer, but this is a separate issue to do with drivers choosing not to work on their rest days. If drivers want to spend time with their families or take part in leisure pursuits, that is, of course, in their gift. However, it means that ScotRail cannot run as many trains as was the case under the previous timetable. That is why ScotRail took the difficult decision to reduce train allocation, hence the reduction in the current timetable.

As minister, I am committed to working with our trade union partners, with whom, as you know from the previous evidence session that I attended, I have spent a lot of time talking about nationalisation, what it means for them and whether they want to be part of the vision. I sincerely hope that they do—they campaigned for a long time for public ownership of Scotland’s trains.

However, we need to get to a resolution of the dispute and we need to get to a better place with train drivers in terms of their availability to work and our ability to, ultimately, restore the timetable. I am working closely with ScotRail to see where we might be able to bring about the restoration of a number of services over the coming weeks and months.

Good morning. As committee members will be aware, ScotRail came under Scottish Government control on 1 April this year, and the Government-owned holding company Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd is overseeing and managing on behalf of the Scottish ministers the delivery of services by its wholly owned subsidiary, ScotRail Trains Ltd. Scottish Rail Holdings is a private limited company that was established under the Companies Act 2006 as an executive non-departmental public body. Scottish Rail Holdings and its subsidiary, ScotRail Trains Ltd, were established by Transport Scotland on behalf of ministers to further the discharge of their duties under section 30 of the Railways Act 1993, with effect from 1 April this year. The Scottish ministers are the sole shareholder of Scottish Rail Holdings.

As a matter of policy, Scottish Rail Holdings, as an executive non-departmental public body, would be expected to have an accountable officer as part of good governance. SRH is not part of the Scottish Administration under the Scotland Act 1998, which means that, for the purposes of the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, the permanent secretary as principal accountable officer is not automatically able to appoint an accountable officer to SRH through a purely administrative exercise. To enable that to happen, we have to make an order under section 483 of the Companies Act 2006, requiring SRH accounts to be audited by the Auditor General for Scotland. That engages the relevant provisions of part 2 of the 2000 act, including the power to designate an accountable officer for SRH under section 15 of that act.

ScotRail Trains Ltd will have its accounts treated as part of the Scottish Rail Holdings group accounts, as it is a subsidiary company under section 479A of the Companies Act 2006.

As I outlined during an evidence session to the committee in March, we were, at that time, finalising the chief executive of SRH being designated as the accountable officer. I also confirmed that we were putting in place an interim arrangement whereby the Transport Scotland AO would remain as AO for SRH until an order under section 483 of the Companies Act 2006 was approved by Parliament. That was done to ensure that SRH was able to operate from 1 April. The section 483 order was laid before Parliament on 29 April and the contingency arrangement, which I have just outlined, will remain in place until the order is approved.

Audit Scotland was consulted during the preparation of the order. It has responded to confirm that the Auditor General is willing to assume the auditing role, and it has assisted with best timings for introduction of the order.

I seek the support of the committee in relation to the order, which is a necessary part of the governance process for SRH to fulfil its functions as an NDPB.

The current service cuts in Scotland relate to an industrial dispute between the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen—ASLEF, the train drivers union—and ScotRail, the employer. As you might know, convener, ASLEF train drivers are refusing to work on their rest days at the moment. As a result, ScotRail took the decision to reduce the number of services, because it does not have enough train drivers to fulfil the previous timetable. Therefore, yesterday, a reduction in the timetable was introduced. However, that is not what the order relates to.

I might bring in Kevin Gibson on the specifics, but I think that the assumption that the regulations should be disapplied is fundamentally wrong. We have not done that in the past, and we see no reason for that to be done in this case. As I said, we have not yet seen the details with regard to the building regulations and the depot in Annandale. Those details need to be forthcoming in order for us to reach a clear view on that, but Kevin Gibson might be able to provide more detail.

I would like it to be settled today, convener. However, as you will be aware, ASLEF is in dispute with ScotRail, the employer, at this time. We need to get to a resolution and I am committed to working with both parties to ensure that we get to a restoration of the previous timetable. However, that depends on both sides coming to a compromise in order to reach a settlement that will meet the needs of all passengers.

Yes.

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.

I might bring in Kevin Gibson on the technicalities, but I should say that the bill is a hybrid bill, so there is time left in 2022, and potentially into 2023, to resolve some of the issues. As Mr Kerr has outlined, we are in agreement with the UK Government on a number of the clauses that require the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament, but the Scottish Government has identified nine relevant clauses in total, in addition to those on which the UK Government has asked the Scottish Parliament for legislative consent.

My officials, supported by legal advice, met the UK Government team to discuss that point after the bill was presented, and the view of the Scottish Government is that the Scottish schedules in the nine clauses that I have mentioned relate to matters that would alter devolved legislative controls and that have a devolved purpose. For example, they might affect the water environment, building standards or planning. In line with section 28(8) of the Scotland Act 1998 and devolution guidance note 10, the Scottish Government’s view is that those clauses require the Scottish Parliament’s consent. Many of the clauses relate to land-use planning. Planning permission is required, and the development of land is regulated for planning purposes, regardless of the nature of the underlying project.

In summary, both Governments have different interpretations of the Sewel convention. The practical implications of the bill are not yet clear. However, as I mentioned, we are working through those issues. This is a hybrid bill so, over the coming months, and potentially into 2023, officials will be working very closely to try to get to a resolution on some of the issues. We support the overall purpose of the bill, but we have reservations about some of the specifics, as I have outlined.

Kevin Gibson, would you like to say more?

Although it might be normal practice in England to disapply environmental regulations for major construction projects, that is not the policy in Scotland, as Mr Ruskell knows. The Scottish Government’s position is that anything that could impact on the water environment must be authorised by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and carried out in such a way as to protect our water environment to the extent that is reasonable. In other Scottish infrastructure projects, the controlled activities regulations requirements have not been disapplied. For example, the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Forth Crossing Act 2011 were hybrid bills, passed by the Scottish Parliament, that gave the Government the powers to construct the Borders railway and the Queensferry crossing respectively.

The overarching aim of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 and building regulations is to secure the health, safety and welfare of building occupants. Therefore, further details about the depot are needed to evaluate how the proposals would impact on the building standards that would normally apply. Again, that will be discussed in detail by the relevant teams, and a new position will be reached with the relevant ministers, including, in this instance, my colleague Patrick Harvie, given his responsibilities in that area.