Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

There is a plan. If there were no plan, there would not be enough trains to allow us to run the network. It is essential that we have a plan in place. Bill Reeve will come in on the details.

As you will know, we have already announced our plans for electrification of the Glasgow to Barrhead line by December 2023, and the new Levenmouth line by spring 2024. We are also making good progress on finalising our proposals for electrification of the East Kilbride, Fife and Borders lines, and we continue to develop our decarbonisation plans across the entire Scottish rail network.

More broadly, decarbonising transport is one of the six themes that have been set out in the draft “Strategic Transport Projects Review 2: Summary Report”, which was, I think, published in February. I know that STPR2 was mentioned at the committee’s evidence session last week.

Procurement of new rolling stock forms an integral part of the decarbonisation action plan that Ms Hyslop mentioned, and we are building on the track record of electrification of Scotland’s rail network. Pre-pandemic, 75 per cent of passenger journeys and 45 per cent of freight services in Scotland were made on electric services. That is good work, but there is clearly more to do. To some extent, the pandemic has given us impetus to focus on driving that improvement further. Transport Scotland, Network Rail and ScotRail are working in partnership with officials to ensure that the programme moves forward.

That speaks to the wider opportunities, which Ms Hyslop touched on, to support passengers who might not have considered using rail in the past to travel on our networks, knowing that they are clean and decarbonised. Given its carbon footprint, people might be more inclined to choose rail now than they were in the past.

Bill Reeve will say more about the decarbonisation action plan specifically.

I think that a number of things will improve when ScotRail moves into public ownership. We have to have a railway that best meets customers’ needs. The challenges that you have just highlighted were at my doorstep when I was first appointed, which is why I was very keen to reshape some of the narrative around this in my statement.

The first thing that I as the minister need to address is the issue of industrial relations with our trade unions. I have spent a lot of time in the past few weeks meeting the railway unions and listening to their needs, because it is hugely important that, in the shift to public ownership of railways, we take the trade unions with us. I appreciate that there might be more questions on that matter later in this session.

With regard to service cuts, which you also mentioned, you will appreciate and understand—and we might come to this later in relation to the ScotRail timetable—that there were reductions in timetabling to reflect passenger demand. As we move forward, what we cannot account for—although we are trying to—is how patronage will be impacted by the pandemic as it plays out. At this moment in time, weekends are busier than weekdays, and as a result, ScotRail’s operation of its timetable has changed to reflect passenger demand. We want more people to come back to our railways and I want to support such moves, so we will need to look at that issue in due course. Indeed, ScotRail is absolutely committed to doing that.

As for ticket office closures, you will be aware that some of those proposals have been looked at again and that, as a result, ticket office opening hours have been increased and some ticket offices will now not be closed. I have not yet made a final decision on the matter, because I want to speak to the trade unions about it. They have some pretty strong views on it, as you will understand, and I am very alive to some of the challenges around accessibility and women’s safety.

It is worth pointing out, though, that there has been no consultation on ticket offices for over 30 years and that the way in which folk use our railways has changed in that time. People now buy their tickets online and are more likely to use tickets at train stations, for example, but we should not discount the need for that wider debate about ticket offices and their place in a modern railway network. Fundamentally, a railway in public ownership has to best meet passenger need. We as a Government need to be more responsive and public ownership will allow us to do that.

Bill Reeve might want to respond to the other points that were raised.

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.