Chamber and committees

On the point that has just been made, I understand that around 50 per cent of the ScotRail rolling stock is pre-1994. I think that that represents about 500 carriages and all 25 of the high-speed train sets, which I think will be life-expired by 2030. The question then, is this: is there a plan and a timeframe for replacing the pre-1994 sets that fits precisely with the electrification programme and timescales?

Earlier, Mr Reeve talked about the procurement of rolling stock and said that the new company might buy electric trains. Can the minister clarify whether the new rolling stock will be leased through rolling stock companies, or will there be a move towards the train sets being owned by the operator? If it is the latter, what is the cost implication?

Is there an actual plan? The trains will be life-expired by 2030, so one would have thought that, for the trains that are pre-1994, we need to do the decarbonisation that Ms Hyslop has rightly mentioned. Is there a plan to replace the pre-1994 trains? If not, when will there be one?

I note that, in The Scotsman on 4 March, Alex Hynes was reported as saying that ScotRail’s budget had yet to be fixed. Has that been done now?

I just want to ask one more question. Right back at the start of the meeting, minister, the convener asked you an important question about what nationalising the railway would bring, but I am not sure that I understood your answer. It seemed to involve relations with the trade unions, consideration of service cuts and consulting on ticket office cuts as well as other consultations, and you finished by saying that the important thing was to ensure that we met passenger need in the best way and that public ownership would allow you to do that.

That is the part that I did not quite understand. After 1 April, we will have the same people, the same rolling stock, the same leasing arrangements in the short term and the same network at a cost of £3.6 million, but with potentially fewer ticket offices and services. Monica Lennon asked about the no compulsory redundancy policy, and you talked about a possible fares increase. What can a nationalised rail company do that the previous operator could not?

My question was not so much about the opportunities—it was about what the nationalised rail company can do that the previous operator could not. You have said that this is about accountability, and I accept that. In your view, that is what is different. Do you have anything to add, Mr Reeve?

I will be brief and go local—which will not surprise you, minister. STPR2 does not allow for the lines from Fraserburgh and Peterhead into Aberdeen to be relaid. Does that mean that the Government’s mind is now closed to those lines or would you be receptive to ordering a feasibility study into them?

Thank you for bringing the instrument to the committee, minister, but I just want to clarify something with you. Yesterday, BBC North East Scotland reported that, in a debate on Aberdeen City Council’s budget, the Scottish National Party group proposed the removal of, I think, £180,000 from the under-22s free bus travel fund to spend on other things. I had not appreciated that it was possible to move that funding elsewhere. As far as you are aware, is that possible and, if so, was that really intended when the scheme was introduced?

I shall direct one question to Mick Hogg, on the basis of what he has just said, and Michael Clark and Robert Samson can come in if they wish to add anything.

I listened carefully to the point that Mick just made, which was a good one. Moving on from that, I am concerned at some of the statements and answers that I have been hearing in the parliamentary chamber that suggest that less well-used services could be cut. That would have an obvious impact in the north-east and the Highlands, for example. Do you share my concern about that implied direction of travel that we have been hearing about? Is the RMT resistant to using the current lower levels of use as a reason for centralising investment and services away from places such as the north-east?

A very quick one, convener—if I may.

STPR2, which Robert Samson mentioned, is undeniably important, but it does not even mention re-laying the lines to Aberdeen from Peterhead and Fraserburgh. As a result, they will remain the farthest places on the mainland from a station, with driving the only option for people. That seems to fly in the face of all our ambitions in that respect. In your view, should the decision to exclude all consideration of the lines from Fraserburgh and Peterhead to Aberdeen be reviewed, with a feasibility study ordered at the very least?