Seòmar agus comataidhean

Natalie Don has raised a really important point. When I look back at the statement on the matter, which I made a couple of weeks after I was appointed, it is clear that women’s experiences on public transport are, in the main, not particularly positive. There is a range of evidence that we can draw on to quantify that—not the least of which is, of course, the British Transport Police survey that was carried out last year, I think. It looked at comparable data from 2019 and women’s experiences of sexual harassment on the London underground train network specifically, in which there was an increase of over 60 per cent during the time frame.

The pandemic has, potentially, changed behaviour, so we need to get more data on the issue specifically for Scotland. I am meeting the BTP because it has been leading on a campaign specifically on sexual harassment. Members who travel by rail regularly, as I do, might have seen signs at local train stations, which I am keen to explore further with BTP.

However, we need to have a broader conversation about women’s safety on public transport and what that looks like. Are we just talking about what happens on the train, or are we also talking about the journey to the train? There are wider ramifications that we need to consider.

Ms Don asked how we will ensure that women’s voices are heard. I said in my opening statement that we have already engaged with Engender; we will meet soon to discuss that further. We are also looking at other women’s organisations.

Ms Don is absolutely right—we need to speak to women in the real world and make sure that we have a rail service that meets their needs, and that they feel safe using our trains late at night. In my limited experience, which I shared with members in the chamber, the train is not always a safe place to be—for example, if you are getting the last train back home on a Friday night. That should not be the case in 2022. We need to work better to ensure that our trains are safe spaces for women. On that, I again thank the rail unions for their contributions. They have had some really positive things to say.

Ms Don spoke about challenges with antisocial behaviour. I recognise that those challenges have been linked to women’s experiences of travel on our trains and to staff experiences, throughout the pandemic. It is important to remember that ScotRail staff went above and beyond the call of duty during the pandemic. They were getting people to their work but they were also at work; they were essential workers throughout the pandemic. I want to thank them for that and to acknowledge that they are often subjected to some pretty difficult and challenging behaviour. It is really important that the Government ensures that there is support for them.

The BTP has a statutory requirement to provide that support. As I mentioned, I will be meeting the BTP soon—it will be either later this week or the week after, I think. It is very important that we get the work right and that we ensure that staff feel safe coming to work, that women feel safe travelling on our trains, and that the vision that we are trying to realise for the new public ownership of ScotRail best reflects the needs of the passengers who use it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not going to give Mr Kerr an undertaking on a feasibility study right now. However, STPR2 is currently out for public consultation. That consultation will stay open until next month, and I encourage Mr Kerr and other members to respond to it.

In addition, STPR2 does not preclude campaigns such as the one in his region. For example, the Levenmouth rail link had two Scottish transport appraisal guidance options appraisals and then another options appraisal before it was approved. In other words, there were two different processes and then a final options appraisal that was considered before we gave approval to that line.

I am not ruling out any lines in the future; indeed, as a high-level document, STPR2 itself does not preclude the implementation of local lines in the future. I know that Mr Kerr has written to me on this subject, as has the campaign group, and I would be more than happy to meet the campaigners and Mr Kerr to discuss the matter in detail. One of the first things that I did when I was elected was to meet Mr Yousaf and campaign on behalf of my constituents for the Levenmouth rail link—and look where we are now.

Thank you, convener.

Almost exactly a year ago, on 17 March 2021, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, Michael Matheson, advised Parliament that, at the conclusion of the current franchise, ScotRail services would be provided in the public sector by the operator of last resort—an arm’s length company owned and controlled by the Scottish Government. The franchising system was clearly no longer fit for purpose.

At that time, there was considerable uncertainty arising from the on-going Covid-19 pandemic and continuing delays to the publication of the United Kingdom Government’s white paper on rail reform. A detailed assessment of the options available for ScotRail was undertaken and it was decided that it would not be appropriate to award another franchise agreement to any party at that time. In the circumstances, our duty to provide or secure ScotRail services through the OLR under section 30 of the Railways Act 1993 will be engaged when the current franchise agreement ends on 31 March 2022. As committee members will know, bringing train operators into the public sector under Government control through section 30 OLR arrangements is not a new thing. Indeed, three train-operating companies in England and one in Wales are now in the public sector under Government control.

A considerable amount of work has taken place since that announcement. As members will be aware, I recently provided an update to Parliament, confirming that the transition of ScotRail into Scottish Government control will take place on 1 April, which is just 17 days away.

How have we prepared for the transition? Following detailed analysis and consideration, we have adopted a holding company model for the Scottish Government-owned, public sector-operated operator of last resort arrangements. Under that model, a Government-owned holding company, Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd, will, on behalf of Scottish ministers, oversee and manage the delivery of services by its wholly owned subsidiary ScotRail Trains Ltd. Our view is that that is the most robust and sustainable model that is compatible with current UK rail legislation, which we have no powers to change. It strikes a balance between experienced rail professionals being able to make operational decisions and giving overall accountability to Scottish ministers.

Late last year, we announced key fixed term appointments for Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd, with Chris Gibb appointed as chief executive officer and David Lowrie as finance director. In addition, arrangements for the formal transfer of ScotRail staff from Abellio ScotRail Ltd to ScotRail Trains Ltd continues at pace, with engagement with staff and trade unions having begun in early January. I personally have met with the trade unions both collectively and individually in recent weeks, and I will work collaboratively with them to ensure the long-term sustainability of rail operations in Scotland. Staff will transfer on their terms and conditions on 1 April. They will also benefit from the public sector pay policy, and we have committed to ensuring that any pay deals that where already agreed for 2022-23 will be honoured.

Over the coming days, the transition team will remain focused on finalising governance and other arrangements for the transition to OLR to ensure that the transition is as smooth as possible for passengers and staff. On governance, we are finalising the designation of the chief executive of SRH as accountable officer. There will be an interim arrangement in which the Transport Scotland accountable officer will remain as AO for SRH until an order under section 483 of the Companies Act 2006 is approved by Parliament.

The first of April not only marks a new beginning for ScotRail, but gives us an opportunity to deliver passenger services that are efficient, sustainable, safe and fit for the future and which reflect the changing world in which we live. It is also a chance to give people across the country the opportunity to help us shape our vision for the new ScotRail. It is clear that we have to adapt in order to align with changing travel patterns and that we have to consider the affordability of the railway as we recover from the pandemic. An important aspect is the need to make sure that passengers and staff are safe—and feel safe—in our stations and on our trains.

All of that needs to take place while we work towards the delivery of our ambitious target to decarbonise rail passenger services by 2035. Against that backdrop, I want to ensure that people the length and breadth of Scotland are given a chance to have their say on what the new future of ScotRail should look like.

As I outlined in my statement to Parliament, there is no doubt that the future of rail services is changing. We have two particular challenges to address. One is the future of ScotRail post 1 April, and another is the matter of women's safety on public transport. In that respect, I note Transport Focus’s oral evidence to the committee last week. Its research found that 85 per cent of women and girls think about their safety while planning or making a journey on public transport, while British Transport Police figures for sexual harassment on public transport in London show a 61 per cent increase since before the pandemic began.

As members will know, I as the minister am making two distinct offers as we take ScotRail into public ownership. The first is a national conversation on what our railway should look like from 1 April, and how it best meets passenger need, and the second is a broader look at women's safety on rail and across our public transport network. We will be launching a consultation on women's safety, spanning all modes of public transport. Plans are being developed; officials have started engagement with Engender; and we will look to begin focused engagement with other women's organisations specifically on improving women's experience of and safety across public transport.

Officials have also started meeting key groups such as the safer transport strategic group, which is led by British Transport Police and brings together a range of public transport providers to promote safer travel across public transport. I will be meeting BTP shortly to discuss that, in recognition of its campaign on sexual harassment, which started earlier this year.

Committee members will also recall my announcement that we would be taking forward a national conversation on rail. That will be an opportunity for staff, passengers, communities, trade unions and MSPs who share our ambition to make Scotland’s railway attractive and accessible for all to help shape that vision for ScotRail. Officials are developing the scope and remit for the national conversation and more information on that will be announced in the coming weeks. Substantial public engagement will begin later this spring, following the local government elections, but I am particularly keen to engage our trade unions in this work, as I recognise their vital role in ensuring that public ownership of our railways works. I also invite committee members to play their part in shaping that national conversation.

The officials and I are happy to take any questions that the committee might have. It is also worth saying that I am keen to hear any suggestions that members might have, too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“A Vision for Scotland’s Railways” puts forward a number of different ideas, some of which I am supportive of. However, for others, we will have to look at the associated costings. Bill Reeve will give you some of the detail on that, but I have to say that some of what the unions have put forward would be financially unviable at this time.

On the fares freeze, I am not ruling out having a look at fares in the future, because I recognise the challenge around the fares increase that happened, I think, at the end of last year. As for the suggestions that Ms Lennon highlighted with regard to the under-24s and over-60s, she will know about our bus operators scheme for the under-22s, which I briefly talked to the committee about last week. Again, I recognise some of the challenges in that respect.

The answer to some of the concessionary travel issues lies in the fair fares review, because, as far as need is concerned, there is a requirement to look not just at rail in a silo but across the piece at, say, bus travel and joining up with ferry journeys to ensure that timetables work for passengers, that they can join up their journeys accordingly and that concessionary fares flow across those different modes of transport. I am not ruling out looking at these things in the future, but they cost a lot of money, which means that we will need to look at the associated budget lines. Preparatory work that officials have done on the unions’ “Vision for Scotland’s Railways” tells me that rather a lot of money will be involved and we will need to think again about how we budget for such things in the future. However, we will look at them in the future, with the support of the unions.

I am broadly sympathetic to a lot of the ideas in the document. The issue is how the Government finances and finds the budget for them, which will be the challenge as we move forward. Some of the things that we are facing just now are quite difficult. Given the cost of living situation, for example, we need to ensure that our public transport system is not only fit for purpose but affordable for people. I hear some of the criticisms that the unions have made with regard to fare freezes, and I am not ruling out looking at what that will mean for rail travel in the future, because it is really important that folk can afford to use our railways. That, of course, will be a wider challenge as we move into public ownership and ensure that our railways are not only sustainable but efficient.

Bill, do you want to say anything more about the unions’ document?