Chamber and committees

Before I was transport minister, I raised concerns on behalf of my constituents about a reduction in services in the local area. I am aware that, at the moment, patronage has not regained its level prior to the pandemic, and I recognise that the ScotRail fit for the future consultation, which was undertaken during the pandemic, has sought to reduce some services. However, on—I think—14 February, ScotRail committed to reinstating more than 150 services, which is an improvement on the outcome of the initial consultation. My view is that we need a railway service that meets passenger demand. At the moment, patronage is not there yet. Bill Reeve can outline the statistics for the committee, but I think that it is at around 60 per cent of what it should be.

I will pass you to Bill Reeve to tell you about the specific expenditure.

We will obviously have to replace by 2030 the stock that Liam Kerr mentioned. He raised the issue of a break clause with me last week in the chamber. I have spoken to officials about how we might be able to deal with that. I do not think that there is currently a break clause in the contract—Bill Reeve can correct me if I am wrong—but we are, of course, planning for the future, because those trains will not be with us forever. They are older trains, as Mr Kerr knows—some of them date back to the 1970s—so it is essential that we do that planning and build in the electrification requirement that we will need for our decarbonised network of the future.

There is currently a real challenge in encouraging people back safely on to the railway. You mentioned challenges with your local service; I am happy to take such issues to ScotRail. I raised a question with ScotRail just last week about carriages on the Markinch train service. I recognise that we are seeing a patronage shift, with folk returning to rail.

We also need to acknowledge—as we discussed on our directors call yesterday—the current cost of living and fuel prices, and what that means for people choosing whether to use public transport in a way that they might not have used it previously. We need to think about how our public transport networks, including ScotRail, prepare for a return to patronage, and how we can best support ScotRail now that people are coming back to our railways.

It is important that we get our messaging right in that regard. We need to ensure that people return safely; I have had a number of conversations with the rail unions about how we might do that. For example, we could have a communications campaign to support people to come back to our railways.

Fiona Hyslop is absolutely right to suggest that we need to look at stock, because we need to ensure that there is enough space on our trains for people to feel safe. There is still a requirement to wear face coverings on our trains; people need to feel that they can safely go back to using the railway to access their work and employment. We also need to support the transition back to a semblance of normality after the pandemic is over. It is hugely important that we do that, and that we communicate well, in that respect. I have worked with the trade unions on that, and I am looking at how we might communicate better through the national conversation.

The convener said that, as we move to public ownership, no substantial changes have been identified. However, public ownership means that our railways are accountable to ministers. If there are problems, ministers are answerable to Parliament and to this committee, and we can enact change directly in a way that we were not able to enact it previously.

I am really keen for the national conversation to help us to gather data and provide the public with a sense of pride in, and ownership of, the newly publicly owned ScotRail. It is hugely important that we support a safe return to our railways, as Fiona Hyslop mentioned, by working with our rail unions and with local authority partners and other stakeholders, and that we think about how we might communicate better. Transport Scotland officials have undertaken a bit of additional work in that regard; Bill Reeve might say more on that. Ensuring a safe return is a challenge that the unions have raised with me on a number of occasions.

That question is potentially linked to people who are still too fearful to come back to rail, and to people who have never considered using the railway in the first instance. That second point speaks to the wider question of affordability; we might come on to speak about fare increases. Members will be aware that fares in Scotland are 20 per cent cheaper than fares in the rest of the UK. However, I acknowledge that there has been a 3.8 per cent increase in fare prices that might put some people off.

The Government is currently undertaking the fair fares review, which is looking across modes of public transport to see where we might be able to join up journeys better. That is a key way in which we could encourage people who might be reluctant to use rail to do so. For example, we could join up rail provision with bus provision, and we could join up our approach to ticketing—we have provided funding to bus companies so that they can introduce smart ticketing, for example.

The fair fares review, although it is still currently at the planning stage, gives us an opportunity to look more broadly at how we might encourage people out of their cars, how we could support a modal shift to our railways and—as Fiona Hyslop mentioned—at how we might reach people who might not, in the past, have considered using the train.

Ms Hyslop asked about battery-operated trains and hydrogen as a potential opportunity. There are parts of the rail infrastructure and network that lend themselves to that more readily than others do. We are considering the opportunities to bring in that technology on the far north line and other lines, where electrification might not work.

I touched on that my initial response to the convener. The fair fares review is part of a broad programme of work by officials on a sustainable transport system for the future and on joining up transport modes, rather than thinking about them in silos. The immediate priorities for that work are to consider the current Covid-19 conditions—what patronage is telling us, for example—and the Covid-19 strategic framework. That is important because the pandemic has not gone away.

In response to Ms Hyslop I talked about encouraging people back to rail, but we have to do that in a way that is safe and in line with current guidance. We do not know when the next variant like omicron might come round the corner, so we need to plan accordingly. We also need people to feel confident. Ms Hyslop raised that in relation to people choosing to travel by rail for the first time.

As I mentioned, the fair fares review is currently in the planning stages and work is being undertaken on a sustainable integrated approach. It will consider a range of discounts and at the concessionary schemes that are available in all modes of transport. It is important that we consider how we can join up bus, rail and ferry travel opportunities better.

The review will also take cognisance of the cost and availability of services. The cost of public transport is hugely important in relation to the cost of living and in trying to facilitate the modal shift to get people out of their cars and on to the trains.

I have a proposal in my inbox that gives more options on the associated timescales for the fair fares review. I will be more than happy, once I have made a decision on that, to share it and to come back to the committee to discuss the work in detail. At the moment, we are in the interim planning stage.

I am not aware of any such reluctance, but we probably have not yet got to that stage in the consultation. In respect of rail, we have one national operator, so I suppose that pushback might not exist in ScotRail in the same way as it might in other sectors of our transport network. However, I am not sighted on any such reluctance, thus far.

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.