Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee – 19 March 2024

Good morning, and welcome to the 11th meeting  in 2024 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport   Committee. The first item on the agenda is  consideration of whether to take items 5,   6 and 7 in private. Item 5 is consideration  of the evidence that we will hear today on  

The United Kingdom Automated Vehicles Bill;  item 6 is to consider the evidence that we   will hear today on Scotland’s railways; and item  7 is to consider correspondence relating to the   appointments to the Scottish Land Commission.  Do we agree to take those items in private? Our next item of business is an evidence session  

With the Scottish Government on  the UK Automated Vehicles Bill. The bill implements the recommendations of a joint   report by the Law Commission of England and Wales  and the Scottish Law Commission on the regulation   of automated vehicles. On 20 December, the  Scottish Government lodged a legislative  

Consent memorandum that reserved its position  on whether the Scottish Parliament’s consent   should be given. On 29 February, a supplementary  memorandum was lodged, which recommended consent   to all the provisions outlined in the LCM,  other than clause 50. I note for the record  

That there seems to be a difference of view  between the Scottish and UK Governments about   whether certain clauses require legislative  consent and that clause 50 is one of those. Our committee has been designated lead  committee for scrutiny of the LCM. In the  

Limited time that is available to report, we are  having this one evidence session with the Scottish   Government. We have also had written evidence  from the Confederation of Passenger Transport. I am pleased to welcome Fiona Hyslop, the  Cabinet secretary for Transport. She is  

Joined today by Liana Waclawski, a Scottish  Government lawyer; Jim Wilson, the licensing   team leader for the Scottish Government;  Oi Hang Chu, the UK bill and legislative   consent manager for Transport Scotland; and  George Henry, the operational manager for   road safety policy and education for Transport  Scotland. Thank you all for joining us today.

Cabinet secretary, I will give you the  opportunity to make a brief opening statement. Thank you for inviting me to discuss  the LCM and supplementary LCM for   the UK Government’s Automated Vehicles Bill. The bill implements the recommendations  of a four-year review of regulation of  

Automated vehicles that was carried  out jointly by the Law Commission   of England and Wales and the Scottish  Law Commission. The bill prescribes a   new framework for the safe deployment of  self-driving vehicles in Great Britain. Autonomous vehicles represent a vital part  of mobility of the future, and the focus on  

Public safety is required to support that. I  welcome the necessary legislative framework,   albeit that there is concern over some clauses.  The late engagement by the UK Government on the   bill has also been challenging, given the  complexity, novelty and technical nature of  

The bill. The Scottish Government considers that  a number of provisions engage the LCM process. Clause 40 will require Scottish ministers to  provide the Secretary of State with reports from   police and local authorities. That is in line with  our current policy on sharing safety information  

With partner agencies to allow us all to learn  from incidents. Therefore, we recommend consent. Clauses 46 to 51 establish the legal  liability of the “user in charge”,   who is a person in a position to exercise  control of a vehicle that is being operated  

By an authorised automated function. The  Scottish Government is in disagreement   with the UK Government, as we consider those  clauses to relate to devolved matters. Our   view is that determining the liability  of a user in charge, or any other person,   for devolved offences involving the use of  a vehicle would be within the legislative  

Competence of the Scottish Parliament.  However, we agree with the policy position   of the user-in-charge provisions and recommend  consent to clauses 46 to 49 and clause 51 only. Clause 50 provides the Secretary of State with the  power to change or clarify existing legislation,  

Including acts of the Scottish Parliament, without  a mechanism to get consent from or consult the   Scottish Ministers or Scottish Parliament,  so we do not recommend consent on clause 50. Clauses 82 to 90, excluding clause 86, provide  new powers for Scottish ministers in relation  

To a system of interim passenger permits over the  use of automated vehicles within the private hire   and taxi regulatory regime. Those clauses are an  appropriate approach that reflect the devolved   nature of private hire and taxi licensing and,  therefore, we recommend legislative consent.

I conclude by saying that extensive engagement  has been taken forward by officials with the UK   Government’s Department for Transport, the  Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service   and Police Scotland. That ensured that we  were provided with the expert advice to  

Allow us to consider and take an informed  view on the policy intent of the bill. Thanks, minister. Committee  members have some questions,   the first of which will come from Mark Ruskell. Good morning, and thanks for that explanation. I want to ask about clause 50. My  understanding is that there might  

Be certain traffic regulations that the  UK Secretary of State for Transport could   choose to amend. Could you go into a bit  more detail about what the scope of that   power might be and what your concerns  are, specifically around the nature of  

Those regulations and the changes that may  or may not happen in Scotland as a result? I ask you to bear with me as I explain  the position. I might bring colleagues in,   too, as the issue is fairly complex.

Clause 50 contains a broad power for the Secretary  of State to change or clarify the application of   existing relevant legislation, including acts  of the Scottish Parliament, to a user in charge,   and states that that legislation is relevant if  it relates to the driving or use of a vehicle.  

The UK Government maintains that those provisions  are reserved because they relate to the subject   matter of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which  is reserved under the Scotland Act 1998,   in so far as it is concerned with the use  of vehicles on roads. The UK Government  

Acknowledges that the provisions will apply  to devolved dynamic driving offences but   considers that impacts on devolved matters  are incidental to that reserved matter. In   the most recent letter—as you can appreciate,  there has been correspondence back and forwards   between us and the UK Government—dated  13 March 2024 from the UK Government,  

This has been summarised as the reserved  policy on use of automated vehicles on roads. The Scottish Government considers that that takes  too broad a view of the reservation. Any and all   regulation of the use of conventional  vehicles is not reserved. For example,  

Traffic regulation under the Road Traffic  Regulation Act 1984 is not reserved. Therefore,   any and all regulation of the use of automated  vehicles is not a reserved matter. Our view is   that the provisions in the Road Traffic Act  1988 that are quoted by the UK Government in  

Relation to the construction and use of vehicles  are connected with the regulation of minimum   standards for the safe use of vehicles. That  is why part 1 deals with the regulatory regime. I will conclude on this point. The  provisions of this user-in-charge immunity,  

Which is dealt with in clauses 46 to 51, do not  appear to relate to the regulation of minimum   standards for the safe use of vehicles. Instead,  the Scottish Government’s view is that the primary   purpose of those provisions is to clarify  liability for traffic offences. In the case  

Of clause 50, that is civil penalty contraventions  of persons in an equivalent position to the driver   of a conventional vehicle. Accordingly, modifying  offences to remove or clarify liability, which   clause 50 gives powers to the UK Government  to do in reserved and devolved areas,  

Cannot be incidental. Rather, it appears to  be the primary reason why those provisions   are being made. Some examples of what would be  in the legislative competence of the Scottish   Parliament include issues in relation to  civil penalties, but also bus-lane issues,  

Things that are to do with offences under  devolved legislation and offences that would   be part of devolved areas. Those are the areas  that the provision would allow the UK Government   to legislate on or to make provision for in the  future in relation to the user-in-charge immunity.

I know that that is quite complex and I apologise  to colleagues if I have not quite got that   right—they can correct me if that is the case—but  that is the explanation of what the difference of  

Opinion is. We think that it is a genuine issue  of concern. I know that the committee stage of   the bill is taking place today, and that is one of  the issues that is being debated there, as well. I am just wondering whether there is  any more detail or any more examples  

That you can give. Is there a potential  for divergence in the way that that   liability is treated across the UK?  There is a point of principle here,   which is that the Scottish Parliament needs to be  able to decide on this, but I am just wondering  

Whether there are any practical issues that  may arise in relation to that liability regime. My colleagues can give any examples of  practical issues that they want to mention,   but I will say that this is a framework bill.  There is a desire to have a consistent approach  

Across the UK for what is a new policy area for  automated vehicles. We agree with that approach,   which makes sense. However, when it applies to  devolved areas that is where we think that there   needs to be, at the very least, consultation of  Scottish ministers about issues that may impact  

On us. Of course, the user-in-charge immunity is  a brand-new concept, but the issue about what can   happen to the vehicle in respect of devolved areas  is similar to what might happen in respect of   a vehicle if it had been driven by a human  being. Therefore, it is the consequences of  

That and the penalties or the civil offences  that are at issue. I will ask colleagues— I ask you to help me, as this issue seems quite  abstract. I am still trying to get round the fact  

That I will get into a car and there will be no  driver and I will put my life in the hands of a   computer, which I have some fears about—although  people may say that about my driving anyway. What  

I am trying to work out is what an example of an  offence would be. If one of your officials could   give a real-life example that I can understand, it  would probably make things less abstract for me. I was about to bring in George Henry, who  will, I hope, help to illustrate what this  

Could mean in practice, which might bring  it to life. I know that, conceptually,   this might be quite a challenging area, but  we do need to move with the times, convener,   and there are already automated vehicles in  use, so we need the framework legislation,  

But we also need to set it out in a sensible way  and anticipate what the implications will be. This will include various devolved legislation  in the criminal sphere in relation to dynamic   driving offences such as contraventions  to traffic orders under the Road Traffic  

Regulation Act 1984. Speed limits could  be one of them, as well as other examples,   including low-emission zones as well as parking  and bus-lane contraventions. If the user in charge   in the vehicle is travelling along a road and  the speed limit is different, they could end up  

Having a speeding offence that is attached  to them when they have not been in charge   of the vehicle. Again, that relates to devolved  powers that sit within the Scottish Parliament. Just help me. The user in charge is  muggins—me—driving the vehicle, and,  

If I park in a bus lane or I enter an LEZ,  I will have committed an offence. However,   if it is an automated vehicle, I  am not in charge of the vehicle,   so the responsibility lies with somebody  else. Is that what you are saying? Yes—responsibility will lie with the manufacturer.

What I do not understand is why there is any  difference or why there is a difficulty here. We agree with you, because we think  that, conceptually, it is the same thing,   whether the act involves you as an individual  or the automated vehicle. However, the UK  

Government is saying that there is a difference  and that, because there is an automated driver,   the offence does not apply in the same way. You  are right; that is why we agree with you that— No, I understand that if you have one vehicle that  is designed to be used across the United Kingdom  

And it an offence is committed because of some  fault in the software, the responsibility cannot   lie with the person who is nominally in charge  of the vehicle but not driving it at the time. Yes, that is correct, because the problem would  be with the vehicle and the manufacturer of the  

Vehicle. The issue with clause 50 is about  changes to devolved legislation. It would   give the UK Government powers over speeding  or other aspects that would be offences. Did the 1988 act anticipate automated vehicles? That is the problem. I suspect that it did  not. Therefore, this is retrospective. How  

Do you fit in what is novel legislation in  a situation where you are bolting it on to   existing traffic provisions? Quite clearly,  many of the existing traffic provisions are   devolved. All we are trying to do is to respect  those devolved issues. You bring up an important  

Point that I have not referenced, which is  the need to review the legislation precisely   because it is new legislation. It is an issue  that we have raised with the UK Government. The UK Government says that clause 38 is  sufficient because it reviews the practice  

And the experience of automated  vehicles, whereas we think that,   because this is a framework bill, the secondary  regulations will be important areas as well. The   UK Government has said that it will engage  with Police Scotland and the Crown Office,  

But it is new territory. Therefore, we think  that a more established formal review of the   legislation will be needed precisely because  we have a new piece of legislation that is   working with old pieces of legislation in  a brand new area that is novel to us all.

We could get into the inadequacies  of framework legislation if you like,   but I trod on George’s toes, as it  were, when he was speaking. Sorry,   George—do you want to  complete what you were saying? I will just try to provide an explanation or an  example. There will be devolved legislation that  

Has been brought in either by roads authorities or  even through the Scottish Parliament that clause   50 allows the Secretary of State to change.  That is the reason why we are not supportive   of that. This Parliament could make a decision  to implement a measure for good reasons—such as  

A low-emission zone in an area—that could  potentially be changed through clause 50. Thanks. Mark—it was your question, so back to you. It was my question, indeed—you  have done well to dine out on it.

The position is clear from my point of view. It  is a complex area, and it is a new and emerging   technology, but it would be odd to have two  sets of rules, effectively: a set of rules for   automated vehicles and a set of liabilities and  regulations relating to that; and a completely  

Different set of rules for everybody else. It  feels like there is the potential for mismatch.   I hope that that would never happen, but clause  50 raises the spectre that that might happen,   which would be problematic. If that summarises  your concerns, along with the real examples  

That you have just given us, I can understand  where the Scottish Government is coming from. Yes, it does. I think that clarity is what is needed  right now rather than a confusing   introduction of a technology that apparently has  a different set of rules from everything else.

There is the potential for change in the future,  and, if we are to have consistency across the   UK, there should be a basic assumption that the UK  Government will talk to us about those changes or   consult us formally. That is all that is being  asked for by the Scottish Government. We do not  

Think that that is unreasonable, bearing in  mind that we are giving consent to the rest   of the bill. The UK Government would probably not  want to consider clauses 46 to 51, for example,   to be LCM issues, but we do, although, as it  happens, we agree with the policy content,  

So we are not objecting to the them, apart from  clause 50, for the reasons that you have set out. There are lots of questions. Next, we have Monica  Lennon followed by Ben Macpherson, then Bob Doris. I think that my questions will be quite boring  now, compared with what we have just heard.

We know that the bill will create a new system  for the regulation of bus and taxi services that   are provided using automated vehicles. Cabinet  secretary, can you tell us a little bit more   about the Scottish Government’s consultation  of bus and taxi industry representatives on  

The proposals? What key issues emerged from  that and how have any concerns been addressed? With regard to the consultation, you will remember  that this work has taken a number of years;   it was the Scottish Law Commission that did  the work and conducted the consultation,  

And there is probably a list somewhere  of the people whom it consulted. We should remember that this is  a UK Government bill. Quite often   legislation comes out of Law Commission reports,   and this legislation has come out of its  recommendations, too. However, I will bring  

In Jim Wilson to talk about the issues and what  I suspect will be a need for on-going attention   to be paid to licensing issues with regard  to the taxi and bus industry in this respect. I thank Ms Lennon for the question.

We have had pretty strong engagement with a  range of stakeholders in relation to taxi and   private hire car policy more generally,  so we have that pool of key stakeholders   that we can tap into for regulations  that will come further down the line.

Some of the concerns from a policy-making  perspective that I want to highlight to the   committee generally revolve around the need to  think about unintended consequences. Perhaps I   can use an analogy from the retail sector; I am  sure that, when self-scanning till points came in,  

Retail workers would have had some concerns about  the impact on their jobs and livelihoods if the   store’s intention was simply for the customer  to go to the self-scanning point. Similarly,   what about those who rely on taxis and private  hire car licensing and who make some provision  

In their communities for travel from  point A to point B? What if, suddenly,   there is a real desire for behavioural  change so that no driver is required?   We need to be mindful of the impact not only on  citizens but on the taxi sector more generally.

Indeed, I remember a debate in Parliament  many months ago on the challenges with   providing taxi services in Glasgow. From an  employment perspective, technology might be a   wonderful thing, but we need to be mindful of  the sectors that will be directly impacted by it.

Perhaps I can give you a flavour of  some of the key stakeholders with   whom we are engaging. In view of the fact that  this would disapply the taxi and private hire car   licensing provisions, we have a strong working  relationship with Society of Local Authority  

Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland, which  provides the legal advice to licensing boards   for alcohol and licensing authorities for civic  licensing, including taxis and private hire   cars. We also have good engagement with  a range of other stakeholders, including   representatives from Unite the union, private hire  car operators and some key taxi stakeholders, too.

I will be brief, but for me, there are two key  points, the first of which is in relation to   accessibility. I appreciate that the devil  will be in the detail when it comes to the   regulation-making powers, but we just want to  ensure that there are no unintended consequences  

And that services that have no driver do not have  an impact on accessibility for those who want to   use them. We need to look at policy development  through that equality lens, as we go forward. Secondly and more generally—this picks up on Mr  Ruskell’s point—I would say that another concern  

Is consistency of approach. If we have an interim  permit regime, it will look odd to an operator   with a UK-wide presence if the system in England  and Wales is completely different from that in   Scotland. We absolutely need to do what is right  for Scottish policy interests, but we must also  

Closely collaborate and work with the Department  for Transport on the make-up of the regime. The communication channels are well in place  with regard to engaging with taxi and private   hire car stakeholders but, as I have said, we  need to go wider than that and ensure that, when  

We are trying to develop or design a new system,  we place users at the heart of that development. Thank you, Mr Wilson. That was helpful. I  am encouraged to hear that there has been   perhaps not formal consultation but  wide engagement. You also mentioned  

A number of key stakeholders including  unions, whose involvement is important. Given what you have said, I have a wider question.  Obviously, there are the provisions in this   bill—which is not a Scottish Government bill—but,  more generally, concerns have been raised about  

The impact of automated vehicles on workers. Jim  Wilson gave the good example of self-scanning   checkouts in supermarkets. I am sure that we  have all had our ups and downs with those. I believe that, in Scotland, there was a  trial involving self-driving buses in 2023,  

And concerns were raised about what such a  move might mean for workers not just from   a safety perspective but for future workforce  planning. Cabinet secretary, could you speak to   the issue of workforce planning? We know  that there is a shortage of bus drivers,  

But have you picked up on any other  particular issues? On Mr Wilson’s   point about the importance of collaboration and  discussion with the Department for Transport,   are you satisfied that there is good dialogue  with the UK Government on these matters?

There were quite a lot of questions in there,  and I will try to recall a number of them. The CAVForth project ran from May 2019,  with the bus service itself operating   from May to August 2023. The partners in the  project were Fusion Processing, Stagecoach,  

Alexander Dennis, Edinburgh Napier University and  Bristol Robotics Laboratory, and I think that it   was supported through Innovate UK.  Transport Scotland has not been   directly involved in anything subsequently, but  a number of trials are taking place in different   parts of the UK, so exchange and monitoring  in that respect will be really important.

I am trying to remember your  other questions. Jim, do you   want to come in on anything that  you might have been asked about? Ms Lennon asked two questions  about the workforce ramifications,   which is a hugely important point  that needs to be worked through.

Again, it will come as no surprise  if I say that, when I was thinking   about the opportunities offered by  this framework bill—and they are   significant—I was thinking, too, of the  need to be mindful of the safety aspect.  

When they take this leap of faith and go into  a vehicle without a driver, citizens will want   to have absolute confidence that safety  is at the heart of the permitting regime. I will be brief, but I think it worth drawing  the attention of committee members to one of  

The key recommendations in the Law  Commission report, which called for “A new in-use safety assurance scheme to  provide regulatory oversight of automated   vehicles throughout their lifetimes to ensure they  continue to be safe and comply with road rules.” We recognise safety of passengers, and certainly  those who use private hire cars and taxis,  

As being paramount and, as the bill progresses,  there will be an opportunity to have wide-ranging   discussions with the Department for Transport on  ensuring that safety remains at the heart of the   process. A change will be required if we are to  persuade the general public that this is the right  

Way to go, because I think that there will be  nervousness among certain individuals about moving   from the safety of the vehicles that they drive  to jumping into a vehicle that has no driver. I think that that is where the user-in-charge  aspect becomes quite important, because it means  

That somebody else is in the vehicle. The vehicle  might be automated, but there will be times where   there might be an instruction from, say, the  computer that there needs to be a transition and   a person needs to take over, because of whatever  circumstance. As for deployment of people and the  

Issue of drivers working, I think that there  is likely to be a transition, with control   going to a user in charge instead of the vehicle  just driving itself, with no other human there. With regard to socialising the issue around  the implications for jobs, we all have a  

Responsibility to raise such matters. Last  June, I think, the Parliament had a debate,   in which I took part as a back bencher,  on artificial intelligence and what it   means generally. We cannot give you all the  answers, because it is a developing area,  

But if we do not prepare for it and anticipate  things, the market will just take over. That   is the interesting aspect—that is, how you  regulate in this sphere—and that is what the   UK Government has done after the law commissions’  quite extensive study of the issue and report.

Thanks, Monica. I call Ben Macpherson,  to be followed by Bob Doris. Good morning to the cabinet  secretary and her officials. I want to go back to clause 50 of the  bill, about which I share the concerns   that you have expressed on behalf of the  Government. You said that there had been  

Some engagement and correspondence prior  to the bill’s publication, but I would be   grateful if you could comment further on  how meaningful that engagement with the UK   Government was on clause 50, both prior to and  since publication, and what the timescales were.

The bill was announced in the King’s speech,  and it is fair to say that it is moving quite   rapidly, even though it was anticipated  as a result of the collective work of the   law commissions. The time period in  that respect has been quite tight.

There are issues not just for ourselves but  for the Crown Office, Police Scotland and   policy officials. In that short period of  time, there has been as much engagement at   official level as there could be; I have to say,  though, that I had not spoken to the minister in  

Charge—although we have had various pieces of  correspondence, some of which came in the past   week. If that correspondence has not been copied  to the committee, I am happy to have that done. In our engagement, the main points that we have  been reinforcing include the fact that clauses 46  

To 51 fall within devolved areas—although I  say again that we will agree to them all from   a legislative consent point of  view. The UK Government, though,   disputes our view. There are also issues  with regard to review and clause 38 not  

Being sufficient, because it reviews only  what is happening on the roads rather than   whether the legislation is fit for  purpose or needs to be reviewed. That has been the tenor of our engagement. We have  been as co-operative as we can be. Nevertheless,  

As I have been trying to explain, the regulations  and secondary legislation will, I suspect, be as   important as the substantive framework aspects  of the UK bill. That legislation will be needed. As I have said, the bill is moving fairly  rapidly; indeed, it had been in its committee  

Stage in the House of Commons this morning.  I suspect that this is a staging post in what   will be a continuous dialogue, but perhaps my  other colleagues might want to add something. Before you bring anyone else  in, cabinet secretary, I want  

To go back to your generous offer with regard  to the correspondence that you mentioned. The   committee would like to see that, because  I think that it would be useful for us. I also want to add that if the Government wants  to relay any further comment to the committee  

Following the committee stage in the House of  Commons, we would be interested in that, too. It strikes me that the engagement prior to  the bill’s publication with regard to devolved   matters was not as meaningful as it could  have been. Would that be a fair assessment?

It could have been better, but I recognise  that this is a complex area. At the heart   of this is a failure to differentiate between  the technology of the automated vehicle and   the rules of the road. The rules of  the road are, in effect, devolved,  

Whereas the monitoring of the technology is, as we  appreciate, a reserved matter under the provisions   in the Road Traffic Act 1988 on standards of  vehicles. The issue is that now there is this   bridge to the vehicle becoming the driver as  opposed to what happens in the cars that you and I  

Drive, regulation of which is reserved. The issue  is the interaction with the rules of the road. I do not want to put officials in the  position of having to say where they   are with that discussion. To be  fair, it is a challenging area. We empathise on the challenge.

I am just disappointed that there is no  appreciation from the UK Government that, in   such a challenging, new and novel area, there  must be a good understanding of such issues and   some preparedness to consult us on clause 50.  That addition would show that it understood  

The difference with regard to devolved competence  under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which   is the traffic offences legislation—that is, the  rules of the road. Those rules are still devolved   matters, not reserved, and that clause opens  up an opportunity for them to become reserved.

I do not even know whether that is the UK  Government’s intention. It might well be,   but we might start to get completely  conspiratorialist about the reach of   the UK Government’s powers. Perhaps  I will just leave it at that. Mr Henry was very helpful in bringing  clause 50 to life, because it can be  

Quite abstract until we see the detail. When  I was listening to some of the explanations,   I was furiously googling bus-lane infringements  to see what the clause could mean in practice   and I think—I could have it wrong—that the  Scottish Parliament sets the maximum fine  

For breach of a bus lane by statutory  instrument to a maximum of £60, with   variations of £30 if you pay early and  an additional 50 per cent if you do not. In the rest of the UK, the fine is £130 in London,  

And I think it is up to £70 elsewhere. Just  hold that thought for a second. If clause 50   was applied to automated vehicles and used to set  the fines regime for infringement across the UK,   could we end up with a two-tier system in  Scotland, in which drivers of vehicles pay  

One set of fines and the liable individual for  the automated vehicle pays under a different   fines regime? Is that a two-tier system  that would be undesirable within Scotland? Yes, and that is exactly what  clause 50 could lead to. I am   not saying that it will lead to it, but it could.

Some local authorities have requested to increase  the amounts of fines for bus-lane infringement in   Scotland, which are a devolved matter. What you  have described is a good example of what the UK   Government bill, as it is currently drafted,  would enable. If you had a judgmental view  

About trying to drive the market towards  use of automated vehicles, for example,   you might want a differentiated system,  but I do not think that that makes sense. On the point about the rules of the road,  it would be easier for everybody if they are  

Consistent and there will be a period where  there will be hybrid use. There will be us,   then there will be everybody else as well  as user-in-charge vehicles and so on. There   will be a period of hybrid activity and I  do not think that it would make sense for  

That differentiation between rules of  the road, fines and so on, to happen. I am not saying the UK Government would do that,   but it is exactly what clause  50 would enable and allow. That is helpful. Just for clarity—Mr Henry might  want to come in on this—I will give an example of  

A two-tier system in Scotland between automated  vehicles and vehicles that have to be driven in   the way that Mr Mountain would drive his vehicle,  or perhaps in a safer way than Mr Mountain would   drive his vehicle. We could have a two-tier system  for bus-lane fines, and for parking infringements,  

Speeding and low-emission zone breaches. The  list of where there could, within Scotland, be   a two-tier system for vehicles committing  the same infringements is quite extensive. Yes. George Henry may want to come in on  that. Is that a good explanation, George?

I agree with you, Mr Doris—that is exactly  what clause 50 could do, which why we do not   accept that it is the right thing to do. From  the point of view of the rules of the road,   the understanding of Scottish  motorists and road users,  

And safety, I do not think that a  two-tier approach is beneficial. I am sorry for labouring the point, but I  had to be clear in my own head. Thank you. We are running short of time, but I am  going to give Mark Ruskell a short question.

Further to that, I was thinking about  speed limits. Could there be two   tiers on speed limits for automated vehicles and  conventional vehicles? In the devolved context in   Wales, there is a national speed limit of 20mph  in built-up areas. Could automated vehicles be  

Run at different speeds under a different  set of rules of the road under clause 50? That would be allowed if the UK Secretary  of State were to use his powers under clause   50 to do that. That would be a policy  decision in that hypothetical situation.

So, in theory, clause 50 would grant those powers. I just want to be clear on that. If the Secretary  of State was to change the speed limit on a road,   the change would apply to all vehicles, not just  automated vehicles, because changing the speed  

Limit on the road changes it for everything.  There is a bit of concern about speed limits   because we are going through the national strategy  for reducing the speed limit to 20mph in built-up   areas in Scotland at the moment. If there was a  suggestion of a change in UK legislation, that  

Could impact on legislation that we  have already approved in Scotland. Okay, I will let that sink in a bit. I have a final question about the broader  policy context. I will play devil’s advocate   and say that I see automated vehicles as a  bit of a costly distraction. Where do they  

Sit within the Scottish Government’s transport  policy? We have major issues with infrastructure   investment for conventional bus travel and  I know that the Government is working hard   to support the bus sector in that. Is  bus operators investing in automated bus   technology a realistic tangible option right  now? Will the cost of redesigning streets and  

Systems to accommodate such vehicles  not be astronomical? I am interested   in where we are right now and where we  think this might be going in the future. Cabinet secretary, I would be happy if you  answer that question briefly. The issue is  

Not part of the LCM but I think that it is a  legitimate question for a two-sentence answer. We will all have to consider  those things as we go forward,   as AI and automated vehicles increasingly  become part of our everyday life. As I  

Say, it is a journey for everybody to go on.  Is that sufficiently short for you, convener? That is definitely short enough for  me. I think I am with Jim Wilson; I   am a bit concerned about the whole thing, anyway.

I am looking around the room but it does not look  as though there are any further questions. I have   two questions for you, cabinet secretary. You  said that the Scottish Law Commission had been   involved from start to finish. Does it have  a view on clause 50, if it has been involved?

It would not be for the Scottish Law Commission to   do that kind of analysis. What aspect  of clause 50 are you thinking of? Clause 50 seems to me to be like hypothetical  bears hiding behind trees becoming a threat. It  

Is hypothetical. If the Scottish Law Commission  has been involved throughout the process, does it   share the Scottish Government’s fear or is it more  sanguine about it on the basis that the situation   is developing and what happens today could change  tomorrow, with the speed of AI development?

I am not aware of the Scottish Law Commission’s  having taken a particular view. I understand that   its recommendation was for the bill to contain  a power that would enable clarification of the   application of existing legislation to the new  concept of a user in charge of an automated  

Vehicle, as you say, because once the operation  starts, it will become apparent where there are   gaps and where existing legislation does not  make sense with regard to the user in charge. I   think that is the intention of clause 50, but the  issue is how that will apply to devolved offences  

And devolved legislation in the sphere of civil  sanctions. In so far as clause 50 would be used to   amend that legislation, the Scottish Government’s  view is that that engages the LCM process. I understand that. What do they think about  this in Wales? Are the Welsh signing up to it?

I have a briefing about where Wales is,   but I would rather come back to you on that. I  do not want to misrepresent the Welsh position. Yes—that is a dangerous thing to do,  cabinet secretary. I am trying to   find out whether other people share  the Scottish Government’s concerns,  

Or they are just the Scottish  Government’s concerns. Remember, however, that Wales has  different devolved and reserved   responsibilities. I am not an expert on  Welsh traffic legislation. I am happy to   come back to the committee on your question  once we have checked it out. I think that we  

Have some indication of their general views,  but I do not want to misrepresent the Welsh. Okay. I think that Wales would say that they  have rolled 20mph speed limits out across Wales   quicker than we have in Scotland, so they must  have some powers that could be affected by this.

I assume that they have, but  you asked me about what their   view is about clause 50 and I do not  want to misrepresent them on that. We must write a report by next week.  Things are moving that quickly,   so a quick response on that and the  correspondence would be helpful.

We will get the correspondence to you right  away. We will check what we know about   the Welsh position and if we do not know  about it, we will also let you know that. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. That  concludes our evidence session. As I said,  

We will consider and agree a short report to   the Parliament next week. Thank  you for your time this morning. I briefly suspend the meeting to  allow a changeover of witnesses. Welcome back. Our next agenda item is an evidence  session on Scotland’s railways. The committee has  

Held evidence sessions on rail services annually  since ScotRail entered public ownership in   2022. Our aim is to take stock of the state of  rail services in Scotland over the past year. I put on record the committee’s thanks to the  three trade unions that provided us with written  

Evidence for the session. They are the Associated  Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen,   Unite the union, and the National Union  of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. On our first panel, we will hear from  two of Scotland’s independent watchdogs   for rail services. I am pleased to  welcome Liz McLeod, who is head of  

Regulatory analysis at the Office of Rail  and Road, and Robert Samson, who is senior   stakeholder manager at Transport Focus.  Thank you for joining us this morning. We will ask a series of questions, and I will  start things off with a very simple question,  

To get you into the flow of it. How has ScotRail’s  performance changed since the committee last   considered the issues in May 2023, and are  passengers getting a noticeably better service? The service has improved from a passenger  satisfaction point of view over the past 12  

Months. The previous rail customer experience  survey was published in January. On five out   of seven key factors—overall satisfaction,  punctuality, frequency of trains on the route,   level of crowding, cleanliness, value for  money and information during a journey—ScotRail  

Is in the top 20 per cent of train operating  companies in Great Britain and its score is not   significantly lower than average on any of  those factors. From a passenger perspective,   although passengers by and large only travel on  the ScotRail network, when you compare it with  

Other operators, satisfaction levels  were quite high in the past 12 months. Has the position changed? Yes, it has improved in the past 12   months. Overall satisfaction was  about 88 per cent 12 months ago,   and has increased to an average of 90 to 91 per  cent, so there has been a small improvement.

Is there nothing in the survey about reduction   in services? Does it just cover  customers’ satisfaction levels? The satisfaction survey is  of travelling passengers;   it is not a survey of those who are not travelling  because of a reduction in services. However, we  

Have recently published a piece of work on  motivations and barriers to rail use. The top   barriers are the cost of using the rail service,  the perceived reliability of the rail service,   the frequency of trains and whether trains are  going to the places where people want to go. For  

Example, travelling by train might not be a viable  alternative to a car or a bus if someone is going   to an out-of-town shopping centre or somewhere  else that does not have a train station close by. Liz McLeod, do you want to add to that?

I will just pick up on train performance,  including on whether passengers are getting   to their destinations on time. ScotRail is  measured by the public performance measure,   which is the proportion of trains arriving at  their final destination early or within five  

Minutes after the scheduled time. As we close out  this financial year, that measure is sitting at   89.81 per cent, which is below the regulatory  target of 92.5 per cent. That target, which was   set by Scottish ministers, is the high-level  output specification for control period 6.  

There is definitely room for improvement. There  has been some improvement since we met last year,   but there is still a good way to go  to achieve the 92.5 per cent target. Do you want to comment on that? I am  slightly confused by that. ScotRail is  

Running fewer trains and is still not meeting  the target. The Government said that that was   the reason for nationalisation. How are things  getting better as a result of nationalisation? I need to clarify ORR’s role in monitoring  performance in Scotland. We hold Network  

Rail—the infrastructure manager—to account; we  do not hold ScotRail Trains Ltd to account for   its delivery. Elements of delay are caused by the  infrastructure manager and, as you know, elements   of delay will be caused by the train operator.  I can speak only to the Network Rail element.

Without a shadow of a doubt, weather is one  of the big drivers in performance in Scotland.   Since around 2019 to 2020, the trajectory  for weather-related delay has increased,   and it is the biggest cause of delay in  Scotland. Although fewer trains are running,  

The impact of extreme weather hampers recovery  of performance and achievement of targets. In fairness, that is not leaves on the line.  It is serious weather conditions—storms   and such like—which, very unfortunately,  have caused loss of life some years ago. We have a heap of questions. Mark Ruskell is next.

Welcome back to the committee. I would  like to ask you about ScotRail’s off-peak   all day fares pilot that will run until  June. What are your thoughts on that?   Could or should that be made permanent?  Is that a good use of public investment,  

Or are there other ways to support  people’s return to the railways? There are two parts to that. We welcome the pilot.  Passengers like it, and their top priority is   value for money. However, value for money is  linked not just to the fare but to having a  

Good service in terms of punctuality,  reliability and visible staff presence. The pilot must be evaluated to identify whether  it has delivered overall value for money. It   is a new approach, so the analysis on it will  be very interesting. I think that the Scottish  

Government estimated that it will cost £15  million for the initial six-month pilot,   which, as I said, has been  extended to the end of June. It will be interesting to get  information about passengers. Are   existing passengers making additional  journeys? Are passengers transferring   from another mode of public transport?  If they are transferring from buses,  

What would be the consequences for bus  funding? Are they transferring from   active travel for weather-related reasons because  it is affordable? Are they transferring from cars,   which would help to meet the Government  objectives in that regard? How many   passengers are making journeys and what is the  impact on revenue? Is the measure cost-neutral?  

Is it costing more money for the Government?  That must be evaluated in order to find out. Passengers whom we speak to welcome  the off-peak pilot not just because   it is cheaper, but because it is simpler. We  know that passengers have been caught out in  

The past. In the east of the country,  there is a morning peak fare and an   evening peak fare, but in Strathclyde  there is only a morning peak fare. We   know that passengers travelling back from  Edinburgh did not realise that there was an  

Evening peak fare. There is no evening peak fare  in Glasgow, so that was confusing for passengers. Off-peak fares all day make it simpler and  more affordable for passengers, so we welcome   the pilot, and we want to see, through  its analysis and evaluation, whether it   can continue as part of the fair fares review.

The ORR does not have a role  in that regard. We would not   have a view on how the price of tickets are set. However, I will add one thing. On  21 March, we will publish statistics   on passenger numbers. The previous  publication did not pick up the change,  

So we can share that with the committee. That  could have some interesting detail in it. That would be interesting. Do you see the need  for a simplification of the fare structures   across the UK? My understanding is  that the UK has some of the most  

Complicated rail fare structures in Europe.  Sometimes, we have the most expensive fares;   sometimes, we have fares that are very good  value. However, as Mr Samson said, it is quite   confusing for commuters and travellers to  work out how to get those good-value fares.

I recognise that the system is complex,  especially when travelling across Britain with   different operators and so on. Simplification is  ultimately good for good outcomes for passengers. I go back to my original question. Is  there another option that the Government  

Could take to help, such as subsidising  some other form of price support or fare   capping for the railways, or was removing  peak-time fares the obvious thing to do? That would be a decision for Government. Ultimately, that would be  a decision for Government,   within its funding envelope.  As I mentioned in my opening  

Remarks, the latest piece of work that we  published about motivations and barriers   to train use showed that cost had the biggest  impact on motivation. If you lower the cost,   you remove a barrier and increase rail use. Again,  in that context, it will be interesting to see  

The analysis of the pilot, as well as the figures  that ORR is due to publish, to make a comparison. However, it is not just about the numbers.  I believe that Transport Scotland is doing a   deeper analysis of where the passengers are coming  from, including whether, as I mentioned earlier,  

People are making additional journeys and the mode  of transport that they have come from to make that   journey. That will be interesting to see and it  will inform Government decisions going forward. Good morning to our panel. On the  back of Mark Ruskell’s question,  

I was reading a media comment by Mike Robinson,  who is the chair of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland,   on the issue of value and affordability.  On behalf of the coalition, he said: “Reverting to expensive tickets would be a hugely   retrograde decision and would be bad news  for workers, passengers and the climate.”

When you are taking the temperature of the   travelling public, are you picking up on  that desire to do the right thing by the   climate and the environment in addition  to having more affordable train travel? Yes. Our research shows what passengers welcome  in relation to fares. They want them to be  

Affordable, to be easy to understand—which  is a point that we have been arguing for   years—and to be simplified, so that  there is a window from 6 in the morning   until midnight in which there are no peak  restrictions and the fare is the same price  

Throughout the day. In relation to those  aspects, the pilot is definitely welcome. Because of how things have panned out,   I will bring in Jackie Dunbar now,  with Douglas Lumsden to follow. Good morning, panel. On Liz McLeod’s comment  about weather disruption and the increase in  

Extreme weather, how satisfied are you that  Network Rail and the train operators have   the required skills and resources to  cope with that increasing disruption? I recognise that that is a major challenge  for Network Rail in Scotland. Since Carmont,  

There has been a huge focus, particularly by  Network Rail, on the steps that are needed   to improve the network’s resilience.  That includes operational aspects,   such as having dedicated meteorologists in the  control room to try to predict the weather and  

To understand what the right course of action  is for the railway. We also use a dedicated   helicopter to do aerial surveys, including  looking at the condition of earthworks. In addition, Network Rail’s plans for  the next control period, which is the   next five-year funding cycle, starts from  April. The plans include £500 million for  

Climate change work. All of Network Rail’s  regions have produced a significant document,   which includes scrutiny of Scotland. The 70-page  document sets out their approach to climate change   adaptation and resilience. In some aspects, that  is future proofing the railways. For example,  

When Network Rail does a drainage renewal,  it might fit a bigger catchment because,   unfortunately, greater rainfall  in the future is predicted. A lot is going on. It is the  same on the operator side,   too, but I can speak better to  the Network Rail side of things.

You are confident with what is being put in place. Yes. We think that the Network Rail climate  change adaptation plans for CP7 are credible. I will ask a question about peak  fares, first. I listened to a radio   phone-in yesterday on which most people  said that the trial is a good thing,  

But one person called to say that it was the  worst thing that has happened because now   her train is jam-packed at peak times because  people are changing their behaviour. Robert,   is that something that you are seeing and does  the Government need to look at timetables?

Yes. When the fares trial started in October  we had meetings with ScotRail about what   it would do if trains were crowded in the  morning and more passengers were travelling   before 9 o’clock. It said that it must  monitor that. The situation is brand new:  

We do not know where passengers are coming from,  or what will happen in Fife or in the north and   west of the country. We must look at what happens  and move our train services around accordingly. From talking to the train performance people  at ScotRail, I hear that there have been one  

Or two incidents of crowding, but it has not  happened to the extent that was predicted. They   did not know what would happen. They were  trying to move carriages around to suit,   but there is a limited number of trains.  Most trains are out in the morning,  

So there is a limit to what can be done, but if  the policy is to be adopted for the long term   the timetable must reflect where passengers  are coming from. We must ask whether we have   to improve the frequency of the service on  some routes or provide longer platforms for  

Longer trains. There are solutions to the welcome  problem of more people wanting to use the network. We did a piece of research a few years  ago and found that passengers in Scotland   expect a seat on the train, whereas in  the south people are more willing to  

Stand and expect space to stand. We have  to have seats for passengers in Scotland. You are right that it is a good problem to have. The committee has heard concerns that  passengers cannot access the cheapest   tickets through apps or vending machines at  stations. We have also heard concerns about  

Potential ticket office closures. What is  the future of rail in terms of vending and   procuring tickets? If you had a crystal ball,  what would you see us doing in the future? We should mix and match according  to what passengers want. We went  

Through a consultation two years ago about  changes to ticket office opening hours.   The Scottish Government still has to make a  decision on how it will take that forward. I was involved in a large consultation  last year in England that included almost   every ticket office and which got  feedback from about three quarters of  

A million consultation responses. Ticket  vending machines have to be easy to use,   understandable and meet the needs  of passengers with disabilities. A lot of passengers appreciate apps and mobile  technology, but due to the complex nature of   the fares system, many passengers seek the  reassurance of there being someone on the  

Train or at the station to tell them about the  best value ticket for their journey. Until the   fares structure is simplified, there must  be a staff presence to help passengers. Is it the case that you might get a ticket  cheaper using the app than you would using  

A vending machine, or are tickets cheaper mainly  through purchasing them ahead of the journey time? Some ticket vending machines sell advance  tickets, but most passengers use ticket   vending machines to purchase on the day on which  they are travelling or to pick up tickets that  

They have booked in advance. Through apps and at  the station, tickets can be bought on the day,   or the app can be used to buy, in  advance, a ticket that might be cheaper,   but ticket vending machines will be more  expensive because most passengers use them  

To purchase tickets on the day rather than  for travel in four or five weeks’ time. I guess that that relates to  what we were saying earlier   about the fares structure being simplified. Yes. People who go to a station to buy a ticket  four or five weeks in advance of the journey  

Want to speak to a person in a travel centre  rather than go to a ticket vending machine,   because they feel reassured that they will  get the best information from a person. Liz McLeod, is that outwith your scope? I agree with the comments that have  been made. I use the ScotRail app:  

I buy a ticket in the morning and am  usually running late and it works for me,   but it will not work for everyone. I agree  with Robert Samson’s sentiment that there   must be solutions for everyone: the railway has  to be accessible to all. From our perspective,  

The focus is accessibility and passenger  information, so I agree with what he said. I guess that people who have an app are more  likely to get cheaper tickets because they book   in advance. Elderly people, for example, might not  have enough confidence in using an app and will  

Always go to the ticket office just before the  train is going and so will potentially pay more. Yes, that is potentially the case. Using the  internet and the app, tickets can be booked six,   eight or 10 weeks in advance, whereas people  using the station would have to go there eight  

Or 10 weeks in advance to speak to a ticket  clerk. It is easier for many people to use   the app and it might also be difficult for  people to get to a station. The ability to  

Make a journey to inquire about the kind of ticket  that they need depends on where the person lives. Thank you. Good morning. I will go back a little bit to dig beneath the  statistics on performance and satisfaction. First,   the good news is that although we are  not there yet, both are improving,  

Which is positive. I note, on performance, that  ScotRail contends that two thirds of delays   are for reasons that are outwith its control.  Getting to 91.2 per cent compliance is positive,   although of course we do not know what the  figure is if we strip out, for example, failings  

With Network Rail, trespassing on the line and  adverse weather. Should we report on performance,   having stripped out matters that  ScotRail is reasonably not able to   deal with directly, in order to see what  its performance is as Scotland’s national  

Operator that is now in public control? I am  not sure whether that is reported on anywhere. We try to report on delays that are caused  by Network Rail. The delay that an operator   causes for another is known as TOC on TOC. I have  the statistics here: Network Rail is currently  

Causing about 54 per cent of the delays on  the Scottish network. We do not strip out   the delays that are caused by Network Rail because  that is a whole-industry measure. We know that   Network Rail will inevitably cause some delays, so  the solution is about reducing the types of delay  

That each operator is causing in order to get  performance to a better place—if that makes sense. It absolutely makes sense. The current situation is that ScotRail is  doing pretty well. It has to do better,   and things are improving, but where statistics  show a need to do better, it will sometimes be  

The case that Network Rail needs to do  better, rather than ScotRail. Sometimes   the cause of delay will be severe weather, and  not ScotRail. It seems that it would make sense   to have a performance statistic that was based  on matters that ScotRail can directly control.

That is not just so that the numbers would  look better for ScotRail. In a few years,   Network Rail could be organised and do a  lot better, with its performance improving.   ScotRail’s performance could diminish, which  could be masked by improved performance by  

Network Rail or by a particularly mild winter.  How do we report so that we can hold Scotland’s   national train operator to account—or  commend it for improved performance,   as is the current situation. Do we have any  such stripped-out data reported consistently? We get lots of data. There is no shortage of data.

You are right that we have to understand  what level of delay Network Rail is causing,   so we use a metric that allows us to do that.  It strips out those delays and focuses on   Network Rail. There are targets relating to such  delays. If Network Rail is achieving its targets,  

That will enable achievement of  the 92.5 per cent PPM target. We obviously do not regulate the operator, but one  lesson that we are probably learning from the past   year since ScotRail has been in public ownership  is that we should interact more with Scottish  

Rail Holdings Ltd, which is the company that sits  above ScotRail, in order that we can appropriately   challenge each other on whether, from a regulatory  point of view, we are taking the right action or   there is more to do. We have kicked that off  with Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd and that will  

Help us to understand each other’s position  and to challenge and improve, where we can. That is very helpful. Mr Samson, before I move on to my next line  of questions, I know that passengers just want  

Trains to run on time according to schedule, and  to get to where they want to go efficiently and   in comfort. People here in Scotland like to get a  seat more than people elsewhere in the UK do. We   still have to improve the passenger experience, of  course. What are your reflections on whose fault  

Or responsibility delays are, or are you just  focused on the overall passenger experience? I am focused on the overall passenger experience.  It is infuriating for passengers on a train that   is delayed to hear the announcement  that it is not a ScotRail fault,  

But is a fault that is down to Network Rail.  Passengers do not care whose fault it is. The ORR got Network Rail, Scottish Rail Holdings  Ltd, ScotRail and Transport Scotland all together   to deliver the high-level output specification  for the railway. We hope that there will be a  

Clear trajectory in Network Rail’s delivery  plan when it is published, and that the plan for   CP7 will show how Scotland’s railway in its  totality will get to 92.5 per cent PPM, which   is the target. That would improve the passenger  experience. Passenger satisfaction should then go  

Up because the biggest drivers of passenger  satisfaction are reliability and value for money. Absolutely. My next line of questioning is about accessibility  for passengers on Scotland’s rail network. I will   mention that Springburn station in my constituency  will—fingers crossed—get access for all funding,  

Because if you have a small child, as I  have, it is more of an assault course than   a train station. I am conscious that there are  accessibility issues for families with small   children and disabled passengers, and that  there are issues about lone females feeling  

Safe to use the network. From the past year,  what are your reflections on accessibility on   Scotland’s rail network generally? I am not  directing you to those particular aspects,   but do you want to make observations on them  before we move on to the next line of questioning?

I will focus on Network Rail. You mentioned access  for all funding. The ORR regulates the railways in   the whole of Britain, so we can compare  with how regions in England and Wales   are doing. Network Rail in Scotland is  doing really well in terms of delivery  

Of access for access for all projects. We  are aware that there are projects ongoing,   such as the one in Anniesland, and  we have seen substantial progress. Another element to touch on is raised tactile  paving on platforms. I have figures that say  

That 148 stations will be upgraded with tactile  paving. So far, 140 have been done, and 148 will   be done by March 2025. Work is well ahead of  schedule on that, so it is a good news story. Thank you. I will not indulge myself  by asking questions about my local  

Rail network. I will leave you there, Ms McLeod. Mr Samson, do you have any reflections on  accessibility for passengers on the rail network? We know from Network Rail’s strategic  business plan that it is looking to   develop a better-accessibility strategy  that does not just consider infrastructure  

But also looks at the passenger experience.  That is not just about the experience at   the station; it is also about how  people get to the station. It takes   a start-to-finish passenger journey point of  view, rather than just an operational view.

It should be noted that there are fewer passengers  travelling on the network now than were travelling   pre-pandemic, and the number of people needing  passenger assistance is only 2 or 3 per cent lower   than the number pre-pandemic. There are more  passengers booking passenger assistance.

How to deliver passenger assistance 100 per  cent of the time needs to be considered—the   handover from the departure station to the  arrival station, and how that applies to   the person on the train and to the ticket  examiner or the train guard. We have talked  

About use of passenger assistance apps so that  the chain from one member of staff to another   is not broken and the passenger is not left  frustrated and cannot get off or on a train at   a station. We know that in the new rolling stock  procurement that is coming down the line one of  

The key specifications for new trains is that  there is level boarding at all stations. That   would help in relation to passenger assistance  and will be welcome, but it is some years off. I mentioned Springburn station; this  is not specifically about Springburn  

Station, where I went for a site visit.  On that visit, Scotland’s Railway was   there—rather than Network Rail or ScotRail,  so both were represented—as was Sustrans,   Glasgow City Council and a local charity of which  I am a trustee that is interested in town centre  

Regeneration. The jury is out on whether the work  will bring the positive outcomes that we all want,   but there seemed to be much closer collegiate  partnership working than I have seen previously.   Are you aware that that is the case, Ms McLeod,  or was I just fortunate on that particular day?

I think that that experience is probably a good  reflection of what is happening. Alex Hynes is   the managing director of the ScotRail Alliance:  we see, on the performance base in particular,   really good engagement between the  operator and the infrastructure manager  

In challenging each other on what is wrong with  performance and what we need to do to improve. Thank you. I want to pick up on the issue of accessibility  before I move on to a question about the safety   of women and girls, in particular.  Bob Doris asked about accessibility,  

And Robert Samson talked about  rolling stock procurement and future   opportunities. I remind the committee that I  am a patron of Disability Equality Scotland. Even at this quite early stage, is there positive  engagement with disability organisations and   disabled people about their experiences?  You have talked not just about reliability  

But about perceptions about reliability.  Obviously, the point about passenger assistance   is key. I would like a brief answer to that  question before I move on to other matters. The rolling stock procurement programme is still  to be rolled out. However, we have spoken to  

Transport Scotland, Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd and  ScotRail, and the procurement teams say that the   procurement has to be informed not just about the  lump of metal that will transport passengers but   about the seating, toilet provision, information  systems, lobby space and wheelchair space that  

Will be on board. That can be done only  by asking the people who are affected. We have a range of insights from other operators  on what passengers wanted to see as interior   features of new trains, and we have talked  to organisations such as Disability Equality  

Scotland and the Mobility and Access Committee for  Scotland. All of them can inform the plans so that   we get new trains that work from day 1 in respect  of what the passengers want rather than having to  

Retrofit later because an issue was not thought of  to begin with. Let us get it right from the start. From speaking to Transport Scotland, ScotRail and  Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd, I know that there is   willingness to engage on that to ensure  that the specification is correct. The  

Trains will be on the network for 20 to  30 years, so we have to get it right. That is encouraging to hear, as it  is important to build that in very   early on to inform the specification  for procurement. Thank you for that.

I want to go back to the point about safety. We  know from your research with passengers that you   hear often that they like and value having  staff around. Research that was published by   Transport Scotland last year on the safety  of women and girls found similar things.

The rail unions continue to express concerns about  antisocial behaviour and violence on Scotland’s   rail network and, in particular, about how they  impact on women and girls. I should remind the   committee that I am a member of Unite the union  and a member of the RMT parliamentary group. With  

That background, I want to get a sense of what you  think is happening around antisocial behaviour and   the discussion about the safety of women  and girls. We know that Transport Scotland’s   report recommended increasing the number of  station staff. Do you agree with that? What  

Practical steps can be taken to improve  safety and tackle unacceptable behaviour? A lot of issues are involved in that. From  all our research over the years on personal   security and safety, we know that passengers  welcome a visible staff presence at stations  

And on board trains. They welcome someone walking  through the train or someone being at the station. The travel safe teams that ScotRail has  introduced are to be welcomed. It is also   about good lighting at stations, adequate  room for car parking, safe walking routes,   closed-circuit television and  help points at every station.

One question that came through from our  research with passengers was about whether   they are monitored in real time in Scotland.  They are, and getting that message across to   passengers can give reassurance. Although there  might be a CCTV camera, people do not know that  

Someone is looking at things in real time. Will  things be checked tomorrow morning for evidence if   something has gone wrong rather than people being  proactive and helping them? There are such issues. Stations and trains should also be clean and  well maintained. A lot of community groups  

In Scotland help at stations. That gives  a sense of the stations being well looked   after. It is about small things such as there  being planters and a station getting a coat   of paint if that is needed. If a station  looks unloved or uncared for, there is a  

Perception that the environment is not safe.  A range of issues are associated with safety. ScotRail or Network Rail will not get plaudits for  keeping a station clean, because passengers expect   that. That is basic. The same goes for trains.  However, that helps to foster a safe travel  

Environment. Visible staff and a British Transport  Police presence after major sporting or cultural   events do the same. Passengers are also reassured  by there being other passengers at stations. There is a wide range of issues, and there is  no magic bullet that will make a journey safe.

That is helpful. You have given lots of examples.   Communication to the public that CCTV  is monitored in real time is important. Do you have any up-to-date views on women  and girls having experienced sexual assault   or sexual harassment? Is that getting  worse or better, or is it staying the  

Same? Do you recognise that visible  staffing must be part of the solution? Visible staff have to be part of the solution.  Research not only in Scotland but across the   whole of Great Britain shows that the personal  safety of passengers is an issue that has to  

Be addressed. I think that numbers six and  eight of the top 10 passenger priorities   relate to personal security for all  passengers on trains and at stations. Last year, we did a piece of work on  perceptions of safety for women and   girls travelling in Birmingham. I will  write to the committee about that. A  

Lot of the issues that arose in that  also arose in the Transport Scotland   report about women and girls travelling  safely that was published last year. I think that Mark Ruskell wants to come in on  this theme, too. I want to pick up on another  

Point about staffing. I understand that around  two thirds of ScotRail stations are unstaffed—that   is higher than the UK average of around 45 per  cent—and that over half the Scottish network is   operated via driver-only operation. Although there  is always a second person rostered on services,  

There is no guarantee that a second person will  be on board all services. There are currently   proposals by ScotRail to extend driver-only  operation to the Barrhead and East Kilbride   lines—I am not sure about other areas. There  appears to be a bit of a difference between  

Scotland and the rest of the UK on that. Can  you speak about that? Do you have a view on it? On the problem of there being a larger  proportion of unstaffed stations in   Scotland than in much of the rest  of the network, it depends on the  

Location. Because of the rurality of a lot  of its locations, Northern Rail also has a   lot of unstaffed stations. A recent report  said that, even if a station is unstaffed,   CCTV and help points have to be there,  it must have good lighting, and it has  

To be well maintained. It is clear that those  things give passengers a sense of security. We would expect ScotRail trains to have  second members of staff: that is in its   rail contract. We expect there to be a  second member of staff on all trains.  

That not only gives people a feeling  of security, but it helps with general   matters such as giving information and  selling tickets from unstaffed stations.   A lot of people buy their tickets on board. We  want a second member of staff on every train.

There is no guarantee at the  moment that that will happen. Do   you think that there should be a guarantee  that a second person will be on a train? A second person should be rostered. We  expect that to happen on all occasions  

Because it helps with not just security or a  feeling of safety for passengers but with other   aspects to do with information, selling  tickets and helping with accessibility. Is that an area for improvement? Yes, it is an area for improvement. Mark Ruskell wants to come in on the back of that.

I think that that broadly covers matters. Have  you had any feedback from passengers who use   driver-only operated routes? Have there been  particular concerns about antisocial behaviour   or feelings of insecurity if no additional  staff are on trains to support people?

That has not come through: it is about having  a second member of staff in uniform on board   going through the train and reassuring passengers.  People in the know will know whether someone is a   guard who is responsible for opening the doors  or just a ticket examiner. However, for most  

Passengers, it is about a second member of  staff helping them—a second member of staff   who is there, whatever their job title is, to sell  tickets, give information and help passengers with   accessibility needs. Passengers look at matters  from the point of view of there being a second  

Member of staff rather than from the point  of view of the duties of that person. Okay. Thanks. I smiled slightly to myself when  you talked about a second member   of staff. At some railway stations on  the north line, people still have to  

Hail the train if they want it to stop at the  station. The staff numbers are quite light. I want to continue on the theme  of safety. The trade unions have   raised concerns about the class  43 high-speed train rolling stock.   Do your organisations have any concerns  about continued use of high-speed trains?

If the ORR had concerns about their safe use  and thought that there was an imminent threat   of danger, we would have served a prohibition  notice to stop the trains running. We have   not done that. I hope that that answers your  question from a health and safety perspective.

We are also monitoring. A number  of recommendations were made as   a result of the Carmont incident. The  HSTs were looked at. The driver’s cab   and tables were looked at. Specific  aspects were looked at. We observe   those things and are happy with  the progress that has been made.

I have nothing to add to that point. I think that the report said that  the outcome could have been better   if the train was more modern, as opposed  to its being an HST. Is that correct? I think that the Rail Accident  Investigation Branch recognised that,  

If another train had been used, the outcome  would have been the same, unfortunately. In   the Carmont incident, the drainage was at  fault: that is what caused the accident.   The RAIB has said that, with another train, there  would have been the same outcome, unfortunately. Mark Ruskell has a question.

It is about the decarbonisation programme  and the objective to decarbonise Scotland’s   railways by 2035. Is that on track,  given current levels of investment? Enabling works are being done in feeder  stations to ensure that the network is   capable of supporting future electrification.  Transport Scotland is responsible for specifying  

And funding the enhancement projects that  will be needed to deliver electrification,   so it would need to answer the question  about whether the programme is on track. I will add, however, that a lot is going on  elsewhere. In Network Rail’s plans for control  

Period 7, there are carbon emission reduction  targets. Throughout the current control period,   we have seen good work between ScotRail and  Network Rail on simple things including recycling,   reducing pollution at stations and so on. That  is on-going. There is also biodiversity work  

And targets associated with carbon reduction  and biodiversity in the next control period.   That is an area of focus. From a regulatory  perspective, the question of the enhancements   that are needed to electrify the  network is one for the funder.

I also add that there is now a good focus  across Britain on freight growth. Obviously,   modal shift is important. The more produce  we can get on freight trains, the better,   and there are now targets for that. In the  control period over the past five years,  

We had a target only in Scotland. Westminster’s  specification for CP7 includes a freight-growth   target for all the Network Rail regions. That  matters because, for example, if Network Rail   is trying to grow freight in the eastern  region, that will benefit Scotland as well.

Are those freight opportunities regional in nature  or are they more about UK freight operations? It could be a bit of both. We said in our  determination that it is important that each   of the regions sets out the actions that it  can take to deliver growth. We recognise that  

Economic conditions are tricky at the moment,  but there are steps that Network Rail can take   to incentivise new entrants to the  market. There are regional plans,   but there are national things that can be  done around the timetable, for example. I will go to Monica Lennon and  then to the deputy convener,  

Ben Macpherson, to wrap it up at the end. I have a final question for Liz McLeod  on control period 7. We have heard from   rail unions that they are concerned  that a reduction in investment in   renewals by Network Rail in CP7 in favour  of investment in maintenance might have a  

Negative impact on safety. Is that view  shared by the Office of Rail and Road?   What has been done to minimise any safety  implications arising from that decision? My answer to that is similar to my answer on  HSTs. We go through a rigorous process that  

Takes a year or longer. Network Rail submits  detailed plans to us. With its initial plans,   which we reviewed last summer, we did not  think that those were capable of maintaining   safety. We challenged Network Rail to spend  circa £50 million extra on a specific asset.  

Network Rail accepted that challenge and  we deemed its finalised plan to be safe. As with the HSTs, if there is not enough  funding to maintain a safe and reliable plan,   which is what Scottish ministers want in  their high-level output specification,  

There is a process for us to send  a notification to ministers to say,   “There’s not enough money here to deliver what you  want. Can you reassess and maybe take something   away so that the plan is affordable ” We did  not do that; we accepted Network Rail’s plans.

However, you are right that there are challenges  ahead. We have talked about climate change. The   other challenge is rising inflation, which  is eating away at the funding. You rightly   said that there will be more maintenance and  less investment in renewals in some areas in  

The next control period. We are all alive to the  risks. We have worked closely with Network Rail,   which has established a safety risk  assessment model that we want it to   use throughout control period 7.  That will provide the evidence. Inevitably, Network Rail’s plans will  change. We do not expect a perfect plan  

To be delivered five years in advance. When  things need to change, Network Rail will have   to demonstrate to us that it has gone through  the issues. For example, if it decides to   do less track work, we will need to see that  the decision has been through that model and  

We will need evidence of what has been taken  into account, the risk mitigations and so on. So, yes—there will be less work on  renewals. We are all alive to that.   Measures have been put in place for the  next control period and we will monitor  

Them closely. Where we identify issues  or concerns, either from a health and   safety perspective or an economic regulatory  perspective, we will take action on that. That is helpful. Thank you. I have two questions that my constituents  have raised with me, although they are  

Relevant for the whole country. The  first is regarding the Edinburgh to   Inverness line. Issues about overcrowding  on that line have been raised with me on   several occasions. The line is an important  artery for people living on the east coast   and for tourist visitors. Do you have  any comment or direct feedback on that?

My second question is on reliability.  The Edinburgh to Glasgow connection,   particularly between Waverley and Queen  Street, has for certain periods been   extended later into the night, such as during  the Edinburgh festivals. That is a good thing,   and I and many of my constituents think  that there is a strong argument for it to  

Happen more regularly so that people can go  to concerts or football games and be able to   come home later. Has that been raised with you?  Is it part of your considerations and feedback? On your second point, back in 2012, when the  First Group franchise was ending, there was a  

Consultation exercise on the ScotRail franchise,  which asked passengers about timetable provision   and what they would like to see. In most  franchise consultation exercises that we   hold with passengers, we find that they would like  more early morning services and more services late  

At night, to allow for the 24-hour economy and  for cultural events. There is a definite pattern   of feedback from passengers in favour of earlier  and later services. That would eat into the time   to maintain and renew the network in the control  period and would have costs. However, passengers  

Would like later night services. ScotRail did that  to an extent on a Friday night when Abellio took   over the franchise, and that has been sustained  now that ScotRail is in public ownership. The feedback from passengers on longer-distance  services in Scotland is that they would like  

Faster journey times and more carriages.  It goes back to the general point that   passengers in Scotland want a seat and  want to travel in comfort on all routes,   but that is particularly the  case when there is a longer   journey time. When passengers do not  get a seat on a two-hour or three-hour  

Journey, that is frustrating and inconvenient,  and it leads to complaints and compensation. Liz, do you want to add anything? I am not aware of any health and safety  issues from the overcrowding perspective.   I will take that away and check  with colleagues in the consumer   team whether there are any trends in complaints.

It is particularly on that line to Inverness. That is of great interest to me because,  in the past 10 years, the journey time   to Inverness has gone up by 20 minutes rather  than coming down, and there are fewer services.

On what Robert Samson said about a later service  between Waverley and Queen Street, I presume   that that would not be prohibitive in terms of  undertaking maintenance and so on, given that the   London underground runs all night on a Friday and  Saturday. If they can do it, we can do it, right?

If you changed the hours of operation, that  would restrict the times or the opportunities   available to Network Rail to do its work, but  it would take that into account. Historically,   Network Rail did a lot of work over the new  year period, but it recently changed that  

To reflect the fact that people might want  to go from Glasgow to Edinburgh to shop for   the new year sales. The plans can be changed to  adapt if that is the best thing for passengers. That is interesting. Thank you. That brings us to the end of this  session. I thank our witnesses very  

Much for giving evidence to the committee  this morning. Liz McLeod has undertaken to   get back to us on a couple of points,  so we look forward to receiving that. I briefly suspend the meeting to  allow for a changeover of witnesses.

Welcome back. We continue our consideration of  Scotland’s railways by hearing from a second   panel, which is made up of representatives  of rail operators. I am pleased to welcome   Kathryn Darbandi, who is the managing  director of Caledonian Sleeper Ltd;   Alex Hynes, who is the managing  director of Scotland’s Railway;  

Joanne Maguire, who is the chief operating  officer of ScotRail Trains Ltd; and Liam   Sumpter, who is the route director of Network  Rail Scotland. Thank you for joining us today. I put on record the fact that I was one of  the first conveners that Alex Hynes had the  

Misfortune to come across when he took over  his position in 2017. He has now accepted   a secondment as director general for rail  services for Transport UK, I think, which,   to my mind, is recognition of the hard work that  he has done. Congratulations on that appointment,  

Alex. It is fitting that I should get the  last chance to have a go at you before you   go. I will be very gentle. I will not remind  you about the bridge at Dalwhinnie, except to  

Put on record the fact that you promised that  it would be replaced and it still has not been. I will begin with a question for Joanne  Maguire about budgets. How much does it   cost to run ScotRail a year? How do you go  about sorting out the budget? Do you just say,  

“This is what we need,” and that is  what the Government gives you? How does   that work? Could you please explain  that to me, if you would not mind? Good morning, convener, and  thank you for the question.

If only we had the opportunity to say, “This is  what we would like,” and it was handed to us. A   lot of scrutiny goes into our budget preparations.  We work collaboratively across Scotland’s   railway, which involves looking across at Network  Rail and the planning for its next control period.

In thinking about the budget year ahead,  we work from the bottom up in our budget   preparations and spend time looking at what we  have achieved in the previous year. We aim to   set stretching targets. In the first instance,  our draft budget goes to the ScotRail Trains  

Board. Normally, a number of iterations  will go before and be challenged by that   board. The budget will then go to  the Scottish Rail Holdings board,   before being presented to Transport Scotland.  There is a high degree of scrutiny and challenge,   both internally at ScotRail and  through the agencies that govern us.

I think that there was a line in last  year’s Transport Scotland budget that   allocated around £14 million to cover  wage increases. Will that happen every   year or will that money be part of the  overall budget? How will that work out?

As with all organisations across the UK, our  employees have not been immune to the cost of   living increases that everyone has been impacted  by. Over the past few years, we have worked very   hard—as have our trade unions—to improve  industrial relations at ScotRail. We also  

Need to be governed by the Scottish public  sector pay policy, the publication of which   we keenly await. That will help to guide us  in our pay negotiations for the coming year. I understand and accept all of that, but I want  to understand whether, every time there is a wage  

Increase—I think that the cost of the 5 per cent  increase was roughly £14 million—it will appear   as a separate line in Transport Scotland’s  budget or be part of your budget as a whole. In our draft budget, we are making provision  for pay increases. Depending on what the  

Scottish public sector pay policy says,  we might need to review that line,   but there is a line in the ScotRail Trains  budget for pay reviews for the coming year. I am thinking about how a business would approach  the issue. Most businesses would say, “Right,  

Here’s my budget.” If they did not have  enough money, they could not necessarily   go to somebody else and ask for more money.  Businesses have to make their budgets work,   so they would have to make cuts in other areas  to fund a pay increase, but it appears that you  

Have simply gone to Transport Scotland to get  that money. Have I got that completely wrong? To be fair to our employees and the organisation,   there are lots of efficiencies that we look for  alongside our pay increases. In the previous year,  

Part of the deal that we negotiated involved our  employees accepting technology. The organisation   had been trying to achieve that for more  than 10 years. Through that, we have reduced— I am absolutely not disagreeing  with the negotiating process;  

I am simply saying that you did not have  enough money, so you had to get more money   from Transport Scotland to cover the pay  increase. Is that what will happen every   year or will you be expected to fund pay increases  for your staff from the money that you are given?

Alex Hynes wants to come in, but I  was going to make the point that— He is itching to come in. —through technology, we have increased our revenue  collection by having our ticket examiners and   conductors scan more tickets. Through that,  we have also decreased our refund numbers on  

Our e-tickets, for example, which brings money  back to our revenue line through efficiency. I do not think that that comes  to £14 million, but there we go. In addition to everything that Joanne Maguire  mentioned, we manage the costs and the revenues  

As a commercial enterprise in the public sector.  In the first year of public ownership, the subsidy   that we required was £708 million, which was  down on the previous year’s figure of £730   million. If we ever get any cost trends that are  adverse to budget, our first instinct is to see  

Whether we can fill that gap ourselves through  efficiencies in other areas and revenue growth. One of the fantastic things about ScotRail  right now is that it is the fastest-growing   train operating company in Britain. The  fact that we have huge rates of revenue  

Growth is helping us to reduce the cost  to the taxpayer and to cover some of the   headwinds that have been related to inflation,  which, of course, is not in anyone’s control. I will ask some other questions towards the end of  the session, but I will now bring in Mark Ruskell.

I want to ask you about the new normal  as regards post-Covid travel patterns.   Is that picture settling down? Is the  peak still leisure driven? What has the   impact been on your services over the past  year? Is it now more of a fixed landscape?  

How are you operating within that landscape? I  put that to ScotRail and to Caledonian Sleeper. I will go first for ScotRail,   and then I will bring in Joanne Maguire,  before handing over to Kathryn Darbandi. I do not think that we have reached  what might be described as a new normal,  

Whatever normal is these days, because we are  seeing such rapid rates of passenger growth.   Passenger journeys are growing at rates  of 10, 20 or 30 per cent per annum. The   fact that we are the fastest-growing train  operating company in Britain is great news,  

Because we want our railway to be busier. Of  course, every pound that we collect through   the fare box is a pound that we do not have  to get from the taxpayer through subsidy. We are now at about 85 per cent of our pre-Covid  passenger numbers—in other words, we are still  

15 per cent down on where we were before  the pandemic. That average figure hides   huge changes in the market. Saturday is now the  busiest day, which would have been unthinkable   five years ago. That is influencing  the way that we run the business—for  

Example, it is influencing when we decide  to close the railway to do engineering work. Business has recovered relatively well but, of  course, commuting has collapsed relative to what   it was just five years ago. Therefore,  the mix of our passengers has changed  

Significantly. That means that we have had to  change the way that we operate our railway,   and our timetable reflects that. My  favourite example of that is that we   run more frequent trains between  Edinburgh and Glasgow on a Saturday   than we do from Monday to Friday, because  Saturdays are busier than Monday to Friday.

As I said, passenger journeys are growing back  strongly, which is great news. When we change   the timetable in June, we will add in more  services to reflect the market that is now   there for rail. We are very proud of the fact  that, between us, we are overseeing such growth.

Jo, is there anything that you want  to add from a ScotRail perspective? I can confirm that, from June,  our services will be at around   93 per cent of the pre-pandemic timetable. We  are making improvements. We will be excited   to see the Levenmouth branch opening. We are  making improvements across Edinburgh, Fife,  

Perth, Dundee and Inverclyde, and we are  adding additional services in other areas. From the Caledonian Sleeper perspective, our  business is different from ScotRail’s—as,   I am sure, everybody appreciates. We recovered  from the pandemic faster than most other commuter   TOCs in the UK, including ScotRail. That is  because our guest base is very different.

It is worth mentioning a few nuances of the  business. Eighty per cent of our guests are   one-time travellers who are tourists  or people who are visiting friends and   family in Scotland. Just 20 per cent of our  guest base is made up of business travellers.  

I will come back to that, because the  position has changed ever so slightly. Post-pandemic, Caledonian Sleeper  was in the fortunate position of   benefiting from the staycation boom in the first  year, when many people travelled within the UK.   In the second year, although the staycation boom  tailed off a little, the international tourists  

Came back. About 20 per cent of our tourism  business is international tourism. We recovered   very quickly, and quicker than most other TOCs.  We were in a fortunate position in that regard. We are very full. We are now in a better position  than the one that we were in before the pandemic.  

Our forward revenue is up by 36 per cent.  That is money in the bank, if you like,   because we sell our tickets a year in  advance—again, that is another nuance   with the sleeper. The commuter TOCs can do that  only 12 weeks in advance. Our forward revenue is  

Up by 36 per cent. On 3 March just gone, we had  our biggest sales day ever. The demand is there,   and we are full to the brim, pretty  much, every day and every night. I have a little bit of trend information for  the committee. Our highlander service—which,  

As it says on the tin, runs to the  Highlands—recovered slightly better   than our lowlander service. Our lowlander  service, which runs to Glasgow and Edinburgh,   is a bit more skewed towards business travel.  However, both have now fully recovered. For our   business travel market, the big difference is  that whereas, previously, people would have  

Travelled on the Monday and come back on the  Friday, we are now seeing a slightly shorter   week. That is advantageous for us, because we  can sell our weekend services to our tourism   market. Therefore, the change in buying and  travelling behaviour has not impacted us  

Dramatically. We are in a very good position,  and we were very fortunate post-pandemic. Thanks for sharing that picture. Alex Hynes, the trial of off-peak fares being  available all day will run until June. We are   waiting for an evaluation of the trial, but  what are the figures showing at this point?  

Is the trial bringing in significant numbers of  new passengers, or it is just leading to savings   for existing passengers? What has been the  impact on both patronage and fare-box income? It will not surprise you to hear that, as  with most things on the railway, it is quite  

Complicated to work out what the isolated  impact of off-peak fares being available all   day has been. That is for two reasons. First,  we are growing so quickly anyway—by 10, 20 or 30   per cent per annum—so it is difficult to work out  the isolated impact of the trial. Secondly, since  

We launched the trial, we have had 10 named  storms, which has been more than ever before. We have clever people in ScotRail working out  exactly what the impact has been on revenue   and patronage. We know that the trial  has made the railway busier and that it  

Has cost us money in the fare box, but we  are trying to work out the exact figures. Our Transport Scotland colleagues are  doing an evaluation from a multimodal   perspective. If the railway  has got busier by X per cent,   where have those passengers come from? For  example, are those passengers taking new trips,  

Or are they taking the train when they would  otherwise have taken the car or the bus? That work is being done as we speak,  and we will provide the information to   Scottish Rail Holdings and Transport  Scotland so that Scottish ministers,  

Who have always controlled the fares, can  make a decision about what happens next. What would be your measure of success for the  trial of off-peak fares being available all   day? To put it bluntly, will there come a  point at which, with an increase in fare-box  

Income as a result of more people  returning to use the railways,   the Scottish Government will not need  to provide any subsidy or will need to   provide only minimal subsidy? Would that be a  measure of success, or is there something else? Obviously, we are in the business of  moving customers around the country,  

And we want to see a growing railway. However, the  trial is a Scottish Government-funded initiative   to drive progress towards other policy  objectives—whether it is providing help   with the cost of living crisis, supporting  decarbonisation or encouraging a modal shift—so  

It is not really for us to set the success  measures, because the trial is a Scottish   Government intervention. With ScotRail under  public ownership, the Government has decided to   give us some extra money in order to drive  progress towards other policy objectives,  

So whether the policy has been a  success is a matter for the Government. Do you think that the policy should  continue and become permanent? I have worked in railways for more than 25  years. Scottish ministers control the fares,  

Because there is a genuine trade-off in relation  to who pays for the railway. Is it passengers,   or is it taxpayers? That decision is for  politicians, not for railway managers. Okay. Is ScotRail taking part in other initiatives  to grow the passenger market? I should  

Declare that I am a new member of  club 50, and the £17 return fares,   where you can add a kid for a quid, mean that  I use the railway for journeys that I would   otherwise have taken by other means. I am  not talking about that scheme specifically,  

But have other initiatives been  successful in growing the market? Absolutely. I will bring  in Joanne Maguire shortly. Revenue generation is a key activity for us. We  have been free from industrial action in Scotland,   and we are generally delivering a good service  to our customers. We are investing a lot in  

Revenue protection and in marketing. It  is now difficult to pick up a newspaper,   watch television or listen to the radio in  Scotland without seeing or hearing a ScotRail   advert. We are about to start a new financial  year, and our marketing budget has gone up even  

Further to about £5 million per annum.  We have loads of great value offers,   including club 50 and the kids for a quid  scheme. A key part of our activity involves   revenue generation and giving passengers  excellent value for money for their fares. Does Joanne Maguire want to add anything?

We are building a stable operating environment,  with nine out of 10 customers telling us that   they are satisfied with our services, which gives  us the platform to invest more in our marketing   campaigns. I hope that you saw some of our  Christmas campaigns on TV, and we did a leaflet  

Drop for households. Under the kids for a quid  scheme, four children can travel return for £1   each with an adult. That is a great campaign that  we will push, especially over the summer holidays.   We are looking at lots of initiatives in addition  to off-peak fares being available all day.

Rather than ask a follow-up question, convener— You are not getting a follow-up question, because— I would not indulge myself, convener, as you know. However, Ms Maguire, it would be helpful  if you could set out in correspondence   how Scotland’s Railway reports on how successful  

Or otherwise such initiatives have been.  What you have said sounds very positive,   but it would be good for the committee to  be able to look at some of that information. The next question is from Douglas Lumsden. Kathryn Darbandi, what has been the impact of  bringing Caledonian Sleeper into public ownership?

It is fairly early days for us. We are  only six months into public ownership; we   transitioned at the end of June. There has  been very little impact in the business,   because everybody transferred across under the  Transfer of Undertakings Regulations. Everybody  

Who works for Caledonian Sleeper, including  me, feels very passionate about what we do,   and everybody wanted to remain in the  business, so everybody transferred across. Every day, we are doing exactly the same as we  did before public ownership. We have the same  

Focus and the same team, but there are differences  in governance and meetings. It is important to say   that Transport Scotland and Scottish ministers  were always our customers anyway, even under   private ownership, so we already had transparent  and open dialogue, meetings and conversations.  

All of that has continued positively,  with a few different ways of working. We are looking forward to being able to contribute  to policy, because we feel that we have a lot to   bring to the table. We have formally submitted our  first business plan, which outlines our focuses  

For the next year. We look forward to being able  to plan for the longer term. We believe that there   will be a more stable environment, so it will be  easier to plan for, and do the right things for,  

The longer term. It is really early days, but  there has been very little change in the business. You mentioned a business plan. How should we  expect the service to develop in the future? There are many aspects to the business  plan. Even though our services are full,  

It is important to note that  80 per cent of our guests are   one-time-only travellers. We have a  lot of focus on filling the trains,   because we have to find guests again each year  so that our revenue continues to grow positively. We are ensuring that our on-time performance  continues. We are doing extremely  

Well in that regard—we have just hit a record  high of 87.22 per cent, but we do not take it for   granted that we will repeat that performance  next year. That is an important measure. We are also doing well in making continuous  improvements in relation to guest satisfaction.  

Our rolling average is 86 per cent,  against a target of 85 per cent,   which is very difficult to achieve. We are  proud that we are achieving that target, but   we do not take it for granted that  we will continue to achieve it. We continue to focus on revenue,  

Filling the trains, operational  performance and guest experience. In relation to wider developments, we are looking  at some longer-term initiatives. For example,   we want to support the net zero policy  by replacing the diesel locomotives that   run our Highlander service. We will  not deliver replacements next year,  

But we will start to think about that over  the next year. That is just one example. You mentioned that the trains are full  already. Is there any way to increase   capacity? Have fares changed since the  service moved into public ownership?

I will talk about fares first. As  I am sure most people are aware,   the new trains came into service in 2015,  and fares were set at that point. We had not   increased fares since 2020, because we wanted  to ensure that we recovered from the pandemic,  

But we have recently increased them for the  first time. Given that the trains are full,   we need to keep an eye on the situation to  ensure that what we do with fares does not   affect demand. There is a balance to strike,  and we have a talented team in the business  

That looks at that. Fares are pretty stable and,  as Alex Hynes said earlier, they are approved by   Scottish ministers. We make a recommendation, but,  ultimately, Scottish ministers make the decision. In relation to capacity, as I said, 80  per cent of our guests are new every year,  

So it is not a given that we  will fill the trains every year,   but we have done well for the past three  years. To be honest, there is very little   capacity. There is some during the off-peak  shoulder season, winter and midweek. We look  

For opportunities to fill every cabin and every  seat, but very little capacity is available. Have subsidies now changed from before  the pandemic? Where have they gone? The position has remained fairly stable.  Jo Maguire spoke about her budget, and we   expect our budget to remain stable next  year. We have gone through exactly the  

Same budget process as she outlined.  It is around the £40 million mark,   and we hope to deliver against  the same number next year. I am trying to take in all that.  Subsidies have not reduced,   capacity has not increased  and fares have not reduced,  

So I am still trying to work out what the point  was of taking the service into public ownership. That decision was taken by Scottish ministers.  That is all that I can say about that. I want to clarify something. Your fares  ratchet up fairly quickly as the day of  

Travel gets closer—the cost of a basic berth can  suddenly increase from roughly between £120 and   £140 to £220 when few spaces are available. Peak  fares operate on Caledonian Sleeper’s service. We sell our tickets a year in advance, as I  mentioned. We have a number of different products  

On offer—we have seats, we have three grades  of room and we also have accessible rooms—and   they are all priced differently. We  also offer an excellent family price— I understand that but, as the  day of travel gets closer, your   prices for overnight accommodation can double.

We dynamically price our fares, so we  change them based on demand. A lot of   our trains are booked up a long time in advance,   but if there are very few rooms left close  to departure, the price will be higher. It is sometimes double.

That is possibly the case sometimes,  but not as standard. The system works   using an algorithm based on learning  and history, and we have a talented   team that deals with that. We also have a cap  so prices cannot go above a certain amount. Okay. I have learned from my mistake.

I will bring in Mark Ruskell very briefly  to ask one question to one witness. I have just a quick question. Caledonian  Sleeper provides an excellent service,   but the choices are quite stark. You have seated  accommodation, or you have high-end, hotel-grade   accommodation with en suite facilities. Most  European sleeper services run couchette services,  

Which get more people on the trains and are  more affordable for more regular travellers.   What can you do within what you have? Can  you add more carriages? Can you procure   more carriages? It feels like quite a stark  choice at the moment. It excludes many people.

Within the realms of what we have today, we can  do little without huge cost, because we would be   talking about a complete reconfiguration of the  trains. What we have today was specified in 2015   and approved by ministers and the Government,  so I would say that very little can be done.

However, the position is not  quite as stark as you suggest,   because we offer some products. We have a good  family product. We also have the opportunity   for regular travellers to buy 10 tickets  in advance, which are dramatically reduced   in price. We are conscious of that,  and we have good products on offer.

If the Scottish Government decided  to allow us to procure more trains,   we would take the brief from the  Scottish Government, of course,   but we would consider and take into account  lessons learned in the design of those. The  

Service has been hugely successful based on what  was procured and what was set out in the mandate   that was given to the business. It would be  a decision for the Scottish Government if   it wanted to bring in a sleeper service that  was more aligned to what we see in Europe. We  

Are interested in what happens in Europe, but  what we are designed to do today is different. Good morning to the panel. First,  congratulations to Alex Hynes on his   new appointment as director general of rail  services at the Department for Transport,   moving from Scotland’s Railway to  Britain’s railways, in four weeks’  

Time. Can you advise the committee who  will take over from you on 15 April? This news was announced only yesterday, and  arrangements are in place and discussions   are happening between Network Rail  and Scottish Rail Holdings. Any   arrangements on who will succeed me  will be communicated before I leave.

Your role is MD of both Network Rail Scotland  and ScotRail. Will that arrangement continue? Yes. The alliance between Network Rail and  ScotRail will continue. It is widely perceived   to have been a success to operate track and train  together and there is great interest in everything  

That we have achieved in the last time period in  Scotland. As you know, the UK Government wants to   bring track and train back together on the railway  south of the border. I pay tribute to everyone who   works for ScotRail and Network Rail for all their  hard work and everything that they have delivered  

During my time here. Hopefully, I will be able to  export some of that good practice to other places. I think that it is just for two years,  so you might be back in front of us. I want to speak about the impact of  weather events. You mentioned earlier that,  

Even during the pilot scheme for the  abolition of peak fares, there have   been 10 named storms. I will not ask you to  name them all, but extreme weather events are   having an increasing impact on Scottish rail  services. How is that issue being addressed  

In the short term and how will it be addressed  in the coming years? Maybe Liam Sumpter could   add to the answer. What impact might the  challenges around control period 7 cuts   to investment have on any of the actions that  we are about to hear about from Alex Hynes?

I will start and then hand over to Liam Sumpter. In this five-year control period, Network  Rail has had £4.2 billion to manage the   infrastructure. In the next five-year period,  the number is about the same, so there is a   consistently strong commitment from the Scottish  Government to investing in infrastructure.

We are seeing the impact of climate  change happening quite rapidly. Mean   rainfall in Scotland in the past 10 years has  increased by 8 per cent, which is quite a lot,   because it was quite wet to begin with in  parts of the country. Of course, our railway  

Was primarily built by the Victorians when the  weather was different. Therefore, while we have   been putting our business plan together for the  next five years on the infrastructure side, we   have specifically targeted additional investment  in those railway infrastructure assets that are  

Vulnerable to the impacts of climate change:  structures, embankments, drainage assets and so   on. In the next five years, £400 million will  be spent on making the railway more resilient. Since the tragic accident at Carmont on 12 August  2020, we have applied more precautionary speed  

Restrictions to keep our passengers and staff  safe when we get adverse and extreme weather.   We have done a host of really good work to  make sure that we can run a safe and resilient   railway. For example, we have invested more  in infrastructure and, in particular, in our  

Knowledge of our drainage assets. We have  modified the trains. As I said, we now   apply precautionary speed restrictions more often  but, also, our control centre on the outskirts of   Glasgow is the first railway control centre in  Britain to have full-time meteorologists, 24/7,  

365 days a year. That helps us to learn  about the impact of weather on our network. As we have got better at running what I regard as  the basics of railway operation both in ScotRail   and in Network Rail, which has underpinned our  improved punctuality over the past 12 months,  

The growing impact of weather is a headwind  that is pushing us in the other direction.   There is no question but that we need to spend  more time, effort and investment on the issue. It is good to see that, in the Network Rail  Scotland business plan, which starts on 1 April,  

There is increased investment in those  types of assets, which should, hopefully,   mean that we do not have to apply these  precautionary speed restrictions as much.   For example, we completed a multimillion-pound  project on the Edinburgh to Glasgow line,   which means that under extreme rainfall  events we do not have to apply a speed  

Restriction at all because we  have made the asset so resilient. Sometimes our response is to invest in the  infrastructure and make it more resilient.   Sometimes we use softer measures such  as precautionary speed restrictions.   We are rolling out all sorts of clever  technology across the network, such as  

Earthworks failure detection  systems, which are probes that sit   inside embankments and detect movement  that can be a precursor to a landslip. Lots of good work is happening in this space  and Jo Maguire, Liam Sumpter and I sit down  

With all four trade unions every quarter to  take them through where we are with each of   the recommendations. We have made some good  progress in this area, but I agree with you   that the impact of weather is significant. It  is disruptive for our passengers and our staff.  

We need to do more to tackle what is a growing  problem. Liam, would you like to add anything? Thank you. Yes, I am keen to hear from Liam  Sumpter. Alex Hynes mentioned resilience. Some   routes will be more challenging  than others because of drainage  

Issues and other factors. Liam,  could you expand on that briefly? Good morning, committee. Alex Hynes’s  answer was quite extensive and covered a   lot of what I would have mentioned, but  I will pick up on a couple of points. The technology point is important.  Because of the size of Scotland’s railway,  

Using people to go and look at what is happening  all the time is not safe and is labour intensive,   so we use more technology. Alex mentioned the  tilt meters that measure whether the embankments   are slipping. If you are travelling about on  Scotland’s railway and you see these little  

Yellow poles about 1m high, sticking out of the  bank, that is what you are seeing. Tilt meters   are installed at over 100 sites now. You  will be able to see that for yourselves. We have also added technology at bridges  to measure scour, when water erodes old  

Structures around the bottom of bridges. We  have done that at 25 of our key scour locations. We are also using our helicopter more. We  have a dedicated Network Rail helicopter   with a camera on the front. In fact, the  technology in the camera on the front of  

The helicopter is such that the camera costs  more than the helicopter. It can see very small   things that might interfere with the railway.  It can spot landslips early. Sometimes those   come from quite far away from the railway,  so people travelling on the railway would  

Not see them. The camera also detects  different levels of heat, so it allows   us to see whether something is happening around  electrification assets and things like that. To answer your point, some lines are harder  to tackle than others. The west Highland line  

In particular is challenging to tackle, because  the railway is built close to mountains in some   cases. The topography is very challenging and, of  course, it is the wettest part of the UK. Parts   of the west Highland line saw more rain in a day  in October than Glasgow has in the whole of an  

Average October. It is very wet. We have to target  our mitigations quite carefully to make sure that   we do as much as possible to benefit as many  passengers as possible, but affordably as well,   because some infrastructure measures can be  expensive. We need to target them accordingly.

Where we cannot do an immediate infrastructure  fix, we apply operational restrictions such   as speed restrictions. We try to  target those to the most sensitive   locations with the most risk so that we  do not disrupt passengers unnecessarily.

There is a lot to comment on there, but we  do not have time. I wonder whether we will   see more operational restrictions,  such as speed restrictions. What   you told us about the helicopter is new  information for me, so thank you for that.

I will come back to Alex Hynes. You said that  Scotland’s Railway is industrial action free,   but I am aware that the RMT—the National Union  of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—is   balloting its ScotRail members tomorrow  on the proposed extension of driver-only  

Operation. It is quite timely that you are  here. I wonder why this issue continues to   be a problem. Unions fear that driver-only  operation is being brought in by the back   door. I know that you care about having good  industrial relations, so what has been done  

To address that? Will Scotland’s Railway  continue to be industrial action free? I do not know whether Alex Hynes or Joanne   Maguire is best placed to speak to  this—perhaps both should answer. I will start and then bring Jo Maguire in.

First, the constructive relationships that we  have with our four trade unions in both businesses   are critical in underpinning the service that we  provide and, of course, they represent our people,   who do a fantastic job every day and every  night to deliver a fantastic rail service. That  

Will not change. Where we have disagreements, we  continue through dialogue to try to resolve them. Of course, we are committed to having two people  on board every train. In the west of the country,   we tend to operate trains on a driver-only bases  with a ticket examiner on board. In the east of  

The country, we tend to have a driver and  a conductor on board. We find that allowing   the drivers to open and close the doors is  good for visibility for customers and good   for revenue collection and so on. Both of those  are safe methods of operation, as we call it.

With the investment that we are  getting from the Scottish Government,   we are electrifying some lines in the west  of the country. We recently completed the   electrification of the Barrhead line and  we are completing the electrification of   the Glasgow to East Kilbride line between  now and December 2025. We are talking to  

Our relevant trade unions about the method  of operation on those routes. Hopefully,   we will be able to resolve those differences  without the need for any industrial action. The ballot opens tomorrow, but our door is  still open and we are still in discussions.   It is an interesting situation,  because this involves both ASLEF—the  

Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and  Firemen—and the RMT, but ASLEF supports the   changes that we want to make  whereas the RMT opposes them. As opposed to pushing a change through  the back door, although we had wanted to   implement this change in December when  the newly electrified line was opened,  

We agreed, because of concerns that  were raised by unions, to delay the   implementation of the change to allow for further  consultation and negotiation on what we intend. We have guaranteed the employment of all the  conductors, because there are other services  

Running out of Glasgow Central, where they are  based, that we can deploy them on. In fact,   rather than services being unsafe, we have  evidence that we can provide better value   for the taxpayer by improving revenue collection  and ensuring that the second person on the train  

Is visible in order to better defend against  antisocial behaviour and provide passenger   assistance if required. The key factor is that  we guarantee the employment of the conductors,   and we are committed to delivering  a second person on every train.

It sounds like there is a way to go here before  everyone is around the table. Just so that I have   this right, the Scottish Government’s position is  that it specifies a requirement that all ScotRail   services should have a second staff member on  board to assist passengers. The RMT appears to  

Be concerned that there will be discretion  and that the train driver will have to make   that decision. It feels as if there will be  pressure on the train driver. Am I correct? I am conscious of time, so I am happy to have  a follow-up discussion or correspondence if  

Required. As we operate now, where the fleet is  enabled, the driver will open and close the doors.   There is always a second person rostered on those  services, but if at short notice that person is   not available, the train will run. We suggest that  that would remain in place. ASLEF accepts that  

That is a current practice and that it is safe. We  do not plan to run trains in that way but, with a   short-notice cancellation, it would still be safe  to operate a service without a second person. As part of these negotiations and as an on-going  matter since we have come into public ownership,  

We have worked hard to close  the vacancy gap at ScotRail,   which helps us deliver the guarantee  of a second person on the train. I think that we would appreciate more information.  It is a live issue. I am not entirely sure of the  

Business case. There is a commitment on rostering  but no guarantee of the second person on board. I   am not sure how often there will not be a second  person. I will leave it there for now, convener. I am struggling here, because a lot  of members want to ask supplementary  

Questions, but the clock is against me. If  members come in with supplementary questions,   others will not get to ask questions, which  will be difficult, so I will stick with the   list that we have worked out. I ask members to  keep their questions short and I ask the witnesses  

To answer as succinctly as possible, which, I  am sure, they will say they have done already. Bob Doris has the next questions. For brevity, I will roll two or three questions  together. They are about opportunities relating   to the purchasing of new rolling stock. How  will ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper go about  

Procuring new rolling stock in the future? For  instance, will new trains be procured through   rolling stock leasing companies—I put on record  that I have some dissatisfaction with that model,   to be honest—or will it be done directly  by operators or some other public body?

Also—I said there was a lot in this  question—how will rail users be   involved in the design and layout of new  rolling stock? There are three aspects:   procurement, design and dialogue with passengers. I see Joanne Maguire and Kathryn  Darbandi scribbling away furiously.   I do not know who wants to come in first.

We were worried that you would have three  questions. I will come in first, if I may. ScotRail’s fleet is relatively old and is  getting older. We operate more types of   rolling stock than any other operator in  Britain. We need to invest in new rolling  

Stock for two reasons. First, we want to remove  diesel vehicles from the network. Secondly,   we need to replace some trains because  they are approaching life expiry. We are working with the Scottish  Government on those plans. Specifically,   in ScotRail, that is about the replacement of  our intercity trains and about suburban electric  

Trains and suburban battery electric trains.  That is aligned with the need to replace our   older rolling stock in the west of the country  and the fact that we continue to electrify the   network and want to exploit the benefits of  electrification to decarbonise the railway.  

Between ScotRail and Network Rail, Scottish  Rail Holdings and the Scottish Government,   those conversations are live, and we are  working through the business case both for   intercity and suburban rolling stock. I hope  that we will make progress on that this year.

Our default assumption is that we will  continue to procure trains as we have done   for the past 25 years, which is through  rolling stock leasing companies because,   frankly, they put up the money so that other  people do not have to. That market works well,  

Although that is not to rule  out any other financing options. Before you continue, I have no concept—I am  not sure that people listening in will have,   either—of the cost of a railway carriage or train. They are very expensive. Go on—give us a clue. How much is a carriage?

It is a couple of million per carriage. What about a train to pull it? What would  the new version of the 125 cost, which   I seem to remember having on my  railway track when I was a kid? A four-car electric train of the sort that  runs between Glasgow and Edinburgh—most of  

Them have eight carriages—would  be £8 million. Trains are very   expensive. We have 1,000 carriages  in the fleet, and we need to replace   around 65 per cent of those in the coming  decade. That will be a huge investment.

Thank you. I just wanted to get that context.  We will go back to Bob Doris’s questions. Because— I apologise, Mr Hynes, but I will pause you  there. The rolling stock operating companies,   or ROSCOs, are effectively financing  arrangements with leaseback. If I am right,  

Under previous iterations, there was no  control from the purchaser about where the   work went to construct and maintain the  trains. Scotland’s Railway has a lack of   flexibility to direct some of that work  and, if possible, through procurement,   to create, maintain and preserve jobs in  Scotland. Is that a reasonable reflection?

You are absolutely right that they are, in  essence, a financing arrangement. If you are not   going to finance new trains through rolling stock  leasing companies, the Scottish Government will   have to decide where the finance will come from.  Porterbrook, which is one of the rolling stock  

Leasing companies, recently bought stock in Brodie  Engineering at Kilmarnock, which is an interesting   development. We would love for more of our work  to be done in depots and facilities that are based   in Scotland rather than having to send  trains to England and bring them back.

You asked about how passengers will be involved.  We have agreed with Transport Scotland officials   that, when we go out to procure the new trains, we  will specify level boarding, which closes entirely   the gap between the train and the platform,  where we have a modern platform. That will be  

An absolute game changer for accessibility on our  railway. It will provide a genuine turn-up-and-go   ability for people and might enable people  with reduced mobility to travel unaccompanied. Once we get the authority to commence  the procurement—procuring a new train   takes rather a long time—we  will fully consult passengers  

On layout. We already have exciting  ideas about family-friendly spaces,   for example, on board trains, which  will help to grow the market further. I have spoken for quite a long time, I am afraid. Does either of your colleagues  wish to add anything? I can be succinct. We do not plan to procure  

Any additional rolling stock because,  as we discussed, we have new trains. Ms Maguire, do you want to add something? We welcome the huge opportunity to replace  some of the 11 different types of train that   we currently run and potentially to simplify  things for operation and for our customers,  

With improvements to accessibility. As Alex Hynes  said, we will consult more fully with passengers,   but be reassured that we have had initial  consultation with stakeholder groups. Before I move on, I have a question about battery  electric trains. I understand that they would be  

Needed, for example, on the Maryhill line, which  is not electrified. Modern battery electric trains   could run on that line without electrification.  Is that the benefit of battery electric? Yes. Battery electric trains can use the overhead  electrification system where it exists and,  

Where it does not, they use energy from  the batteries on board the train. A line   with a small range, such as the Maryhill  line, is within the range of a battery,   which would enable us to decarbonise that  route without any overhead electrification.

In addition, we are looking initially  at the partial electrification of the   railway in Fife and of the Borders railway. Again,   having a battery electric train would enable us  to decarbonise in advance of full electrification. It sounds more economic to do it that way,  given the cost of full electrification.

On financing, ROSCOs appear  to be the only show in town,   because of the huge costs involved. Do the  Government and ScotRail have the ability   to knit together alternative financing  arrangements, or is that just how it is?

We are the buyer, so we are free to decide how  we want to finance our trains. Alternatives   are available. For example, the Scottish National  Investment Bank might be interested—I do not know.   However, at the moment, our priority is making  the business case with the Scottish Government  

To enable us to start the procurement, and then  we can work through the exact financing later. I will move on to the accessibility of  Scotland’s rail network. With the earlier panel,   I raised the example of me using Springburn  train station with my small child—it is more  

Of an assault course than a train station to  navigate. Other train stations with similar   issues are available, convener, but that  particular station has made it on to the   access for all scheme shortlist for  the second time. The Department for  

Transport will make a decision in due course,  but it was on that shortlist previously. Does   the access for all scheme work well, not just  for Springburn station but across the country? Do you have any other comments  about the need to do more to make  

Train stations more accessible  to all? That includes not just   families and wheelchair users but  the visually impaired and others. One oddity of the railway structure is  that rail accessibility is reserved to   Westminster. We have a strong track record of  using the DFT access for all fund to invest in  

Improving access for all at stations. We have  just completed work at Port Glasgow, and we   have a number of live schemes across  the country. We want to do more. On Springburn, it was great to see recently  a joint ScotRail and Network Rail team go  

There to see what relatively low-cost but  high-impact improvements we could make.   There is a large local college, and it is also  the nearest station to our control centre. I   am sure that we can make improvements there.  Recently, I was with the First Minister and  

The MSP for Pollok to see the improvements  that we have made at Cardonald station. As you rightly point out, such improvements do  not only benefit people with accessibility needs;   everyone benefits from those investments,  which are often relatively small scale but   can make a significant difference  to people using the rail network.

I have no more questions, convener  but, for clarity and transparency,   I point out that I was at the visit to Springburn  station that Mr Hynes referenced. Also, I put   on record—this came up in the  earlier evidence session—that   representatives of Sustrans, the college  and Glasgow City Council were also there.  

The small charity Spirit of Springburn, of which  I am a trustee and which engages in town centre   regeneration, was also represented. There was a  sense of proper collegiate partnership working. One of the things that we have done in the  past 12 months between ScotRail and Network  

Rail is to produce a sustainable travel  to stations policy. Someone from Sustrans   was seconded into the Network Rail team and  he now works for Scotland’s Railway. Active   travel links to stations are a growing part  of our agenda. We see that at Levenmouth,  

Where the active travel links to the  stations are being built in from the start. Thank you. The next question  is from Douglas Lumsden. Thanks, convener. I will go back to  the issue of antisocial behaviour,   which Monica Lennon mentioned earlier.  What more are your organisations doing  

To combat antisocial behaviour on our  railways? What can we do to assist? Alcohol is banned now on ScotRail services at all   times of day. What has happened with the  consultation and where will that lead? First, we are doing a lot of work  on antisocial behaviour. As we know,  

During Covid we saw an increase in antisocial  behaviour, and it was a big theme that came   out from our staff survey. We are  investing heavily in this area. We have created a travel safe team in the west of  the country. We are on a massive recruitment drive  

To fill front-line vacancies and we recently  renewed our fleet of body cameras. We have   now bought many more body cameras than we used to  have because we see their use by our staff grow. We have also strengthened our relationship  with the British Transport Police, which is  

Responsible for policing the network in Britain.  We work with them in partnership to respond to the   issues that we see—both the actual issues and the  perception of security on trains and in stations. We work hard on antisocial behaviour.  In our staff engagement sessions,  

We are starting to notice the difference. Jo  McGuire can provide some more detail on that. The alcohol ban divides opinion. Everyone  has a view on it. Some people would love to   be able to drink on trains and some people  are vehemently against drinking on trains.  

Scottish ministers have to decide on the  alcohol ban policy but, as I say, there is   no clear winner in terms of public opinion.  It comes back to the policy objectives that   the Scottish Government is trying to deliver and,  therefore, it is a matter for Scottish ministers.

On that point, when I ask Scottish ministers,  they say that it is up to ScotRail, which has   conducted a consultation—people who used the  train wi-fi were invited to give their views.   When does that get reported back to Scottish  ministers so that they can make a decision?

Jo Maguire can add something on this topic. As Alex Hynes said, that was part of the  feedback that we have reported back on, and   there is no clear winner. There is  a roughly 50:50 split on views about   alcohol on trains. We are conscious that  it is a policy decision, because alcohol  

Has a broader impact on society that goes  beyond the issue of safety on our trains. So, that information has gone back to  Scottish ministers. When did they receive it? I will have to check that and write to the   committee. However, that information  has been sent to Transport Scotland.

I am frustrated that I am getting pinged between  different places when I ask questions about the   issue. I have asked you, and you have been quite  honest with us; and I have asked ministers,   who have said that the matter is a ScotRail  decision. It is good to have that clarified.

As for antisocial behaviour, I do not want to  repeat what Alex Hynes has said, as I am conscious   of time, but I confirm that we had support  from the Scottish Government to invest in the   body-worn cameras. As a consequence, the number  has gone up threefold: we have moved from having  

300 body-worn cameras available for our  staff to having just more than 1,000. We   also double-staff trains in known hotspots, so on  certain lines where we see specific challenges,   you will find two ticket examiners,  especially late at night and over weekends.

Do you aim to have one body camera for  every ticket inspector? Who will wear them? The numbers that we have now allow for  ticket examiners and conductors—on-train   staff—to wear them, and we have also provided for  staff in stations to wear them if they want to.

Thank you. I will go on to  my next question, convener,   because I know that we are pressed for time. We have heard concerns that passengers  cannot always access the cheapest tickets   through apps or ticket vending machines. Can you   outline your plans for the future  of rail ticket vending in Scotland?

As I am sure that we all know from experience, the  fares and ticketing system in UK rail is furiously   complicated, and the industry has wanted to reform  it for a number of years but is unable to do so   without changes to regulations. The conversations  between industry and the UK Government around  

Fares reform continue and are a part of the  plans to create a simpler and better railway,   which involve the creation of a new public body,  which is to be called Great British Railways. Our retail strategy is to invest in  what we call supported self-service.  

We recently launched the ability to buy  mobile tickets on the app, for example,   and we have seen a massive growth in customer  numbers using that method. Satisfaction with   the ScotRail app has gone up up to 4.5 out of  5. Customers and, indeed, colleagues like it.

Of course, we recognise that  people also need a bit more help,   which is one reason why the staffing of  our railway, on board and at stations,   is a key part of our customer  offer. As Jo Maguire mentioned,   the recruitment drive that we are delivering in  ScotRail makes a positive impact in this area.

I believe that a trial was run in  Glasgow Central station with new   vending machines. Can you explain what  that was about? Was that successful? We are trialling a new vending machine  there from one of the manufacturers.   We are looking to see the impact of  that trial on the customer experience.

What is the difference with this new vending  machine? How does it compare to the last ones? I am not an expert in this area because  I do not buy too many train tickets,   but perhaps Jo Maguire knows  a bit more of the detail.

We have replaced one of our existing vending  machines at Glasgow central with this new   machine as part of a trial. If you get the chance  to look at it, you will see that it is around half   the size of the existing machine. It has two  screens to give improved accessibility. We will  

Take feedback before we make any decisions.  Unfortunately, it will not make the ticket   purchasing any simpler, due to the challenges  around our ticketing regulations. However,   what has made ticketing much simpler in Scotland  for our passengers is the off-peak all-day trial.

Thanks. I will go on to my next question,  which is about the ongoing use of the   HST rolling stock. Are those trains  safe, and when will they be replaced? They are safe, and they meet all the  requirements for the UK rail network. They  

Are on lease to us until 2030. As I mentioned  earlier, since the tragic accident in 2020,   we have made a number of changes to the operation  of the railway, including the trains themselves,   and we made good progress on that,  working with all four trade unions.

We also work hard in our engineering teams on  the reliability and availability of those trains   and on the delivery of seats to customers.  I am delighted to say that we have seen good   improvements in that regard since the start of  this calendar year. It was great to have Fiona  

Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport,  at Haymarket last week to see that progress. We are working through the business case  for the replacement of those trains with   the Scottish Government, and that  is happening as we speak. Hopefully,  

We will be able to progress that this year,  because 2030 is not too far away in railway time. The trade unions have raised concerns about the  HST. I was looking at the RAIB report on Carmont,   which considered it more likely than not that the  outcome would have been better if the train had  

Complied with modern crashworthiness standards.  Is that a reason to have them replaced sooner? The crashworthiness standards changed in  1994. Any rolling stock that predates 1994,   of which there is a lot on the UK rail  network, has different crashworthiness   standards. Because we changed the operation  of the railway—introducing precautionary  

Speed restrictions, for example—we do not operate  trains in Scotland if we get a red weather alert   from the Met Office. We have also invested in the  infrastructure, and we have modified the trains. We have worked with the trade unions to  improve the safety of those trains. I sit  

Down with the trade unions every quarter and we  go through each of the 20 recommendations that   the Rail Accident Investigation Branch made  and look at where we are in regard to them.   Those recommendations are either complete or 99  per cent complete and are awaiting sign-off from  

The independent rail regulator. The trains are  safe, but we need to plan for their replacement. You mentioned that it could be 2030 before  the HSTs are replaced. Could their use be   extended further than that? I imagine that  you would look to have electric trains on  

The east coast up to Aberdeen, but that  will probably not be likely by 2030. By 2030, those trains will  be more than 50 years old,   which I argue is too old for a train.  Trains have a life of between 40 and  

50 years. We are looking at replacement  rather than their extension beyond 2030. Will the replacement be electric going up to   Aberdeen on the east coast  line, or is that unlikely? That is one of the current debates. Hybrid trains  might have a role to play. We have some options  

For replacement of intercity trains. We can buy  an existing diesel train from the GB rail market,   or we could procure a diesel-electric  hybrid train, which would, for example,   travel electrically from Glasgow to Stirling and  then drop its pantograph—the piece of equipment   that collects the electricity from the  overhead wire—and proceed on diesel.

There are pros and cons to the options. Those  debates, discussions and business cases are   currently being discussed between Network Rail,  Scottish Rail Holdings and Transport Scotland.   It is not easy and so we need to take time to  go through those deliberations quite carefully.

As you say, these dates are coming quite  quickly. Liam Sumpter, in 2026 there is   meant to be a 20-minute reduction  in train journeys between Aberdeen   and the central belt. Will that be met by 2026? I am not sure that I can answer that.  I can write to you with the detail on  

That. Alex Hynes might be aware of the position. Next week, there will be a meeting  between ScotRail, Network Rail,   Scottish Rail Holdings and Transport Scotland  at which we will go through the budget for   enhancements on the rail network next  year. Once those discussions have taken  

Place, we will be clear about the enhancements to  the rail network that we can deliver, including,   of course, the Aberdeen to central belt upgrade,  which is a big part of our plan. Our aspirations   to cut journey time by 20 minutes, improve  capacity for passenger and freight and electrify  

The railway remain undimmed, but we need confirmed  funding before we can proceed with those projects. Does that £200 million appear on a budget line? Not as yet. Douglas, you have a wonderful way of  asking your last question and then   asking a couple more. Briefly,  this is your last question.

I just wanted to know if that  £200 million is in the budget. As we have discussed, until any money passes to  us in the rail industry for a programme, it is   not yet a funded programme. Neither ScotRail  nor Network Rail has £200 million in their  

Budget lines to deliver that. We are discussing  the capital expenditure on enhancements next   week and we can lay out a variety of options  for the Scottish Government at that point. Mark Ruskell has a brief question. Are we on track to meet the  decarbonisation target by 2035?

Yes. We are continuing with the delivery of  decarbonisation. We have already electrified   the rail between Glasgow and Barrhead. We  delivered that in December. We are delivering   electrification between Glasgow and East  Kilbride. That finishes in December next year. When Transport Scotland published  its decarbonisation action plan,  

It committed to refreshing that strategy. I  understand that Transport Scotland intends to   publish that later this year, which will be the  result of lots of good work between ScotRail,   Network Rail, Scottish Rail Holdings  and Transport Scotland on this topic.   The fiscal climate has changed since  then, but the ambition and the policy  

Direction is absolutely unchanged. The  plan will be refreshed later this year. Thank you. Monica, do you have a brief question? Yes, convener. First, can I get an update on current  major infrastructure projects that are,   hopefully, in the pipeline, including the  Levenmouth rail link? I have also just had  

A wee look on the STV news website, and  the new station at Winchburgh seems to   be topical again today. Can you give  us an update on those two projects? Sure. Despite the financial climate from a capital  perspective—as opposed to operating expenditure,  

Where next year the Scottish Government is  putting £1.6 billion into the railway—we   continue to invest in a bigger and better railway  for Scotland. On 2 June, we will launch train   services on the Levenmouth branch for the first  time since the 1960s, and we will be opening  

Two new stations at Cameron Bridge and Leven  to connect those communities to the capital. We are also completing the  electrification of the East   Kilbride line, but I should say that that  project is not just about electrification;   it is about, for example, the brand-new station  at Hairmyres, offering better access to the  

Hospital and a bigger park and ride. We are also  talking to the Scottish Government about our   next phase of decarbonisation in Fife, Borders  and the Aberdeen to the central belt route. We are also doing a number of  smaller projects. For example,  

We are currently doing platform extensions  on the west Highland line, which will enable   us to operate more of our Highland Explorer  trains, with carriages that are dedicated to   cycling and active travel and which can take 20  bikes on the back of passenger trains. We are  

Attempting to put all that in place before  the start of this year’s tourist season. As for the Winchburgh project, there is  a big third-party developer in that part   of the world. I was lucky enough to visit the  site a number of years ago with the local MSP,  

Who is now the Cabinet Secretary for Transport,  and last year, I did a piece of work for Transport   Scotland on what a new station at Winchburgh might  look like. The good news is that, in Scotland,   a new station costs about £15 million; given that,  in other places, new stations are £25 million,  

We have done a good job of reducing  the cost of new station construction. A new station at Winchburgh will not  be the easiest to build; for example,   one of the sites that we are looking  at is in a steep cutting on the main  

Edinburgh to Glasgow line. We are  continuing to talk to Transport   Scotland about the business case for that,  but I think that the aspiration is that,   if there is going to be a new station at  Winchburgh, the developer will contribute. That seems fine, and there is planning consent in  

Principle. What you are saying is that the  project is not quite shovel-ready, but is   getting there. Realistically, though, when do you  expect a new station to be open to the public? First, Transport Scotland makes those  decisions on behalf of ministers. The   investment priorities and the capital  budget for next year are still under  

Discussion and are being finalised. It also  depends on how much money the developer would   like to put in and whether that would  cover the full cost of the station. The new station that we are building at Balgray,  for example, is being 100 per cent funded by the  

Local authority. As ever, some of this will come  down to a discussion about who pays the cost of   the station, and those discussions will be easier,  the higher the contribution from the developer. Okay. I just want to get this right, because  the project is not in my parliamentary  

Region—although I do get a lot of emails  about it. There is an on-going discussion   about who is going to pay what, but from what  you have said today, things are sounding less   certain and it might not even happen. Will it  definitely happen or is there a chance that,  

Because of the funding and technical issues that  you have highlighted, it might not happen at all? We have a strong track record of delivering  new stations such as East Linton, Reston,   Inverness airport, Cameron Bridge, Leven— I am not asking for a list—I just  wanted to get clarity on this project.

Until we are asked to build the station, it  is not yet what I would call a funded project;   that is the reason for the work on  the business case. Critically, though,   the developer’s contribution to the cost of a new  station could unlock those plans for the future. Mark Ruskell has a brief question.

A lot of studies have been done through the  local rail development fund on the potential   for other new stations that could be delivered  at a relatively low cost on the existing network.   Do you see the business cases building for those  as we move forward? Are we any closer to getting  

Decisions despite the  Government’s fiscal constraints? There are two things that we in the rail industry  can do: first, grow revenue as fast as we can,   as that improves the business case for any new  station; and secondly, continue to drive down  

The unit cost of building new stations, which we  have done very successfully over recent years.   That will make the decision easier for the people  who control the budgets for building new stations. It is great; because Scotland’s Railway  is perceived to be such a success story,  

More and more communities across  the country want to be connected   to the rail network. It was fantastic to  be at the opening of East Linton station   last December and to listen to the people  who have lived there for years say that,  

Now that they have a train station, it  is changing their lives for the better. The deputy convener has a couple of questions. These questions are primarily for  Alex Hynes and Joanne Maguire. I   am an MSP for the capital—Edinburgh—and  my questions are on casework that I have  

Received on two important issues  that relate to the whole country. First, it is well known that the line  from Edinburgh to Inverness is often   busy and sometimes overcrowded, given  the tourist attractions on the line and   its importance to the tourism economy,  not to mention local travel. Can you  

Comment on the prospect of increasing capacity  on that line in the short, medium or longer term? Secondly, we have two remarkable cities in  the central belt; there are a number of other   important areas, but the two cities are known  world wide for having great night-time economies,  

Cultural offerings and sporting events.  Last summer, the festivals came to an   agreement with you and the Government for  later travel on the trains, and it was,   by all accounts, successful. Is any thought going  into providing later trains between Waverley and  

Queen Street on a more regular basis, say on  Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights? Earlier,   you talked about the market and how  demand is increasing around weekends,   but the demand that could be created by  later services serving the night-time   economy has not really been properly  explored as it has in other places.

Thank you for those questions. On your first question, I live on  the Edinburgh to Inverness line,   so I am intimately familiar with the issues  on that route. Critical to our performance   on that part of the rail network will be  the delivery of our high-speed trains,  

Because they have four or five carriages  and customers enjoy their experience on   them. Sometimes we send a shorter train than  was planned, and we need to stop doing that. We will resolve that issue by delivering our  recruitment drive on depots. The trains are  

Maintained primarily either at Haymarket here  in Edinburgh or in Inverness, and we are in the   process of filling every single vacancy at those  two depots and, indeed, at other depots across the   country. In fact, I was at Haymarket last week,  and it was great to meet some of the new joiners.

As I said to Douglas Lumsden MSP, we have,  since the start of the year, begun to see the   benefit of that, with better consistency  of delivery on the route. By September,   we will have filled every vacancy, and  all those staff will be fully competent  

In the tasks that they have to undertake  at the depot. I am expecting month-by-month   improvement between now and September as  we give our teams at the depots the tools   to do the job of maintaining the trains  and keeping them available for customers.

As for the question about festivals and later  night services, we operate such services during   the festival anyway, and we have previously  experimented with them at Christmas. However, one   issue that we always face is whether any  additional service that we run will cover its  

Costs. We have been through a pandemic, and our  passenger journeys are still down 15 per cent, but   if we continue growing as fast as we are, and if  customers continue to come back to the network,   we will be able to make better business  cases and, in turn, we will be able to go  

To Scottish Rail Holdings and Transport Scotland  and say, “We would like to add in these services,   because commercially they wash their faces.”  Sometimes, when we look at business cases   for additional services, we find that  they do not always cover their costs,  

And we then face a difficult equation about  whether we want to do this and thereby put   the subsidy requirement up, which is already  relatively high at over £700 million a year. We are acutely aware of the issue, and we are keen  to do more of that sort of thing in the future. As  

The railway comes back post Covid, we can look at  it more, but we still have to remember that there   are still 15 per cent fewer customers on our  railway than there were five years ago. That makes   the economics of ensuring that these services  wash their faces commercially more challenging.

I think that more people would use the services  if they ran later into the night, but I guess that   the question is how you survey and quantify that.  Limited trial periods will give some insight,   but I think that a longer trial period would  be required to see the commercial benefits. Yes, okay.

Joanne, did you want to add anything? With regard to your concerns about the Inverness  to Edinburgh line, I would just note that every   time we change the timetable we plan  the length of the trains against it.   We are planning enhancements. For  example, we will be sending more  

Five-car services as opposed to  three-car services at key times,   including at weekends when previously we have  looked at doing so only from Monday to Friday. It all comes back to the improved  maintenance resource that we have   in the depots. We are planning to make  improvements, and we are conscious of  

The number of passengers that we will carry  over the summer as we see the tourist season   ramping up and the important impact  on the economies of those cities. Thank you, both. That was interesting. I would just clarify that the night-time  economy in Inverness stops at 9.32,  

Which is the latest time that you  can get on a train at Inverness to   head back towards Aberdeen. That  line has no late-night services. I want to ask two quick questions, if I  may. Caledonian Sleeper Ltd and ScotRail—two   different organisations—are now part of the  same organisation. Will we see a merging  

Of boards and management structures to bring  it all into one structure? After all, it all   belongs to one group of people—the people  of Scotland. Who wants to answer that? I am happy to go first. I am sure that,  over time, that will be a matter for  

Scottish Rail Holdings as our owning group  to consider. Currently, though, there are no   plans in that respect, because we run two distinct  businesses, and the decision was taken some years   ago to maintain them as two distinct businesses.  At present, therefore, there are no plans to merge  

Our daytime service with what is very much a  distinct customer offering through the night. But there will be a cost to keeping them apart  within the management structure, will there not? We have said that, separate to the management   structure, we might in the future be  able to explore opportunities within  

Our back-office and support structures  and see how they might work together. You said that you might do so in the future.  Is it being looked at, at the moment? As Kathryn Darbandi has said, it is still early  days for Caledonian Sleeper with regard to its  

Having come into public ownership. She might want  to say more, but I would say that, six months in,   it has not been at the top of the priority list  as far as delivering the transfer is concerned.

I do not want to repeat what Joanne Maguire has  said, but I should point out that Serco delivers   our back-office services under a 12-month  agreement, and we are concentrating on   successfully extracting ourselves from Serco and  being a stand-alone business. That is our focus at  

The moment. It is quite a high-risk project,  and we need to make sure that it goes well. Once that is done and settled, phase 2 will be  to look for back-office synergies. My personal   view is that there will be, and I think that  we are all committed to looking at that.

I am not sure who will answer my final  question, but I remember that when Alex   Hynes first came before this committee, we had  the PPMs. They provided what I might call the   excitement figure, which was used to beat  Abellio up over why it was not performing   to the requirement set by the Government.

Well, ScotRail ain’t meeting those targets either,   and it has fewer trains on the track. My  question, then, is this: has there been a   marked improvement? Were PPMs unnecessary, not  required or unhelpful? Is everything fine now,   despite the fact that you are not reaching  the targets that Abellio reached in the past?

Actually, it is not a target for  ScotRail—it is a target for Scotland’s   Railway. Transport Scotland and Scottish  Rail Holdings set a public performance   measure of 92.5 per cent for both ScotRail  and Network Rail, and as of this morning,  

We were hovering at about 90 per cent  for the PPM. I am pleased to say that,   since we were last before the committee,  performance has continued to improve. Together, we are working really hard  to improve performance on the network,   particularly in the area of the ScotRail  fleet and Network Rail weather management,  

And are working together to reach that target  as fast as we can. It is a challenging target   to meet, because it measures lots of things  that we do not control such as trespass,   vandalism and weather, but our good performance  as the most punctual large operator in Britain  

Underpins the service that we provide to  our customers. It is pleasing to see that   nine out of 10 customers are satisfied  with the service that they pay for. That answer takes me back to the answer to  our first ever question on this subject,  

Which I seem to remember was  lodged by Stewart Stevenson at   the committee. It is interesting to  hear that nothing has changed, then. Thank you very much. That concludes our  session, and I am going to briefly suspend   the meeting to allow the witnesses to  leave. I must ask committee members  

To be back here by 12:30 at the latest, please. Our next item is consideration of a Scottish  statutory instrument. As the instrument   has been laid under the negative procedure,  its provisions will come into force unless   the Parliament agrees to a motion to annul it.  No such motion has been lodged. As the clerk’s  

Paper notes, the instrument has been laid  in all four UK legislatures and is UK-wide. Do any members have any comments? I just want to make a brief comment. It  is important that the UK emissions trading   scheme continues to align with the European  Union emissions trading scheme. After all, as  

We have seen with the interaction  between the Swiss and the EU schemes,   the direction of travel seems to be to link  the schemes at some point in the future,   which will offer more certainty for business. From what I can see, however, what is being  brought forward in this instrument does not  

Change that question of alignment. It does  not alter the number of free allocations,   for example, so I do not see any significant  divergence arising as a result of it. That   satisfies me that we have our scheme, and the  EU has its scheme, but the potential to link  

Them after the reform of the EU-UK trade and  co-operation agreement is still on the table. Monica, do you want to come in briefly? I just want to say that that was a good  summary by Mark Ruskell, and I agree with it. Okay.

Noting those comments—and I thank Mark Ruskell for  making them—I invite the committee to agree that   it does not want to make any recommendations  in relation to the instrument. Are we agreed? That concludes our part of the public  meeting. We now go into private session.