Chamber and committees

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

Thank you.

Rather than ask a follow-up question, convener—

Does either of your colleagues wish to add anything?

Ms Maguire, do you want to add something?