Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

We need a respectful tone in that dialogue as well.

Officials have been working closely with their counterparts in the Department for Transport and the UK Government. Most recently, they met on 19 May, I think. There has been good collaborative working. Good progress has been made on the provisions relating to the Crown estate and Crown lands, and I am grateful to all who were involved with that. I hope to be in a position to write to the committee fairly soon—I hope that that will be later this week—about the matter. Detailed discussions about the water and building regulations and some road aspects will follow.

As I mentioned to Mr Kerr, this is a hybrid bill, so there is enough time available in 2022, and potentially into next year, to work carefully through some of the issues and concerns. Discussions are on-going between Scottish Government officials and those in the UK Government.

The advice that would have been given to the cabinet secretary predates my time in office. I might bring the officials in to respond. I am not averse to sharing that information with the committee but, with regard to the advice that was considered, that would have been given last year.

I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the consultation. However, we need, first of all, to establish what works in the system. It is not all a challenge or a problem. There are some things that are great about our railways. In fact, as Bill Reeve will tell you, there are many things about our railways that are fantastic and that work really well.

We should not throw the baby out with the bath water, but the public clearly faces challenges and it is important to identify where they are. For example, where people feel unsafe returning to using our railways, we need to identify how we can best support them to use the railway network.

To me, the overriding point is that I would like people to feel a sense of pride in ownership of Scotland’s railways. At the end of the day, the trains will be publicly owned. They belong to the people, so they have to be fit for purpose and meet the needs of the travelling public.

I recognise that we have a journey to go on with that, but that is why I committed to the national conversation. It is really important that it is not just a box-ticking exercise and that it is not a case of the railways moving into public ownership and nothing changing. Something will have to change. It should change. However, when we make those changes, the public must feel that they work for them. If they do not work for them, we will have got it wrong and we will have to start again. That is really important. As a Government, we have to listen to and respond to the needs of the public. Public ownership gives us a real opportunity to do that.

As the committee is aware, industrial relations with the railway unions have been a bit fraught in recent months. I have been keen to do my best to listen directly to our railway unions. At the end of term, we had a good meeting on Teams with all the unions together, and, last week and the week before, most of my meetings with the unions were in person. I have been building relationships and listening to them, and I think that a lot of the things that the unions want are also what our passengers want. There is a natural link there, but we need to better understand that in Government and reflect it in the delivery of services.

I think that it has, but I can tell you where we are just now. At the current time, the offer has been made for a full board member, as a statutory place. That would mean that the trade union representative would have a statutory company director position. I know that an offer to that effect has been made to the unions.

I am aware that an individual has been nominated by the four unions, but, because the appointment process has not been concluded, the name has not been made public. Members will understand that I cannot share that information, but I am happy to have further discussions with the unions on the matter. We have discussed it in the meetings that we have had, and I do not think that there is disagreement in that respect. I might be wrong, but I think that a name has been put forward that the unions seem to be content with, and that person would be a full board member and would not be in, say, an observer post.

“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?