Chamber and committees

Thank you.

Good morning, panel. I will come to Mick Hogg first. The RMT submission highlights the need for considerable investment in Scottish rail and demands an increase in that investment, rightly flagging up the Carmont tragedy, which I will return to in a second. Given Robert Samson’s comments about ticket prices, should the investment come from the Scottish Government, now that it owns Scotland’s railway and, if so, from where should it draw that increase in funding?

Kevin Lindsay, perhaps you would like to take that point on the HSTs that run up to Aberdeen?

On a related point, how does Scottish Rail Holdings incentivise good performance by ScotRail, and equally, how does it penalise poor performance?

Thanks for that, but I am not sure that I heard an answer as to how you do or do not incentivise performance. When you say that you “encourage” better performance, does that mean that you sit in board meetings and say, “Come on, chaps—we must do better”?

I will stick with David Lowrie. Transport Scotland has expressed that Scotland’s railway should be decarbonised by 2035. Given the hopes and expectations that you have just outlined, how can you ensure that there will be effective decarbonisation by then?

I will stay with Mick Hogg and the tragedy at Carmont—that awful event in 2020 near Stonehaven. Just last week, it was revealed that only two of the 20 recommended actions have been taken following that tragedy. Now that the Scottish Government owns the railway, is it sufficiently taking into account the new risk from, for example, the climate emergency that concerns this committee? Are the Scottish Government’s budget decisions appropriate, given that 18 of the 20 actions remain untaken?

I just want to be absolutely clear. If that money was spent and the 20-minute saving was delivered, could there be a significant modal shift between Aberdeen and the central belt?

I am very grateful for those answers.

Very good. I am very grateful, thank you.