Chamber and committees

No. I do not think that anyone foresaw that that would happen a month after public ownership. As I outlined to you, the convener and the committee in March, I spent a lot of my time during February and March meeting trade union representatives and listening to them to ensure that they were part of our vision going forward. I am still committed to working with them on a number of areas. For example, we have heard from the trade unions that they have concerns about the safety of their staff on our trains. There are also concerns about women’s safety on our trains and concerns about the vision for Scotland’s trains. I want the trade unions to be part of that and to feel as though they are part of it. I am quite clear that they did not feel as though they were part of it under the Abellio franchise.

To answer your point, Ms Lennon, we need to get to a resolution. I do not think that we could have foreseen the situation on 1 April. There might have been rumblings, but I worked very hard to build relationships with our trade unions, so I am quite disappointed by some of the most recent press reports that we are hearing. Ultimately, however, we need to get a resolution between ScotRail, the employer, and ASLEF, the train drivers union, to allow for the restoration of services. I am committed to working with both parties on that to ensure that we get to that point.

In recent days, as you might understand, I have read some press reports and I have participated in numerous media appearances on this matter. I must say that, when we talk about having a respectful tone between Government and trade unions, I do not find the use of that word to be particularly respectful. I do not think that it is accurate, either. As you know, at the start of my appointment, I spent a great deal of time with our trade union partners to try to bring them into the conversation about the future of Scotland’s trains. The unions must be part of that to make it a success. We are not in private ownership any more—this is public ownership—and the Government is, of course, accountable to all of Scotland, not just ScotRail trains or Scottish Rail Holdings.

With regard to my accountability, I am the Minister for Transport, so I accept responsibility. However, we have an industrial dispute, and it would not be appropriate—it does not happen in any other part of Government—for ministers to be in the room taking part in those negotiations. ScotRail is the employer. I am committed to working with ScotRail to ensure that the process works and that we get a quick resolution. That is what passengers want to see. I have got to say that, as somebody who takes the Edinburgh to Fife line pretty much every day to come to Parliament, I want to see that as well. Therefore, these are challenging times.

It is important to say that this is not happening only in Scotland. There are other parts of the Great Britain rail network that are impacted by driver shortages at the moment as a result of industrial disputes. Of course, later today, we will hear the result of the ballot of Network Rail staff by the RMT, which affects a number of train operators. Therefore, I recognise that there are challenging times ahead for the rail network—not just in Scotland but everywhere in the UK.

The UK Government can take a view on how it wants to engage with the trade unions. I heard some of that reported in the press over the weekend. I am committed to working with our trade union partners in a respectful dialogue with an understanding that ministers cannot be in the room. Equally, I will work with ScotRail to ensure that we get a resolution that leads us to restore services as soon as possible, which takes me back to the convener’s point. We must restore services to allow passengers to get to their places of work or go to late-night concerts, wherever they might be in the country.

I recognise that, right now, passengers are scunnered—I said that yesterday. The services that passengers are experiencing are not good enough, and we need to restore services. However, it is also true to say that we will not get to a restoration of services until we get a resolution between ScotRail and ASLEF, the train drivers union. I am committed to ensuring that we get to that place as quickly as possible to give passengers the reassurance that they need to ensure that nationalisation is working.

Yes, that would be preferable—absolutely.

There are two points to make. That is not an accurate description of what has been happening in recent days. On Friday, I spent a considerable part of the day with ScotRail and, yesterday, along with Bill Reeve, I met representatives of ScotRail to discuss some of the challenges of the current situation. However, it is not the case that the Scottish ministers are in the room negotiating with ASLEF; as the employer, ScotRail is in the room. I understand that ASLEF and ScotRail are meeting today to move the talks forward.

It is essential that we restore the previous timetable. However, you will appreciate that ScotRail cannot fulfil the previous timetable, because it does not have enough drivers to do so. ScotRail, like many train operators across the United Kingdom, depends on drivers working on their rest days. Drivers working on their rest days is a historic thing that exists in the rail industry; it has not come into existence since nationalisation. It relies, primarily, on the good will of drivers.

I understand and respect that ASLEF is in dispute with ScotRail. It balloted its members on the pay offer, but this is a separate issue to do with drivers choosing not to work on their rest days. If drivers want to spend time with their families or take part in leisure pursuits, that is, of course, in their gift. However, it means that ScotRail cannot run as many trains as was the case under the previous timetable. That is why ScotRail took the difficult decision to reduce train allocation, hence the reduction in the current timetable.

As minister, I am committed to working with our trade union partners, with whom, as you know from the previous evidence session that I attended, I have spent a lot of time talking about nationalisation, what it means for them and whether they want to be part of the vision. I sincerely hope that they do—they campaigned for a long time for public ownership of Scotland’s trains.

However, we need to get to a resolution of the dispute and we need to get to a better place with train drivers in terms of their availability to work and our ability to, ultimately, restore the timetable. I am working closely with ScotRail to see where we might be able to bring about the restoration of a number of services over the coming weeks and months.

Good morning. As committee members will be aware, ScotRail came under Scottish Government control on 1 April this year, and the Government-owned holding company Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd is overseeing and managing on behalf of the Scottish ministers the delivery of services by its wholly owned subsidiary, ScotRail Trains Ltd. Scottish Rail Holdings is a private limited company that was established under the Companies Act 2006 as an executive non-departmental public body. Scottish Rail Holdings and its subsidiary, ScotRail Trains Ltd, were established by Transport Scotland on behalf of ministers to further the discharge of their duties under section 30 of the Railways Act 1993, with effect from 1 April this year. The Scottish ministers are the sole shareholder of Scottish Rail Holdings.

As a matter of policy, Scottish Rail Holdings, as an executive non-departmental public body, would be expected to have an accountable officer as part of good governance. SRH is not part of the Scottish Administration under the Scotland Act 1998, which means that, for the purposes of the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, the permanent secretary as principal accountable officer is not automatically able to appoint an accountable officer to SRH through a purely administrative exercise. To enable that to happen, we have to make an order under section 483 of the Companies Act 2006, requiring SRH accounts to be audited by the Auditor General for Scotland. That engages the relevant provisions of part 2 of the 2000 act, including the power to designate an accountable officer for SRH under section 15 of that act.

ScotRail Trains Ltd will have its accounts treated as part of the Scottish Rail Holdings group accounts, as it is a subsidiary company under section 479A of the Companies Act 2006.

As I outlined during an evidence session to the committee in March, we were, at that time, finalising the chief executive of SRH being designated as the accountable officer. I also confirmed that we were putting in place an interim arrangement whereby the Transport Scotland AO would remain as AO for SRH until an order under section 483 of the Companies Act 2006 was approved by Parliament. That was done to ensure that SRH was able to operate from 1 April. The section 483 order was laid before Parliament on 29 April and the contingency arrangement, which I have just outlined, will remain in place until the order is approved.

Audit Scotland was consulted during the preparation of the order. It has responded to confirm that the Auditor General is willing to assume the auditing role, and it has assisted with best timings for introduction of the order.

I seek the support of the committee in relation to the order, which is a necessary part of the governance process for SRH to fulfil its functions as an NDPB.

The current service cuts in Scotland relate to an industrial dispute between the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen—ASLEF, the train drivers union—and ScotRail, the employer. As you might know, convener, ASLEF train drivers are refusing to work on their rest days at the moment. As a result, ScotRail took the decision to reduce the number of services, because it does not have enough train drivers to fulfil the previous timetable. Therefore, yesterday, a reduction in the timetable was introduced. However, that is not what the order relates to.

I might bring in Kevin Gibson on the specifics, but I think that the assumption that the regulations should be disapplied is fundamentally wrong. We have not done that in the past, and we see no reason for that to be done in this case. As I said, we have not yet seen the details with regard to the building regulations and the depot in Annandale. Those details need to be forthcoming in order for us to reach a clear view on that, but Kevin Gibson might be able to provide more detail.

I would like it to be settled today, convener. However, as you will be aware, ASLEF is in dispute with ScotRail, the employer, at this time. We need to get to a resolution and I am committed to working with both parties to ensure that we get to a restoration of the previous timetable. However, that depends on both sides coming to a compromise in order to reach a settlement that will meet the needs of all passengers.

Yes.

The approach that has been taken to similar projects authorised by acts of Parliament has been that building standards and the CAR requirements continue to apply. As I mentioned in my response to Mr Ruskell, both the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Forth Crossing Act 2011 conferred broad powers on the promoter to construct the works but did not disapply CAR or building standards requirements. Given those precedents, we are not currently in a position to recommend that Parliament consents to the disapplication of those regulatory requirements in Scotland.

However, the hybrid bill process in the UK Parliament is a lengthy one, as I have mentioned in response to other committee members. Therefore, we are continuing to discuss those issues with the UK Government, and I am happy to keep the committee updated on the progress of those discussions.