Seòmar agus comataidhean

Monica Lennon raises a really important point. I saw the reports on the issue at the time. I have not yet met the BTP to discuss the matter, but I intend to raise it with the BTP. It seems to be a specific issue in the west of Scotland at this time. I am not sighted on any similar statistics in Fife, for example, or in other parts of the country.

I would be really keen to support wider work with schools. As the member will know, our schools are really important places to try to challenge and tackle antisocial behaviour. We also need to ensure that communities’ voices are heard when things are not working. On our rail network, in particular, staff are often presented with challenges—they might have to move people on, for example.

I had a really good conversation with Mick Hogg about that two weeks ago, and ScotRail has an approach whereby it will use teams of staff. It is remobilising staff to get out and about and to move people on in cases of antisocial behaviour. I had a conversation with Mick and others about that, and they were of the view that, sometimes, when these teams come out, they just move the behaviour elsewhere, which does not help to contain or tackle the behaviour.

I would like to take up the issue with the BTP because of our shared responsibilities. Also, as we move forward with public ownership, Ms Lennon is absolutely correct that we need to ensure that there is safety on board, not only for passengers but for staff.

The wider issue of tougher action that Ms Lennon raises was raised with me by the unions in considering potential legislation. I will bring Bill Reeve in on that point, because we have not raised it further with the unions but I am not ruling it out. If there is an opportunity to consider how we might better support staff in that endeavour, I am keen to examine all options.

My memory of the discussions with the unions is that there was a feeling that it is unfair that the legislation does not extend to railway workers in the way that it covers other parts of society.

I do not want to exclude it from the national conversation but it will probably not part of it, because I want to follow the matter up with justice officials. We will do that after the committee meeting, and I would be happy to share information with Ms Lennon on it. We might have a specific legislative fix that might not be part of our wider national conversation. Although I do not want to exclude it at this point, they are probably two separate things.

As Ms Lennon will know, it is not off the table, because we are still in negotiations. I have discussed a number of things with the unions, not least their views on ticket office closures. We are having conversations at the moment, and those engagements are on-going directly between officials, ScotRail and the unions, but, as I have said, the issue is not off the table. I have heard Mick Hogg’s comments on the matter, and I think that the committee would be surprised if we took ScotRail into public ownership and did not have a no compulsory redundancy policy. However, we are not there yet, because we have not established a pay deal. I would be very keen to get to that place with the unions, but, as those negotiations are on-going, I do not want to prejudge anything.

I am not personally in favour, but the matter is still on the table, because the negotiations are on-going.

As I mentioned in my answer to Natalie Don, I have received a submission that sets out a number of options. I will be arriving at a decision on the matter imminently, and I will be happy to share that with the committee.

The current associated timescales might take us to 2023, but I am keen to see results sooner than that. I will speak to officials about how we can do that and how we best join up the different modes of public transport so that we do not look just narrowly at rail travel. It is important that we do the preparatory work in that respect.

We should also be cognisant of the fact that travel patronage patterns are not what they were two years ago and not what I hope they will be in two years’ time. As far as looking at the data is concerned, it is difficult to prejudge how the public might feel in, say, three months’ time. As I mentioned earlier, another wave of coronavirus, such as omicron or some equivalent, might put people off returning to public transport. We need to be cognisant of that, too.

I do not have timescales to share with Ms Lennon just now. However, as I have said, I have the submission that has been made, and once I have made a decision on what the fair fares review will look like, I will be more than happy to share that with the committee. Given that we are in the planning and preparatory stages, I do not have that detail to hand just now.

I am happy for you to do so. I was of the view that it has been.

The answer is accountability to ministers. The holder of the ScotRail franchise is now accountable directly to ministers, and ministers are accountable to the Parliament and to this committee.

Mr Kerr, you talked about passenger need. I think that in the debates and conversations that we have in the chamber and in this committee, there is a place for us to discuss how we meet passenger need. It is a hugely important issue.

You also touched upon a number of different challenges that we have talked about during this morning’s meeting. I am alive to all of them, but we have to be pragmatic and realistic here. The fact is that people walked away from—or were not able to use—our railways during the pandemic, because they were being told to stay at home by the good public health advice that was given. At the same time, however, we were providing emergency funding to allow the railways to continue. As a result, we need to look at the sustainability of the revenue structures that we have in place for our railways.

There are no proposals for fare increases. I think that what you are talking about is a historical point that was raised at the committee’s previous evidence-taking session when it was mentioned that fares had increased by 3.8 per cent. There are no proposals for future fare increases that I am aware of. As for ticket office closures, I have given an undertaking to the unions that I will work with them on that issue, because I recognise the strength of feeling in that respect.

I think that all of this comes back to what will be different with this new approach. It is about accountability and ensuring not only that ministers are held to account but that we deliver a railway service that best meets communities’ needs. As a Fife MSP, I know about some of the challenges that we faced with the Abellio contract in the years leading up to where we are now. Indeed, those challenges were very real. There were not enough seats on trains; trains were being cancelled; and there were delays. I am very much alive to all of that. Do I think that all of that will go away with public ownership? I hope that some of it will, but at least there will now be accountability to Parliament and ministerial oversight of the process. Those things are hugely important.

Secondly, some of the people will be the same, but they are experts in their field, and they are the people whom we would want to be in charge of running ScotRail Trains Ltd. The new framework agreements, which of course will be shared with the committee as and when they are published, will allow for ministerial oversight. I think that that is the main difference here. As ministers are accountable to Parliament, and as ScotRail Trains Ltd is accountable to ministers, there will be greater democracy in how we hope to run Scotland’s trains. We have not had that under the franchising network system with Abellio and, as I have said, I recognise some of the challenges that have existed in relation to that in the past.

Bill Reeve might want to say more about the opportunities that this approach presents but, to my mind, it is all about accountability.

We have seen a complete shift in patronage, with people using railways at the weekend and not as much during the week, when they work from home. We have to be cognisant of that when we consider the delivery of the timetable and what that means for the travelling public. Would I like to see more trains in the future? Absolutely, but to justify that action, we need to get patronage up to its level prior to the pandemic.

I hope that we will get to that position, but it all depends on patronage, which in turn depends on people’s behaviour and whether they choose to work from home. Hybrid working is here to stay. Indeed, we have an example of that in today’s committee meeting—the Parliament has been a great example of hybrid working throughout the pandemic. However, we cannot account for what that might mean in the future. Prior to the pandemic, none of us as politicians could have imagined working remotely, and yet we have all learned to cope with it over the past two years.

I would like our railway provision to get back on to a more sustainable footing, but that will require passenger demand to increase. We need to reflect that better in timetabling in the future.