Chamber and committees

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.

Are we on track to meet the decarbonisation target by 2035?

So, in theory, clause 50 would grant those powers.

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?

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?

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?

Okay.

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?

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?

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.