Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.