Official Report 689KB pdf
Item 2 is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum on the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill. I welcome Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, and the Scottish Government officials who are joining us today—Jan Spy; Bill Reeve, director of rail at Transport Scotland; and Fiona Brittle, senior rail policy manager at Transport Scotland. Good morning to you all. Cabinet secretary, I believe that you want to make a brief opening statement.
Thank you, convener. Good morning, members, and thank you for inviting me to discuss the legislative consent memorandum for the UK Government’s Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill. I welcome the objectives of the bill as introduced and I recommend that the Scottish Parliament should give it legislative consent.
The bill represents an important development for which the Scottish Government has long advocated—the shifting of rail services back into public ownership across the UK. The bill aligns with the Scottish Government’s policy aims and objectives of a fully publicly owned railway to deliver for the people of Scotland and to achieve our vision of a reliable, resilient, affordable and accessible railway.
As members might be aware, the Scottish Government has already sought to achieve that for ScotRail and the Caledonian sleeper services as far as is possible within the current legislative framework, which is reserved. In 2022, operator of last resort deployment brought ScotRail and the Caledonian sleeper services into public ownership and control. Our duty to provide or secure the provision of services under section 30 of the Railways Act 1993 was engaged, and those services are now delivered through arrangements with our wholly owned company, Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd, and its subsidiaries.
The Scottish arrangements already align with the UK bill, and amendments to section 30 of the 1993 act will mean that those arrangements can continue on an on-going basis; indeed, achieving that aim as well as protecting Scottish devolved policy interests has been my key priority with the bill. Officials’ extensive engagement with the UK Government Department for Transport and with Scottish Rail Holdings has allowed us to consider and take an informed view of the bill’s policy intent since July, and I thank them for that. I also welcome the willingness of the UK Government secretary of state to engage with me and transport ministers from the other devolved Governments on the bill and, in particular, the close working among our officials.
The bill allows services to be delivered by a public sector company as the first-choice option rather than as the last resort. It allows current public sector delivery arrangements to be permanent, which will provide a stable network on which we can continue to provide reliable, affordable and attractive services.
The bill amends the Railways Act 1993 to replace the presumption that rail passenger services should be delivered by franchises with a presumption that they will be brought into public ownership when current franchise agreements end. It expects franchising authorities, including the Scottish ministers, to provide or secure the provision of designated services according to their duty under section 30 of the 1993 act, which is currently known as the operator of last resort duty.
The Scottish Government considers that the bill engages the legislative consent process, as modifications to the 1993 act alter the executive competence. The bill removes the power to award franchise agreements and the requirement to publish a statement on how that power will be exercised, and it proposes a new duty to designate services that ought to be provided under section 30. It prohibits extending existing franchise agreements or agreeing new ones, although the UK secretary of state, as the only franchising authority still to have franchise agreements in place, will have a temporary power to make further short-term awards or extensions to incumbent franchisees in certain circumstances.
The bill amends section 30 to ensure that the duty exists on an on-going basis, and not only in circumstances when no franchise agreement is in place in respect of the services. Franchising authorities may secure the provision of services to fulfil that duty only by directly awarding a contract to a public sector company, which can be a wholly owned company.
Finally, I have another important rail-related announcement on which I would like to update the committee directly. As the announcement will be made via the answer to a Government-initiated question this morning, it would be remiss of me not to use the opportunity provided by this morning’s meeting to give an update.
I am announcing today that the Scottish Government has agreed to ScotRail moving to replace the intercity high-speed train fleet that operates between Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Inverness. More than 4 million passenger journeys were made on intercity trains in the past year, and I want to maintain and, where possible, increase that number. This planned investment will ensure the reliability of our intercity routes for the long term, reduce emissions from intercity services and support our efforts to decarbonise Scotland’s railways. The contract notice will be published in a few weeks, and I will update the committee on progress.
In the meantime, I thank you for inviting me to discuss the legislative consent memorandum for the UK Government’s Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, which I am happy to answer questions on.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. That was an interesting announcement, and I am sure that members will be considering the questions that they want to put on it when they come to the end of the first lot of questions that we have already discussed.
I also need to make an apology, as it was remiss of me, when welcoming the Government officials, not to welcome our colleague Graham Simpson, who will be asking questions at the end of the session. Please accept my apologies if I appeared to ignore you, Graham—you were not ignored.
Douglas Lumsden will ask the first question.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. My first question is about the fact that ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper are already in public ownership. Do you have any concerns that the legislation that is coming through will force Scottish ministers always to consider public ownership first and that it will take away the Scottish Government’s right to move services to a private company?
The Scottish Government’s policy decision is that our preference is for public ownership—and, similarly, that is the new UK Government’s preference. I think that there were also continuing concerns during the previous UK Government as to whether public ownership was the right way forward.
Different Governments can make decisions at different times about what their policy priority is. The bill aligns with the Scottish Government’s approach, which is why we are saying that we want Parliament to give consent to it.
The decision would be up to a future UK Government. This is a reserved area, so we must ensure that our powers, which we have used to our best ability under devolution, can be protected, and that is what we are doing. As I said in my opening remarks, the current rail service operation is on a more temporary basis; the bill will put it on a more permanent one.
09:30I think that your point is about what would happen if a future Scottish Government took a different decision. I will give my understanding of how the UK Government has framed its position; I might bring in Bill Reeve on the technicalities. There is currently a presumption in favour of franchising, with an exemption for an operator of last resort, which we have used. The bill will flip that, so that the presumption is that there will be public ownership. That does not preclude a private company from operating in the future—there would be a period of designation that would allow the UK Government to decide on that at some point, if it chose to. That is my interpretation of how the UK Government has framed the legislation.
I understand that the legislation would operate with an interplay between sections 24 and 30 of the 1993 act, but the UK Government is doing that in quite a technical way. I would interpret that in layman’s terms as leaving a window open and not closing it completely. Bill Reeve can explain the technicality of what the UK Government is doing and can correct me if I have misrepresented it.
You are exactly right, cabinet secretary. I will also turn to Jan Spy for any particular legal detail that we need to explore.
The bill proposes to amend section 24 of the 1993 act in a way that would allow the cabinet secretary to designate an exemption for services that are covered by the section 30 presumption of public ownership. That would not remove the need for any alternative arrangement to be subject to the various procurement rules that might be enforced at the time. It is not clear to us how that would be exercised and, as a matter of policy, it is not something that we would choose to exercise. Would Jan Spy like to add anything?
No—you summarised the position well, thank you.
I will follow up. The cabinet secretary is right that this is a policy decision at present. I completely respect that there is the preference of the Scottish Government, but is it not the case that what is coming through will take away the ability to do something different? The Scottish Government has the ability and right to make decisions on Scotland’s railway, but that will be eroded slightly by what is coming through here.
Well, you might say that the UK Conservative Government eroded the option of future UK Governments to have public ownership. That is what it did when it privatised the railways. It is open to any UK Government to overturn that in the future, and that is exactly what the incoming UK Government could do.
As for the sections, I make the important point that I am interpreting the UK legislation; it is not our preference or our policy. We believe that public ownership is the right way forward, which is why we took the steps that we did. We were the first to do so, and I think that, in recognition, the UK Government is now catching up to the position that we have been in.
If it helps, I have found the provision that might reassure you on whether the options would be there if, at some unlikely point, a Government came into Scotland that wanted to do something different. Our understanding—remember that this is what the UK Government has put in—is that the bill amends section 23 of the 1993 act so that the Scottish ministers will have a duty, from time to time,
“to designate services”
that
“ought to be provided under section 30”,
rather than under a franchise agreement. The bill will also amend section 24, which I referred to, so that the Scottish ministers could exempt services from such designation and allow for them to be provided otherwise than under section 30. That is very technical, but we understand that that is what the UK Government is doing.
If services were exempted from designation by order, the duty under section 30 would not apply and the Scottish ministers could make alternative arrangements to secure the provision, which could include a contract award to a private operator. That is our understanding of what the UK Government is doing—as I said, it is leaving the window open. That is not our preference, but the provision is in the legislation.
Cabinet secretary, you have made an announcement that, truthfully, I need a moment to consider. I do not know whether this is possible, but it would be very helpful if you could share what you read out with the committee clerks now, so that that can be circulated to committee members for them to look at when considering their other questions. Truthfully, I did not catch all that you just said and its ramifications.
I am happy to do that, if we can find a technical way of doing so. I am sure that my office is watching this session and that we can find a way of doing that.
It is in the email.
A GIQ is coming on that.
Okay. Fine. Thank you for pointing that out to me. As you can imagine, I do not have time to look at my computer while I am trying to convene this meeting. I now know that there will be a GIQ, and the clerks will make sure that committee members get that.
I apologise for that interruption, and I thank members for pointing out that information, but the—
Convener, I also want to say that, as you know, I have the utmost respect for the Parliament, and it has always been open for ministers to make announcements in chamber or in committee.
Cabinet secretary, I am delighted that you chose the committee to do that, and I am not criticising you for that. While I am trying to convene the meeting, I am also listening to what you and other members are saying, so it would be helpful to have that information in front of me. I can have that now, so that is perfect.
Excellent.
Please do not take that as a criticism.
Monica Lennon wanted to ask a question.
Yes, and I will maybe come back with questions about the announcement at the end.
Yes, please.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. In your helpful opening statement, you were really clear that the bill will facilitate policy alignment between the Scottish and UK Governments. That is positive and well understood. Will you say a bit more about ScotRail and the Caledonian sleeper service and how the Scottish Government envisages that publicly owned cross-border railway services will interact with or work alongside those services? For example, are there any downsides or impacts that will need to be mitigated, or, overall, does it feel like a positive measure?
Obviously, any rail disruption causes issues and problems for commuters, as we all know. We have not had the same degree of industrial action as has taken place over the past number of years in England, which I think has caused the majority of the cross-border problems.
There might be interaction between cross-border problems as a result of industrial action or, indeed, as a result of problems like the one that I experienced with LNER on Sunday. It seemed that everybody travelling from Waverley station who was going south to London had to turn up at Haymarket instead, which made it rather congested. My understanding is that that was as a result of a breakdown—and breakdowns happen.
Some of the issues will occur on an operational level. However, I hope that there will be a degree of stability in the system. I think that pay negotiations are being finalised, and I am very pleased that the rail unions are recommending that the Scottish pay offer is accepted. I understand that something similar is being attempted in the rest of the UK, which is welcome.
There is a combination of things. Public ownership in and of itself has, I think, stabilised our relations with the trade unions. They have said that relations have been in a much better place since public ownership. Will it be the same with the UK Government? I would hope so, but we obviously have not seen evidence of that yet.
Another benefit of public ownership is that we are focusing on passenger service delivery as opposed to companies seeking profit. That allows reinvestment in the service. It is quite telling that 400 additional staff members have been employed since public ownership. A lot of those are front-facing and public safety roles. The figure includes 260 new drivers, and another 160 drivers are being recruited currently. Replacing drivers is always a challenge. People retire, they can work for other companies and so on. Ensuring that we are not dependent on overtime and rest-day working is a common interest, and trying to achieve that is the right thing to do. Trade union members are perfectly entitled not to work on a rest day or to do overtime.
If there could be more stability in the system, that would really help everybody. It would mean that we would not have to have the temporary timetables that we have seen. The major disruption that is caused by strike action in the rest of the UK has had knock-on effects.
It is all quite complex. I am not going to assume that public ownership will suddenly resolve everything and that everything will be okay. Some of the issues will be at the operational level, and what happens will depend on the attitude of the employers and their behaviour towards their workforce. There are many challenges ahead. There always are, as I have realised since taking on the transport brief.
That is helpful. I remind the committee of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group.
You talked about the importance of investing in the workforce and having good industrial relations, which help with passenger safety and passenger experience. From your early discussions with your UK Government counterparts, are you feeling more optimistic that there can be that stability and a policy approach of goodwill towards the workforce that will mean that we will see an improved picture across the railways, not just in Scotland but across Great Britain?
There is much to do. I have met Louise Haigh. I would like to thank again the parliamentary authorities, the committee and the committee clerks for their co-operation on the LCM, because, obviously, we had to do this at pace during the summer, because Parliament was in recess, and I did not want us to be left out of it, which could have happened. I am very appreciative of my officials and of the UK Government officials. I am working with the minister to align things because something happened when our parliamentary terms did not align. That has been good co-operation.
I have not yet met Sir Peter Hendy, the new UK Minister for Rail, although I did meet him when he was in his previous position as chair of Network Rail. I hope and intend to meet him.
Thank you.
Thank you, Monica. Jackie Dunbar, I fear that your question might have been answered so I will move on to the next one, if you are happy to allow me to do that.
The deputy convener has some questions.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. You have touched on the engagement that you and your officials have had with UK officials and UK ministers, and it seems as though that has all been very positive and there have been good intergovernmental relations on the bill. Has there been any further discussion on possible wider reform of the British rail industry? The Scottish Government is a leader in the renationalisation of our railways. Is there anything that the UK Government is learning from Scotland?
There is indeed, and, to be fair, it started under the Conservative Government with the proposal to integrate track and train. Scotland has already done that. We work very well with Network Rail and ScotRail and that work provides efficiencies in investment and planning. I visited the control centre and discussed the multiple storms that we had last year and how we react when there are major weather-related disruptions. The integration of track and train is a positive step forward.
Members will be aware that the previous UK Government seconded Alex Hynes into the Department for Transport to work on the rail reform legislation. I gave evidence on that and I shared my evidence with the committee. That legislation is a step forward for England and Wales but I have concerns about how it might operate in Scotland. The incoming UK Labour Government has picked up the baton on that, and our understanding is that it will take forward a more substantial piece of legislation, which will be the formation of Great British rail. That is the legislation that the committee should take a close interest in. I certainly am, as cabinet secretary, because we do not want to see complete centralisation that would undermine the progress that we have made in integrating track and train.
We want to operate and co-operate with that in a positive way. I communicated some of my concerns to the then chair of Network Rail, Sir Peter Hendy, who is the new UK Minister for Rail, so he should be familiar with them. The issues and concerns that I expressed when I gave evidence to the UK Transport Select Committee just before the close of the UK Parliament still stand.
09:45We have yet to see the substance of that legislation. Given the level of co-operation that we have engendered to date, I hope that there will be a practical way forward to ensure that my concerns will be addressed. Obviously, there is more to do. The bill is short and sharp; it is about bringing rail into public ownership at the end of each franchise.
More substantive rail reform legislation is still to come, and we will need to keep a close eye on that when it is published. In advance of that, I hope that the relationships that we have built to date, at both official and ministerial level, will stand us in good stead so that we can try to make sure that our interests in Scotland are protected.
I am looking around the table. Mark Ruskell, I think that I cut you off. You might have wanted to come in on an earlier question.
I will come in on that briefly.
I am also interested in the wider picture of rail reform and I am wondering where that is at the moment. The bill has been a good first start on improving relationships between the two Governments and, I hope, between all devolved Administrations and the UK Government. The next most substantial reform will be to set up GB rail. What timeframe do you see for that coming through and will the Scottish Government be directly involved in its governance? Is there a clear model for how devolved Administrations will be involved in that?
The clear model, which I will continue to set out, is for rail services to be fully devolved to Scotland. I have already stated that in my meeting with the UK Secretary of State for Transport. The right way forward for Labour would be for it to recognise devolution and that Scotland has been leading in much of the policy direction that it wants to go in. If, following the understanding that we can have devolved operation of transport services, Labour wanted to copy our model for the rest of the UK, it would be a shame and, I think, a retrograde step if it centralised rail. That would be problematic, and I would like to see the full devolution of rail services.
It is early doors and, to be fair to the new incoming UK Government, it is focusing on the immediate legislation that we are discussing. I hope that the atmosphere is favourable and there can be an understanding. I would hope, with Alex Hynes having been seconded into the UK Department for Transport, that there will be an understanding in the centre of the UK Government of Scotland’s position and the opportunities that exist.
I am not sure whether there have been discussions at official level on the likely timescales for the next phase of the establishment of GB rail.
At the moment, we do not have firm dates for the next step. We know that a rail reform bill will follow. I would characterise the discussions with our UK Government colleagues as constructive and perhaps as having been more open in recent weeks and months. We look forward to co-operating with them on the rail reform bill. At the moment, with regard to the matter under consideration, we have seen no substantive provisions from colleagues on how devolution will be treated alongside rail reform. We have asked clearly to be engaged in those discussions in order to help to shape the legislation in a satisfactory manner, and we expect to secure that opportunity.
That is useful.
I have a question about open access operators, such as Lumo and Grand Union, which are coming in and utilising space in the rail network. Will those contracts continue?
We have yet to see the specific provisions that any rail reform bill may contain. I think, from discussions, that our expectation is that existing operations would be permitted to continue, but I could not answer that definitively until we see the details of any bill.
Even just looking at the LCM-related legislation, we can see that establishing the timeframe for when franchises might come to an end will be a challenge. The approach will not be to have full-scale nationalisation on day 1; it will be a rolling issue.
On the wider issue of GB rail reform, I am conscious that this committee has a full agenda and that your interest in the issue is similar to ours. Therefore, I undertake to keep in close contact with the convener and the clerks to share what we know about timescales for scrutiny and engagement, so that our work can be aligned and we can all take the opportunity to ensure that Scotland’s interests are protected.
Do you have a view on the open access operators? Would you prefer the entire rail network to be brought under national control?
There is an underutilisation of the potential of what we have in our railways, and there are different ways of trying to resolve that. There is far more that can be done on freight, and I am keen to do that under control period 7. We have strong targets under CP7, and I am glad that the UK does, too. However, when it comes to utilising our rail tracks, there are a lot of moving parts, as it were, not least in terms of what is electrified, what is not electrified and what that means in terms of speed and so on. Obviously, the fact that some operators are cutting cross-border services to Scotland does not help. Of course, as we have seen recently, some of that space has been filled by open access operators, and we have to watch where things are going on a UK basis.
On the timing of the legislation, I have just been reminded that we have been told that it is expected to be introduced in Westminster before the summer recess next year. We have no more details than that.
The example of Lumo is interesting because a lot of people benefit from being able to get reduced fares as a result of an operator coming in from outside, and I am sure that you will bear that in mind.
My question relates to the issue of money operating in a round-robin fashion. Network Rail gets around £2.1 billion a year from train operating companies, which helps to finance Network Rail, and about £58 million comes in from freight. If you take the train operating companies out, they will no longer be making contributions, so the money for Network Rail will have to come from the Government.
I know that you will probably say that the Government already gives money to private operators to run the services, but are you convinced that the proposal will not lead to increased costs for running the track, given that more than 50 per cent of Network Rail’s budget currently comes from private operators? Are you satisfied that funding for the railway lines will not decrease?
I cannot speak for the UK Government, but I can speak to our experience over the period of our public ownership of rail. Remember that it has been quite a short period. With the establishment of Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd and with our pressing down on spend, we have managed to reduce costs rather than have costs increase. We have seen substantial passenger-number increases—I will look up the figures later but, obviously, they have increased substantially since the pandemic period. Our satisfaction levels are the third or fourth highest in the UK, and that figure has increased, with the latest finding being a satisfaction level of 91 per cent. Under our public ownership, good things are happening in terms of cost and satisfaction levels. Performance levels have gone down, but that is because things were more efficient during the pandemic, as there were fewer passengers and so on.
I think that our experience to date indicates that public ownership has benefits.
I do not want to get into whether public ownership has benefits. What is slightly concerning to me is that the public performance measures for ScotRail have gone down. We are told that a lot of that is to do with problems south of the border that result in trains coming up late—that is the excuse that we are given, despite the fact that the service has been cut. I want to be sure that reducing the amount of money that private companies contribute to Network Rail is not going to exacerbate the problems and is not going to affect Caledonian Sleeper Ltd, which uses rails south of the border to provide the service. Are you convinced that there is not going to be an increased cost or a diminution of access to the tracks south of the border?
I will bring Bill Reeve in on that. However, our investment in Network Rail using the current system—remember that CP7 is the first control period that we are going into with public ownership—has gone up substantially. We have a pipeline of activity and works, so the investment is in place.
You are probably trying to get at the displacement of funding from the private companies and how the Government accounts for that. I can give you evidence on what we have done. We are the trailblazers in that area because we have done it for the past two years. I cannot speak for what the new UK Government will do: that would be speculation. From our experience, it should be positive, but I cannot give you firm commitments because I am not responsible for the UK Government’s decisions on the matter.
I ask Bill Reeve whether he can enlighten us about the private train operators’ investment.
The efficient cost for the infrastructure that Network Rail delivers is determined independently by the Office of Rail and Road through the five-year control period process. I think that you are touching on how that cost is met, convener. There are two principal sources: one is a direct grant from Government, including the Scottish Government for Scottish infrastructure, and the other is track access charges. There is a small contribution to the track access charges from freight companies.
It is £58 million.
Indeed.
There is also a small contribution from open-access operators—it is very small—but the rest comes from franchises or section 30 operated publicly owned operators. To be honest, there is a bit of a trade-off regarding whether that is funded through the franchise contract from a combination of revenue and franchise payments from Government, or through the direct grant.
The answer to your question is that we should focus on the efficiency of Network Rail’s delivery rather than on how those costs are funded. I am not sure that I have seen much in the funding mechanism that has driven that efficiency, as distinct from the relentless focus on efficiency of delivery of that work.
I undertake to ensure that the point is made to the UK ministers and that they are asked whether they can identify how the costs will be met.
On the more substantive point, which is about how we get efficiency out of Network Rail and deliver value for money for the £4.2 billion that the Scottish Government is contributing over CP7, I have already made arrangements to meet the ORR biannually. I will meet its board to ensure that the ORR ensures that Network Rail delivers. The ORR is the regulator to ensure that we get value for money and delivery. That is the substantive mechanism to ensure that Network Rail delivers. I have, if anything, intensified my discussions with the ORR.
Okay. My point is that I want to know what the true costs are, that they will be met and that the change will not affect services in Scotland in any form. In the past, we have heard that poor railway network maintenance has resulted in reduced services in Scotland. I am sure that you will work on that.
Graham Simpson, do you want to ask any questions on this matter before we go on to the announcement that the cabinet secretary made?
Yes. Thanks, convener.
Mark Ruskell asked about the open-access operators such as Lumo. I was not clear from your answer, cabinet secretary, whether you think that such an arrangement should continue.
I am fairly open on open access because there are opportunities that have not necessarily been fulfilled. Open access challenges the main operators to ensure that they have better services. However, that will be more an issue for the UK Government, because most of those services are cross-border services. Therefore, as the bill progresses through the House of Commons, the matter will be subject to scrutiny.
Open-access operators operate even though we have public ownership of the railway in Scotland. That is primarily because of the arrangements that the UK Government makes. I think that we have the space for that. I do not think that it is problematic, but that depends on the extent and scale of open access and whether it is seen as being a few companies doing it on occasion, as opposed to there being a full roll-out of open access and so on.
The issue is more for the UK Government, but we will keep a keen interest in it.
10:00
It comes down to track capacity, does it not?
Yes.
From your answer, can I take it that you quite like the choice that the situation offers customers?
The impact is still to be assessed. I see that it is operating and I have no difficulty with it, but it is not the main issue that we are dealing with just now.
My first answer was clear that where there are opportunities in terms of track access, open access has worked. It has, in many cases, replaced services that have been withdrawn, but it is a different operating model, a different pricing model and has a different position. The UK Government can do that for particular reasons. It is not an area that I have had discussions with the UK Government about, so I am just saying that the jury is out on it, but the way that it has operated to date has helped to use existing track availability.
You spoke earlier about your wish to see rail being fully devolved. What exactly do you mean by that?
The operation of track and train is still fully determined and fully decided by the UK Government, under the Railways Act 1993, and issues still have to be referred to, approved by or agreed by the UK secretary of state. The real problem that we had with the Conservative Government’s rail reform legislation last year was that even had we wanted to make decisions about franchising or other areas, we would have had to seek permission from the UK secretary of state. This is about making more permanent the powers that we have.
I will continue to have that discussion with the UK secretary of state as the UK Government’s second major piece of legislation on Great Britain rail reform comes through.
But the legislation that the committee is considering today—I go back to Douglas Lumsden’s line of questioning—tells the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government what they have to do. If a future Scottish Government were to say, “We actually think that we need a different model,” there is a piece of legislation that says, “No—you have to do this as your first option.” As someone who has spoken passionately about devolution, surely you must think that that tramples all over devolution, does it not?
We either deal with where we are now or we determine that we want to try to cause a fight about the principle of decision making on the issue. It is the case that rail legislation remains reserved. That is why I am referring to the main piece of UK legislation that is coming and our opportunity to have full devolution through it. While UK rail legislation remains reserved, I have the opportunity to ensure that what is a temporary system of public ownership becomes a permanent system of public ownership. I am going to take it; I think that it is important that we take that opportunity.
I could have just said, “Well, that’s it. It’s the summer recess—they can get on with it at some point in the future and we’ll try to get some changes down the line,” but you know that when you have an opportunity for UK legislation—or, indeed, Scottish legislation—to deliver the policy output that you want, you take the opportunity. That is why, while UK rail legislation remains reserved, I want to make sure that the Scottish interest is protected, and the Scottish interest is protected by our recommending that Parliament approve, with legislative consent, the opportunity to make sure that the temporary public ownership of rail becomes permanent.
But that is because you agree with—
Sorry—I still am the convener. I will let you have one more question, then I will move on.
One more?
Yes—the one that you are asking now.
Thanks, convener.
Cabinet secretary, this is happening because you agree with the policy of the current UK Government. I am talking about a future Scottish Government taking a different view. This legislation says, “No, no, no—you must do nationalisation.” Knowing you as I do, I think that, in the past, you would have been jumping up and down about it if the previous UK Government had attempted to do that.
On that note, I look forward to—
I will let you come back in, cabinet secretary, and then I am going to move on to the very important question that Jackie Dunbar asked just before the committee meeting, which has allowed you to make your statement.
If I may, I would like to address Graham Simpson’s point. I look forward to Graham Simpson agreeing with the Scottish Government—and, I assume, voting with the Scottish Government if we bring this to Parliament—that rail services should be fully devolved, which would enable Scottish Governments of any colour to decide what policy on rail they want. I am looking forward to that support.
That was nicely parked, minister.
Let us move on to the announcement that you have made to the committee this morning. I reiterate that I am delighted that you made it to the committee—I just want to make sure that committee members have a chance to ask questions about it. Douglas Lumsden has indicated that he wants to ask a question, as has Bob Doris.
On the announcement, are there any timescales for replacement of the HST or intercity 125 trains, which are going to be 50 years old next year? In the written answer, you say that the decision follows a process of appraisal to look at different options to replace the trains. Can you give us a bit more information on that? Are they going to be diesel, electric or hybrid? What are you going to be purchasing?
That is an important question. I have been asked in the committee before about replacement of high-speed trains. We have taken the decision that ScotRail can go forward with procurement. It is going to run an open competition for replacement of trains, so it is not possible to say what type of trains they will be. That will be set out when it runs that competition. The requirement will be for trains of an intercity type to serve long-distance travellers, with corresponding levels of passenger comfort and amenities.
On timing, the procurement will start, in relation to the issue of contract details for the procurement, in the next few weeks. As a result of the procurement, there will be determination of what type of trains they will be. We certainly want to achieve carbon reductions. The extent of electrification that is required, for example, will be determined by the outcome of the procurement exercise. However, it is important to reassure you that the cost of infrastructure to support the replacement is part of our financial planning, so we have worked closely with the Exchequer and finance officials to ensure that the potential capital requirements are understood.
As I said, the type of train will be determined in the outcome of the procurement exercise. Any modern train will be cleaner and greener than its predecessor, so I say to members who have asked questions in the chamber about the comfort and experience of passengers that those things will also be improved.
I give the commitment, as I have done in my correspondence with the committee, that we will keep you updated on progress, which will give you some indication of the timeline. However, we are at the start of the process; I thought it important to come to the committee and let you know that the process has now started. We will keep you updated, which will give you the answers that you probably want as to when, where and so on, but we need to let the procurement exercise start.
What has the appraisal, which has already been done, shown? Will that be released to the committee?
That assessment helped us to make sure that we have our finances in position and are capable of dealing with the potential procurement. That exercise has been done. Our job now is to let ScotRail get on with the procurement, which is what I am announcing to Parliament will happen.
I am sorry, but will the committee get to see the appraisal?
Can I take that question back and think that through?
Of course.
Bob Doris wants to come in, then Monica Lennon.
I have a couple of brief questions, cabinet secretary. First, can I check whether the announcement today is set in the context of the 2022 strategy and the Scottish Government’s commitment to replace 65 per cent of the train fleet, or about 675 carriages? That was placed on the Public Contracts Scotland website at the time. Is the announcement part of that wider modernisation and decarbonisation process?
The other thing to let the committee know is that we obviously have the new climate change plan, which the committee will consider. As I have told you before, we will have to refresh the decarbonisation plan, which we will do, and it will come shortly after the climate change plan because we have to align it with that.
In terms of where we are now, I cannot get into the detail of carriages yet. If there is anything that I can follow up on about where that sits within the 2022 commitment, I will be happy to do so. It sits in our wider plans for Scottish rail. As I said, we are already taking action. Barrhead is electrified and work on East Kilbride is commencing, which will have an interchange and so on. Obviously, there are challenges elsewhere.
Seventy-five per cent of passenger journeys are currently on electric trains, which is good. However, you were talking about numbers of trains. Again, there is an interplay. Since public ownership, there has been a 7 per cent increase in the number of passenger seats. When it comes to 200 journeys operating to full timetable, we acknowledge that we are not currently doing that.
That is helpful. There was an announcement in 2022 that 65 per cent of Scotland’s train fleet would be replaced as part of modernisation and decarbonisation. I was just trying to check whether this initiative sits as part of that wider commitment. I am happy to take more information at a later date, cabinet secretary.
My second question is about the procurement process. Clearly, I want to make sure that Scottish companies can be part of the procurement supply chain. As I have done before, I note that I am delighted that the Caley works has reopened in Springburn and is now in the business of modernising and building trains, through Gibson’s Engineering Ltd. I just want to make sure that Scottish companies—wherever they are in Scotland—can be part of that huge economic, employment and skills opportunity, and get a slice of that very welcome announcement. Will the procurement process make sure that there is weighting towards Scottish supply chain businesses?
It will be an open procurement, to ensure that we have value for money and deliver what we need in terms of passengers, track and train. As you might appreciate, I do not want to comment on any individual company.
Of course—absolutely.
That would not be appropriate, particularly as we are about to move into procurement. However, I think that everyone has heard what you have had to say, and I am sure that there will be a lot of sympathy towards that from many people.
You said that the announcement provides a path towards a decarbonised intercity network. In your statement, you talked about the potential for a reduction in emissions from intercity services. Can you advise the committee by how much emissions will reduce? What does the modelling say on that?
Any replacement will need to ensure that it supports a greener fleet. That is one of the clear points that I want to make. However, it will be an open procurement, so I cannot give a figure until the procurement is concluded. I hope that you can appreciate that. A reduction is my commitment, but I cannot say by how much, because the procurement is only just starting.
Okay, but are you confident that there will be a reduction in emissions as a result of the investment?
Yes, that is part of our requirement.
Okay. Briefly, to build on Bob Doris’s questions about the supply chain as it affects community wealth building—to make sure that the investment benefits people and communities in Scotland—how does today’s announcement fit with the Scottish Government’s wider aspirations and commitments on a just transition? Do you expect that it will make a significant contribution to green transport and good jobs for the climate?
Any investment in rail is good for the rail industry. From here, I will go to speak at lunch time to the Railway Industry Association, which represents a number of Scottish companies and international companies that are based in Scotland. Our approach to rail is looked on with envy from other parts of the UK, because we have had a constant pipeline—whether of track or train—in procurement and, obviously, there are supply companies in that firmament. As part of our contribution to the economic wellbeing of Scotland, we very much want that area—and jobs, apprentices, the skills base and everything else within it—to progress. That is all part of how we see the rail industry in Scotland.
The rail industry and rail provision in Scotland are not just about providing passenger transport, core though that is: they are also about the economic, social and environmental impacts. We look at things in the round in that context, and we are working closely with rail unions in that regard.
10:15
How many trains are we talking about?
The open procurement process will establish the optimum requirement for delivery of the trains. I have talked about improvements in passenger service, and ScotRail will establish and publish the contract details in the coming weeks.
I have a final question. This is good news, as far as it reads, but my concern is that it would cost a massive amount of money to electrify the two most difficult railway lines—the one from Perth to Aberdeen and the one up to Inverness. We have seen the cost of electrification between Glasgow and Edinburgh, but those are the two lines that need most investment and most trains, because diesel trains are used to chug up there. If there is an open contract, surely people will go for the easy option and, yet again, Aberdeen and Inverness will be left on the sidelines with old trains—or will you ensure that that does not happen?
In relation to operation for Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh, it is important that the lines for those four cities are all supported.
I understand that 25 trains are being replaced—someone has helpfully indicated to me that that is the number.
I hope that you are right. Inverness has often been last to get investment, whether it be in roads or rail, so it will be interesting to see what happens.
Thank you for making the announcement to the committee and for answering our questions. I will briefly suspend the meeting to allow for a change of witnesses.
10:17 Meeting suspended.