 Gweithdo'r fawr yn gweithio i gyfraithio'r gwahodau wahanol Against Exxonwysol Fawr 2022 ym Fawr Saeith Gwyrd ynogi yn y Hwydion Pwyd Ffarmat Cymru, ac mae hyn yn ddod i'w ddweud o Gweithwyl Mark Ruskill MSP, yn y Unig Gendol 1 â plagio o y Gendol 4 o 5 i gyfarffwch. Gendol 4 yn gyfarffwch o edrych ar gyfer hyn oeddaeth, ac yn y Cendol 5 yn gyfarffwch ar y doedd o'r mewn cwmf gearwyr i'ch gwirio'r hyn oedd cymaint o'r ddreallu. Mae hefyd â mae'r ddreallu o'r ddreallu yn y cymaint dros yma. A fyddwn i'n nihoeddiadau hyn maen nhw, oedd mae'n bobl y troll Dwylo Rhyddolol. Efallai ysgolwg ym yr int fiftybol yr ysgolfyr mae'n i'n mynd i'r teimlo i'r gwirio i'r transfer, ac gyda'r ddraeth i'r ddraeth. Fynynt i chi ddwydd gennychu'r grwpio MSP, Dwylo Rhyddolau ac bwysbethaker, ddwylo i'ch gwaith o'r anghofyn o'r trofyniog hwnnw, i ffxag i'r cyfnod, i ffxagio'r cyfleoedd o gyllug i'r trofyniog y ffxagio'r trofyniog, i ffxagio'r cyfleoedd o gwybod i'r trofyniog y cyfnod i wneud hyn. Mae'r cymdweithio y ffrindiau cyreiddoedd ac yn cymryd iawn ei droi cael ei codiol. Mae'r cyfrindiau a'r credibility yn ei ddylch chi'r gyfrindiau i'r cyfrindiau ar ôl. Mae hi'n symud oedd, Felly, we have allocated around 70 minutes for this session just so that you know what the timing parameters are. I understand that you would like to begin by providing a brief opening statement, so over to you. Almost exactly a year ago, on 17 March 2021, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Michael Matheson advised Parliament that the conclusion of the current franchise of ScotRail services would be provided within the public sector by the operator of last resort. A arms-length company owned and controlled by the Scottish Government. The current franchising system was clearly no longer fit for purpose. At that time, there was considerable uncertainty arising from the on-going Covid-19 pandemic and continuing delays to the publication of the UK Government's white paper on rail reform. A detailed assessment of the options available for ScotRail was undertaken and it was decided that it would not be appropriate to award another franchise agreement to any party at this time. In the circumstances, our duty to provide or secure ScotRail services through the OLR under section 30 of the Railways 1993 Act will be engaged when the current franchise agreement ends on 31 March this year. As committee members will know, bringing train operators into public sector under government control through section 30, OLR arrangements is not something that is new. Three train operating companies in England and one in Wales are now in the public sector under government control. A considerable amount of work has taken place since that announcement. Members will be aware that I recently provided an update to Parliament confirming the transition of ScotRail into Scottish Government control. It will take place on 1 April, which is just 17 days from now. How have we prepared for that transition? Following detailed analysis and consideration, we have adopted a holding company model for the Scottish Government-owned public sector operator of last resort arrangements. Under that model, a Government-owned holding company, Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd, will oversee and manage on behalf of ministers the delivery of services by its wholly owned subsidiary, which is ScotRail trains Ltd. It is our view that this is the most robust and sustainable model, compatible rather with current UK rail legislation, which of course we have no powers to change. It strikes a balance between the ability of experienced rail professionals to make operational decisions, but also to give that overall accountability to Scottish ministers. Lately, last year, we announced key fixed-term appointments for Scottish rail holdings Ltd, so Chris Gibb as the chief executive officer and David Lowry as the finance director. In addition, arrangements for the formal transfer of ScotRail staff from Abelio ScotRail Ltd to ScotRail trains Ltd continues at pace, and engagement with staff and trade unions began in early January. I have also personally met both the trade unions collectively and individually over recent weeks, and I will work collaboratively with them to ensure the long-term sustainability of rail operations in Scotland. Staff will transfer on their terms and conditions on the 1st of April. They will benefit from public sector pay policy, and we have committed to ensuring that any pay deals that were previously agreed to for 2022-23 will be honoured. Over the coming days, the transition team will remain focused on finalising governance and other arrangements for the transition to OLR to ensure that transition is as smooth as possible for passengers and for staff. In relation to governance, we are finalising the chief executive of SRH being designated as the accountable officer. There will be an interim arrangement where the Transport Scotland accountable officer will remain as AO for SRH until an order under section 483 of the Companies Act 2006 is approved by the Parliament. The 1st of April marks a new beginning for ScotRail, but it also gives us an opportunity to deliver passenger services that are efficient, sustainable and safe for the future and which reflect the changing world that we live in. That is a chance to give people across the country to help us to shape our vision for the new ScotRail, I think, additionally. It is clear that we have to adapt to align with changing travel patterns and consider the affordability of railway as we recover from the pandemic. Importantly, we need to make sure that passengers and staff are safe and they feel safe using our stations and trains. All of that needs to take place while we are working towards delivering our ambitious target to decarbonise rail passenger services by 2035. Against that backdrop, I want to ensure that people with the length and breadth of Scotland have a chance to have their say on what the new future of ScotRail should look like. As I outlined in my statement to Parliament a few weeks ago, there is no doubt that the future of rail services is changing and we have two particular challenges to address. One is the future of ScotRail post 1 April, and another is the matter of women's safety on public transport. I note some of the oral evidence that the committee took from transport focus last week and their research, which found that 85 per cent of women and girls think about their safety while planning or making a journey on public transport. British transport figures on sexual harassment on public transport in London have shown a 61 per cent increase since before the pandemic began. As members will know, there are two distinct offers from me as minister as we take ScotRail into public ownership. The first is that national conversation on what our railway should look like from April 1 and how it should best meet passenger need. The second is that broader look at women's safety on rail and across our public transport network. We will be launching a consultation on women's safety, spanning all modes of public transport. Plans are currently being developed and officials have started engagement with Engender on this, and we will look to engage other women's organisations to begin that focused engagement. That will look specifically at improving women's experience and safety across public transport. Officials have also started meeting with key groups such as the safer transport strategic group, which is led by the British Transport Police, which brings together a range of public transport providers to give safer travel across public transport. I am to meet with British Transport Police shortly on that, recognising their own campaign on sexual harassment, which started earlier this year. Committee members will recall that I announced that we would be taking forward a national conversation on rail. That will be an opportunity for staff, passengers, communities, trade unions and MSPs who share in our ambition to make Scotland's railway attractive and accessible for all to help to shape that vision for ScotRail. Officials are developing the scope and remit for that national conversation, and more information will be announced in the coming weeks. Substantial public engagement will begin later this spring following the local government elections, but I am particularly keen to engage our trade unions in that work, recognising the vital role that they play in ensuring public ownership of our railways works. Finally, I want to conclude with an invitation to committee members here today to play their part in shaping that national conversation. Officials and I will be happy to take any questions that members may have, but I also think that we are saying that if members have suggestions, I am keen to hear those too. We now move on to questions. The first question relates to improvements that we might be seeing as a result of the reorganisation of ScotRail last week. As you said, the committee took evidence from various stakeholders, but we did not hear about any improvements that the change of ownership might deliver. We know that the ownership will change, but based on what the committee heard last week, there will be fair increases, service cuts, staffing cuts, no plans for new rolling stock and potential closures to ticket offices. What will be improved as a result of the change of ownership? A number of things will improve when ScotRail moves into public ownership. First of all, we have to have a railway that best meets the needs of customers. We highlighted a number of challenges that were at my doorstep when I was first appointed, and that is why I was keen through the statement to reshape some of the narrative around that. What I need to address is the relationship with our trade unions in terms of industrial relations. I have spent a lot of time over the past few weeks meeting with the railway unions and listening to their needs. It is hugely important that public ownership of our railways takes the trade unions with us. I appreciate that we might come to more questions on that later in the committee session today. The second thing that you spoke to is about service cuts. You will appreciate and understand, and we might come to that later in the ScotRail timetable. There were reductions to timetabling made. That reflected passenger demand. The thing that we cannot account for as we move forward when we are trying to account for is how patronage will be impacted by the pandemic as it plays out. We know at this moment in time, for example, that weekends are busier than weekdays, and that has changed the way in which ScotRail has operated its timetable. As a result, it has reflected passenger demand. We want more people to come back to our railways, and I want to support that. We will need to look at that in due course, and that is something that ScotRail is absolutely committed to doing. You mentioned some of the issues around ticket office closure proposals. You will also be aware that some of those proposals have been looked at again and increases have been made to ticket office opening hours, for example, and some of the stations are now not to close. I have not yet made a final decision on that. I want to speak to the trade unions about that. They have some pretty strong views on that, as you will understand. I am very live to some of the challenges around accessibility and women's safety, additionally. It is worth pointing out that there has not been a ticket office consultation for over 30 years. The way that folk use our railways has changed in the last 30 years. People buy their tickets online now. People are more likely to use tickets at train stations, for example, but that should not discount from the wider debate that we are having around ticket offices and their place in a modern railway network. Fundamentally, I think that our railway in public ownership has to best meet passenger need. We need to be more responsive as a Government, and public ownership will allow us to do that. I do not know if Bill wants to come in on any of the other points that were raised by the convener. I think that you covered most of what we are going to do. I suppose that the other thing to say is that we are continuing, of course, with the programme of decarbonisation. You mentioned specifically rolling stock. We are developing our plans for the procurement of new electric and battery electric rolling stock, subject to appropriate investment scrutiny, but that work is under way at the moment. I am not hearing about specific improvements that will be delivered. I understand the ambition to have a rail service that meets the needs of the people of Scotland. That is a great ambition, but I am not hearing about specific improvements. However, other members will want to explore the issue. What other options, apart from nationalisation, did the Scottish Government look at? What advice and alternative options were presented to the Scottish Government apart from nationalisation? Would the minister be agreeable to share with the committee the advice given to the Scottish Government on those different options? The advice that would have been given to the cabinet secretary predates my time in office. I may bring in officials on this, but I am not averse to sharing that information with the committee. In terms of the advice that was being considered at the time, it would have been last year in the run-up. All of the consideration was done with reference to the requirements of the UK Railways Act. That required us to consider what alternatives to recognising. The first decision was that the Abellio franchise contract would come to an end on 31 March this year, and that was a contractual option that the ministers chose to make. That then required an analysis of the other options, which included firstly the possibility of another franchise procurement competition under the current franchising legislation. There is a widespread acceptance across Britain that franchising has had some problems or has perhaps come to the end of its time. That is why the UK Government in its recent rail review publication recommended a change to that approach. The other problem is that it would have been almost impossible for folk bidding for the franchise to know what future demand and patronage is, given the uncertainty caused by the pandemic. For a variety of reasons, the decision not to proceed with the franchising competition at this time was taken. That then left us with the two options of a direct award to an operator and on occasions the UK Government has done that to the incumbent franchisee or to proceed under section 30 of the Railways Act. I am looking to Jan, just in case I get any of these numbers or references wrong, but to section 30 of the Railways Act under the provisions known as the operator of last resort provisions. Those are the provisions that have already been enacted. Now three of those, the UK Government has, Northern, Southeastern and in the city's coast, the Welsh Government has brought its own franchisee in-house in the same manner. In this case, our ministers elected and receded the advice to proceed with that section 30 option. That decision was taken on 21 March last year since when we have been working to mobilise for 1 April. What will be the total estimated cost for the reorganisation? The estimated cost that I will pass to Bill on in terms of the specific expenditure. I do not know, Bill, if you want to outline that. The costs involved in the creation of ScotRail trains are limited. Do you mean the cost of ScotRail trains once it is commenced? No, not the operational part, but the cost of the transfer of operations. The expenditure to date on that transfer is currently sat at 3.6 million a year to date. Of course, we are now in the last month and there will be further expenditure, inevitably as a big peak of workload at the end of this exercise, so there will be a little bit more to add to that. My own reflection on that is having run the previous franchise competition, which costs us about—I mean, I am forever shocked at the cost of such processes, but the last franchising costs us around 10 million from memory. I can dig out the figure if you want it, but from memory it was around 10 million. Although I still remain struck at the scale of what is involved in a large, complex, contractual set of transfers like this, it is nonetheless substantially cheaper than that alternative option. The 3.6 million a year to date, what would you expect—we will not hold you to this number—the final estimated total cost to be in terms of ballpark figure? If I said under five, but I do not know, I am very happy to come back. Clearly, it would be easier for me to give you that figure off to the 1st of April, if you do not know. That includes any contractual compensation. That is an all-in figure in terms of the costs associated with the transfer. I am not mindful of any contractual compensation. Did you have something in mind that? No, I was just covering that. No, I am not. I haven't got any contractual compensation in the budget. I'm not anticipating that. Okay, good to know. That's enough from me at the moment. Let me pass to Fiona Hyslop. Thank you and good morning. The committee has heard that, as we go through the different stages of the coronavirus pandemic, the rail industry is going to have to better understand passenger needs and flex services accordingly. How do you intend to create a railway that is focused on meeting the current needs of rail passengers? I might add that you can only get a seat on the Llanethgo to Edinburgh rush-hour trades, so passengers are coming back on that line. How are you going to adapt to meet the needs of those who could travel by rail but are choosing not to? You have already talked to the minister about the current situation of people travelling on weekends and so on, but that is a step change that we are going to need. What are you planning or thinking of how we can attract more people back on to the railway and those that could be using rail but are not using it? I suspect that price may well be an issue. I thank Fiona Hyslop for that question. There is a real challenge here at the moment in terms of encouraging people back safely on to the railways. She spoke to some of the challenges on her local service and I would be happy to take some of that away to ScotRail. I raised the question about carriages just last week on the Mark Entertainment Service. I recognise that we are seeing patronage shift and returning to rail. The other thing that we need to take a nice sense of when we had a discussion at our director's call yesterday is the cost of living costs and fuel prices and what that means for people in terms of choosing to use public transport now in a way that they might not have done before. We need to think about how our public transport networks, including ScotRail, are preparing for that return to patronage and people coming back to our railways and best support ScotRail to do that. I think that it is important that we get our messaging on this right. We need to do that safely. I have had a number of conversations with the rail unions on how we might be able to do that around, for example, a communications campaign that helps to support people back to our railways. However, you are absolutely right to say that we need to look at stock, for example. We need to ensure that there is enough space on our trains, that people feel safe, that there is still a requirement at the moment to wear face coverings on our trains. People need to feel that they are able to go back and use our railways and access their work and employment safely. We also need to support that transition back into Assemblance of Normality after the pandemic is over. It is hugely important that we do that. We communicate that via work with the trade unions and I am looking at how we might be able to better do that through our national conversation. Primarily, as we move to public ownership, the convener said that he was not able to identify any substantial changes, but it does mean that our railways are accountable to ministers. If there are problems, ministers are answerable to Parliament to the committee, and we can enact change directly in a way that we were not able to do prior to public ownership. I am keen that the national conversation helps us to gather that data, but it also helps us to provide the public with a sense of pride in the new publicly owned ScotRail and a sense of ownership of it, and it is hugely important that we support that safe return to our railways as the member alludes to it, working with our rail unions and thinking too about how we might be better able to communicate that with local authority partners, for example, and other stakeholders. I know that Transport Scotland officials have undertaken a bit of work on that additionally, which Bill may want to say more on. However, it is a challenge, and it is one that has been raised with me by the unions on a number of occasions. You talked a lot about return there. I was talking about return to rail. I was asking about new passengers, people who could use it, but are not using it. I think that that question links potentially to people who are still fearful to come back to rail, or to people who have never considered using railways in the first instance. I think that that speaks to the wider question around better affordability, and we may come on to speak about fares increases. Members around the table will be aware that fares in Scotland are 20 per cent cheaper than the rest of the UK. However, I recognise that there has been a 3.8 per cent increase in fare prices, and that may put some people off. One of the things that we are looking at in Government just now is the fair fares review, which looks across different modes of public transport to see where we will be able to better join up journeys, for example. That is a key way in which we can encourage people who might be reticent to use rail, to join up rail to bus provision, for example, and to join up our approach to ticketing additionally, which we have provided funding to bus companies to enact smart ticketing, for example. I think that the fair fares review gives us an opportunity, although I will say to the committee that it is planning stages at this moment in time, but it gives us an opportunity to look more broadly at how we can encourage people out of their cars to support that modal shift on to our railways, and getting those people who, as Mrs Locke speaks to, might not have considered using the train in the past. I move on to decarbonisation, which is a key part of the future of the new publicly-owned controlled railways. Will you give us some more detail about the implementation of the rail decarbonisation action plan and any details on any individual scheme delivery and likely budgets? I am particularly interested in what you are talking about in battery, in terms of what you are planning on that and any interests, particularly in any move to hydrogen at any point. I thank Mrs Hyslop for her question. As she will know, we have already announced our plans for the electrification of the Glasgow to Bar headlines by December of 2023 and the new Levenmouth line by spring of 2024. We are also making good progress by finalising our proposals on the electrification of the East Kilbride Fife and Borders lines, and we continue to develop our decarbonisation plans across the entire Scottish rail network. Decarbonising transport more broadly though is one of the six themes that have been set out in the draft STPR2 report published in February of this year. I know that STPR2 was raised at the evidence session last week. The procurement of that new rolling stock still forms an integral part of the decarbonisation action plan that Mrs Hyslop spoke to. We are building on that track record of delivering electrification on Scotland's rail network. Pre-pandemic, 75 per cent of all passenger journeys and 45 per cent of freight services in Scotland were made on electric services. Good work, but clearly more to do. To some extent, the pandemic gives us an impetus to focus on driving that improvement further. I know that Transport Scotland and Network Rail in Scotland are working in partnership with officials to ensure that that programme moves forward. It speaks to the wider opportunities that Mrs Hyslop touched on around supporting passengers who might not have considered using rail in the past back to travelling on our networks, knowing that they are clean and decarbonised. Therefore, in terms of their carbon footprint, people might be more inclined to choose rail than they might have been in the past. Bill might want to say more on the decarbonisation action plan specifically. I add ministers that we are working hard with our colleagues in Network Rail and in ScotRail to turn the plans that we have already announced for the borders and for Fife into reality. For example, as we proceed with the construction of the Levenmouth branch, we are taking the opportunity now to put up the electrification infrastructure even though it will be two or three years beyond that before we can start to run the trains to the service. Why are we doing that? We are looking ahead with the benefit of that 2035 plan to the network that we need to build. We are looking at how our rolling stock plans for the replacement existing fleets require us to get the wires in place so that we can buy the electric trains rather than replacing diesels with more expensive hydrogen trains. All of that planning is under way, and we are working very hard with our colleagues in Network Rail in particular to drive down the cost of the electrification to render this affordable. Scotland, I am pleased to say, is leading the way in that respect in comparison with costs south of the border. That is a huge bit of what my team and colleagues across what we call Team Scotland, Network Rail and ScotRail is working on at the moment. Additionally, Mrs Love raised a question around battery operated trains and hydrogen potentially as another opportunity. There are parts of the rail infrastructure and rail network that lend itself more obviously than others to that infrastructure, so I think that the far north line and other lines, we are looking at what the opportunities might be there for bringing that technology in where electrification might not work. Yes, there is a big capital cost with electrification but a much lower operating cost. Typically, this is rule of thumb, but typically an ordinary electric unit, if you take that as a starting point, a battery electric unit probably adds about a third to the cost and at the current state of technology a hydrogen train might add 80 per cent to the cost both in terms of first cost and in terms of operating cost thereafter. A lot of work is going on, including the work that we are doing with the hydrogen train at Bones to see how we can explore that and drive down the cost of those alternative technologies, but that is the rule of thumb. Hydrogen for the longer and more likely used lines, as the minister said, is a very promising technology. Liam Kerr has a supplementary in this area, to be followed by Natalie Dawn, who is joining us remotely. Liam Kerr, please. Thank you, convener. I am very grateful. On that point that has just been made, around 50 per cent of the ScotRail rolling stock, I understand, is pre-94. I think that that makes it around 500 carriages and all of the 25 HST sets, which I think are life expired by 2030. The question then becomes, is there a plan and a timeframe to replace the pre-94 sets and fit that precisely to the electrification programme and timescales? Yes, and we will have to obviously replace the 2030 stock that Mr Kerr spoke to. I know that he raised the issue with me regarding a break cause last week in the chamber. He spoke to officials about how we might be able to look at that. I do not think that there is currently a break cause in the contract bill, can correct me if I am wrong, but we are looking of course at planning for the future, because those trains are not going to be with us forever. They are older trains, as Mr Kerr knows, some of them date from the 1970s, so it is essential that we do that. We build in that electrification requirement that we will need for our decarbonised network in the future. Is there an actual plan, minister, because there will be life expired by 2030? One would have thought that, if there is pre-94, we need to do the decarbonisation that Mrs Llock rightly brings up. Is there a plan to replace the pre-94? If not, when will there be? There is a plan. I will allow Bill to come in on the detail of it, because if there was one, we would not have any trains to run the network. We would not have enough, so it is essential that we have that plan in place, but I will bring Bill in on the specifics. There is a plan being worked through with our colleagues in Scotland, and, as I said earlier, we need to have a programme that aligns the infrastructure investment electrification with the rolling stock replacement plan. Our first phase of that plan will be the procurement of a fleet of new electric and some battery electric EMUs. We know that, for example, if I look at the diesel fleets that we have, we are looking to the class 156s coming out of service first in the next five years or so, looking at the HSTs and the class 158 diesels by 2030. That would leave our last diesel fleet at the class 170s, which we are currently anticipating will run until 2035. All of that could change, that is over a long time scale, but our planning for that decarbonisation programme takes all of that into account, including looking at the phased replacement of the older electric fleet that we already have in the rest of the country. Thanks very much, Liam. Let me bring in Natalie Donne, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister, and good morning panel. I just touched on smart ticketing this morning. This committee and all of our predecessors have heard calls for better integration between real and other forms of transport and the creation of that smart ticketing model, and the minister you've touched on this already. I'm just wondering if we have an update on the fear fears review in terms of the immediate priorities and what stage that is at and what other steps are being taken by Transport Scotland to bring those about. I thank Natalie Donne for that question. I touched on this in my initial response to the convener. The fear fears review is part of that broader programme of work that is being taken forward by officials at the moment to look at sustainable transport system for the future, but also, I think, importantly, to look at joining up transport modes and not thinking about them in silos. So immediate priorities for that work are looking at the current Covid-19 conditions, so what's patronage telling us, for example, but also looking at the Covid-19 strategic framework. I think that that is important that the pandemic hasn't gone away, so whilst in my response to Ms Hyslop I talked about encouraging people back to real, we have to do that in a way that's safe and in line with the current guidance. We don't know when the next Omicron variant, for example, might be around the corner and therefore we need to plan for that accordingly. We need for people to feel confident too. I think that that was the issue that Ms Hyslop raised regarding people's return to or perhaps their choosing, for example, the first time to travel by rail. As I mentioned, the fear fears review itself is currently in its planning stages and work is being undertaken to look at that sustainable and integrated approach. It will look, for example, at a range of different discounts and also at the concessionary schemes that are available on all modes of transport. I think that that's important, so we're looking at bus, rail and ferry and joining up those opportunities better. It will also take cognisance of the costs and availability of services. I think that that's hugely important when we talk about the cost of living, for example, and the cost of public transport, and trying to facilitate that modal shift to get people out of their cars and on to using train, for example. I do have a submission to members in my inbox at the moment, which gives more options on the associated timescales for the fear fears review. Once I've made a decision on that, I'll be more than happy to share that with the committee and come back and discuss further the work in detail, because, as I say, it is at the interim planning stages at this moment in time. I'm not sure if we're at that stage yet, but has there been any reluctance from private operators around an integrated ticketing system, or have we not got to that stage yet? Not that I am aware of, but I don't think that we've probably got to that stage yet in terms of consultation. Of course, with regard to ScotRail, we'll have one national operator, so I suppose that the pushback from ScotRail won't exist in the same way that it might in other sections, I suppose, in terms of our transport network, but I'm not cited on that thus far. Just moving on to a different issue, obviously, we've touched on antisocial behaviour. Last week, the RNT highlighted the concerns around increase in antisocial behaviour. Specifically focusing on women, I know that this is something that's already been made a priority, and given the national conversation and the consultation that's going to be released, it's really important that this filters through to the real world to women that use the services and rely on them. How do we ensure that we do hear from women in the real world who are out there using these services and experiencing these problems? I think that that is a really important point. When I look back, I suppose, at the statement, which was maybe a couple of weeks after I was appointed, women's experiences on public transport are in the main, not particularly positive, I think that it's fair to say. There's a number of different ranges of evidence that we can draw upon to quantify that, but not least, of course, the BTP survey that was carried out last year and looked at comparable data from 2019, women's experience of sexual harassment on the London underground network, I think, specifically, which solved over a 60 per cent increase in that timeframe. I think that the pandemic has potentially changed behaviour, so we need to get more data specifically for Scotland on this and a meeting with BTP on this because they've been leading on a campaign specifically on sexual harassment. Members may have seen if they travel by rail regularly, as I do, the signs at our local train stations, which I would be keen to explore further with BTP. I think that there's a broader conversation that we have to have around women's safety on public transport and what that looks like. Are we just talking about on the train, are we talking about the journey to the train? There are wider ramifications that we need to consider. Ms Donne asks about how we will ensure that women's voices are heard, so I gave an undertaking in my opening statement that we've already engaged with Engender. He'll be meeting with a student to discuss this further, looking at other women's organisations too, but she's absolutely right. We need to speak to real-life women and make sure that we've got a rail service that meets their needs, and make sure that they feel safe to use our trains late at night, for example. In my own limited experience that I shared with the chamber, it's not always a safe place to get the last train back to your house on a Friday night, which shouldn't be the case in 2022. We need to work better at ensuring that our trains are safe spaces for women, and on that I'd just like to again thank the rail unions for their contributions on this. They've had some really positive things to say. Ms Donne spoke about some of the challenges around anti-social behaviour. I recognise that some of those are linked to women's experiences additionally of travel on our trains, but also to staff's experiences throughout the pandemic. It's important to thank and remember that ScotRail staff went above and beyond during the pandemic. They were getting people to their work, but they were also at work. They were essential workers throughout the pandemic, so I just want to again thank them for that. I recognise that they are at the forefront often of some pretty difficult and challenging behaviour, so it's absolutely important that we ensure in Government that there's support there. BTP has a statutory requirement to provide that support, as I mentioned. I'll be meeting with them later, I think, this week, if not the week after, but it's really important that we get this work right and that we ensure that staff feel safe coming to work, women feel safe travelling on our trains, and that the vision that we're trying to build for the new public ownership of ScotRail is one that best reflects the needs of the passengers who use it. Thank you, minister. Back to you, convener. Thank you very much, Natalie. Monica Lennon has a supplemental in this area. Monica, over to you. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister and your officials. I recognise a lot of what has been said about safety, particularly for women. Something that concerned me last year was reports in the media that there's been a consistent trend of girls assaulting other girls on trains, particularly in the west of Scotland, and British Transport Police described it as a consistent trend. I wonder what discussions minister you've had with BTP on that regard, and we're going back to Mick Hawk from RMT Scotland last week, who was very complimentary about his early talks with you, minister. He also talked about taking tougher action on known perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. In terms of young girls, because I think that this cohort has between 12 and 16, I don't think that banning them off the trains might be the answer, but is there wider work going on in terms of schools, your engagement to find out what's at the root of this kind of antisocial behaviour, which is difficult for passengers and for staff? So, Monica Lennon raises a really important point. I did see the reports on this at the time. I've not yet met with BTP, but I do intend to raise it with them. It does seem to be a specific issue in the west of Scotland at this moment in time. I'm not cited, for example, on any statistics in Fife or in other parts of the country where it might be playing out. On the wider work with schools, I've been really keen to support that. I think that our schools, as she will know, are really important places to try and challenge and tackle antisocial behaviour, but also to ensure that community voices are heard when things are not working, on a rail network in particular. I think that there are often challenges presented at staff stores that they have to move people on, for example. I had a really good conversation with Mick Hogg about this two weeks ago now. ScotRail will have an approach, for example, whereby they will use teams of staff and their remobilising staff to get out and about and to move antisocial behaviour on their own. I had a conversation with Mick about this and others who were of the view that, sometimes, when those teams come out, they just move the behaviour elsewhere, so it's not helping to contain it and tackle it. That's an issue that I'd like to take up further with BTP, because there are shared responsibilities here, but, as we move forward with public ownership, I think that she's absolutely correct that we need to ensure that there is safety on board for passengers, but also for staff. The wider issue that Ms Lennon raises around the tougher action was raised with me by the unions by way of potentially looking at legislation. I might bring in Bill on that specific point, because we have not raised it further with the unions, but I'm not ruling it out. If there is an opportunity to look at how we might better support staff in this endeavour, I'm keen to look at all options. Just to administer that we have said the specific issue, is that there aren't powers for the banning of people who exhibit antisocial behaviour on trains in the way that there are, for example, powers to ban people from attendants at football matches. It's something where we've commenced discussions with justice colleagues. It's something that we'd like to follow up with the British Transport Police and with justice colleagues, and it's certainly something that we feel deserves further consideration. I think that there was, from memory, with the discussions with the union a feeling of unfairness that the legislation didn't extend to railway workers in the same way that it might in other parts of society. Question to answer, isn't it? As to why one wouldn't be able to prevent a folk who are known to exhibit behaviours that are unreasonable to passengers and staff or beyond unreasonable for passengers and staff, why there wouldn't be powers to prevent them from using those services, so it's something to be followed through. I think that that was a frustration that I heard in conversations with the unions was that there would be people identified in terms of their behaviour, and they would be back on the train the next day or in a couple of hours, and it was quite demoralising for staff. We have to look again at the provisions in the legislation working with BTP to ensure that we get this right. I, like Bill, share the view of the unions on that, and I want to make sure that public ownership of the railways doesn't rule anything out and that we look at all the available opportunities to us open to consider how we can support staff, because nobody deserves to go to their work and face abuse, for example. Some of the conditions that our railway staff are working under during the pandemic were quite challenging. I think that there is a willingness there to put into practice a zero tolerance towards any and social behaviour criminality on the railways. I was just finally then going to ask that scoping exercise perhaps around the potential for legislation, will that form part of the work around the national conversation that you are taking forward? I don't want to preclude it from the national conversation. To my mind, probably not because I would like to follow up with justice officials, and we will do that after committee. I am happy to share information with Ms Lennon on this additionally, because I think that we may have a specific legislative fix there, which might not be part of a wider national conversation. I don't want to preclude it at this point, but I think that there are probably two separate things. You mentioned in your opening statement that the Scottish Government has started the national conversation on the future of the rail services. I have heard some of the answers that you have been given today. What exactly would you like to come out of the national conversation? What would you like to get back from the folk of Scotland? What do you want to hear from them? How do you think that the results will be implemented once you have heard back? I thank Ms Dunbar for her question. I don't want to prejudge the outcome of the consultation, but I think that, from my perspective, we need to first establish what is currently working in the system. It is not all a challenge or a problem. There are some things that are great about our railways. In fact, there are many things, as Bill will tell you, about our railways, which are fantastic and work really well, and I think that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. However, there are clearly issues in terms of the challenges that the public will face, so I think that it is important to identify where those are, where people feel unsafe, for example, returning to using our railways, and how we can best support people to use our railway network. However, to me, the overriding thing should be that I would like people to feel a sense of pride in ownership of Scotland's railways. At the end of the day, there will be publicly owned trains. They belong to the people, so they have to be fit for purpose for the needs of the travelling public. I recognise that we have a journey to go on here, but that is why I think that I committed to the consultation rather than the national conversation, because it is really important that this is not just a process or a ticking box exercise that we move into public ownership and nothing changes. I think that something probably will have to change. I think that it should change, but we need to make sure that when we make those changes, the public feels that those changes are working for them. If they are not working for them, then we have it wrong and we will have to start again. I think that that is really important. You have to respond to us as a Government and listen to the needs of the public. Public ownership gives us a real opportunity to do that. The second thing that I suppose I would say on establishing where we are just now is the railway unions and industrial relations. I think that, as the committee will be aware, I have been a bit fraught in recent months. I have been really keen to try and do my best to listen directly to a railway union. We had a really good meeting of all the unions together at the end of term on teams, and then I have had most of my meetings last week and a couple the week before in person with the railway unions, building relationships and listening to them. A lot of what our railway unions have to say is what our passengers want anyway. There is a natural link here, too, but we need to better understand that in Government and reflect it in the delivery of services, too. The new Government arrangements, can you explain to me what systems are already in place or would you like to establish to ensure that our ScotRail services provide best value, as well as value for money, for both our passengers and our taxpayers? That is a really important question that Ms Dunbar asks. First of all, on the structures that we are using, I set that out in my opening statement, but ScotRail Holdings is wholly owned by the Scottish Government and has been set up to give that oversight and management of the train service delivery by ScotRail trains. I am accountable as minister as a shareholder or minister rather of SRH and ministerial responsibilities include keeping the Parliament informed about SRH's performance. If members have views on how best we can do that, I would be keen to hear those if that should be done on a quarterly basis, for example, or if this committee would like to seek updates on this quarterly. I think that that is actually quite important. I want us to have a responsive approach to running Scotland's trains in the future, and that means that the Government has to listen and act accordingly. I also have our ministers have responsibility to approve SRH's strategic plan and to approve its budget. That gives the answer to Jackie Dunbar's points regarding value for money and overall accountability to the chamber, but also to the committee. Again, if Ms Dunbar or other members have views on how we can best share that information with members after April 1, I am keen to hear those. To be as transparent, I think, as possible, it is really important that we do that under public ownership. I do not know if Bill wants to say more on the value for money aspect of the strategic arrangements that have been established, or, sorry, Jan may want to say more on the legalities of the approach that we have adopted. That is the one thing to say. In all of this governance, we talk about what are the priorities for Scotland's railway. It is about net to zero, net cost and safety. We have to make the railways affordable to the taxpayer so that they can play the much bigger part. Even in the transition to the creation of ScotRail Holdings Limited, part of that transition work that we are doing is that we have looked at the opportunities to make savings in some of the contracts that ScotRail needs. For example, the rolling stock, so we are always looking through these governance arrangements for the opportunities to improve the value in the delivery of the service. Part of that transition project cost has secured some really quite meaningful savings in rolling stock leases. It has a good illustration of how we will use those governance arrangements to drive value into delivery. Thank you, convener. That is all I have. Jan, did you want to come in on the minister who mentioned some questions over the legal side? Did you want to respond to that? Yes, thank you. I can just confirm that there will be a framework agreement between the Scottish ministers and ScotRail Holdings, which will set out governance arrangements, roles and responsibilities, and Scottish real holdings accountabilities to Transport Scotland, the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament in connection with ScotRail operations and the discharge of ministers duties under section 30 of the real ways act. No, that is totally fine, Jackie. When will that framework, is it publicly available or will it in due course be publicly available? It will be publicly available in due course. Fantastic. Jackie, thank you. Monica, I believe you have further questions. Back to me. Thank you, convener. I just want to come back to trade union engagement, because it was a useful session last week, and the minister has already made several references to her many meetings with trade unions, and it sounds like it is quite positive. I do not know if that has been superseded, but last week we had heard from the TSA union, some concerns that the offer for union representation at board level with a new ScotRail, it was not clear if that was going to be a trade union or staff representative place, or just a regular board member place. Has that been bottomed out? I think it has, but I will tell the member where we are just now. At the current time, the offer has been made for a full board member as a statutory company director position, which would mean that the trade union representative has a statutory company director position. I know that an offer has been made to unions to that effect. Now, I am aware that an individual has been nominated by the four unions, but the process of that appointment has not yet concluded, and the name has therefore not been made public. Members will understand that I cannot share that information, but I would be happy to have further conversations with the unions on that. We have discussed it in the meetings that we have had, but I do not think that there is disagreement on this issue. I may be wrong, but I think that a name has been put forward, and the unions seem to be content with that. That person would have full membership of the board, so they would not be in an observer post, for example. Good to get a further update on that. The other question that needs to be moped up from last week was about the no compulsory redundancy policy. Will that carry over, as per the unions wishes? It is not currently off the table, as Ms Lennon will know, and that is because we are in negotiation at this moment in time. There are a number of things that I have discussed with the unions, not least, for example, their views on ticket office closures. We are having conversations at this moment in time, and those arrangements or engagements, rather, are on-going between officials at ScotRail and unions directly. It is not off the table. I heard Mick Hogg's comments on that. I think that the committee would be surprised if we went into public ownership, and we did not have a policy of no compulsory redundancies, but we are not there yet because we have not established a pay deal. I would be very keen to get to that place with the unions, but, of course, those negotiations are on-going, so I do not want to prejudge them. Is your own position that you are not in favour of compulsory redundancies in our real ways? I am not personally, but that is still on the table at this moment in time, because the negotiations are on-going. Thank you. It was interesting to hear—it was Bill Reeve who said that what the trade unions say pretty much aligns with what the public feel anyway. I wonder, in terms of your engagement with the unions, the rail unions, what is your take on the document that they have put forward, a vision for Scotland's railways? There are a number of recommendations, I would not run through them all. You will be pleased to hear, but one, for example, is about not just a fair freeze but to reduce ticket prices and to offer free rail travel for under-24s and over-60s, for example. Are those the kind of recommendations that you are sympathetic to, minister? The document of vision for Scotland's railways puts forward a number of different ideas, some of which are supportive of others. We need to look at the costings associated with them, so Bill Reeve will improve them in the detail of that, but some of what the unions have put forward would be financially unviable at this moment in time. On the fair freeze itself, I am not ruling out looking at fairs in the future. I recognise some of the challenge around the fair's increase, which happened at the end of last year. Ms Lennon puts forward a number of the suggestions around about under-24s and over-60s, for example. She will know that we have the under-22 scheme, which I think was here last week to talk briefly about in terms of our bus operators. I recognise some of the challenges here. I think that the answer to some of those concessionary travel issues lies in the fair fares review, because I think that there is a requirement or a need rather to look across the piece, not just at rail and a silo. We need to look at buss, we need to look at joining up ferry journeys and making sure that timetables work for passengers and they can join up their journeys accordingly and that concessionary fares, if they flow, flow across different modes of transport. I am not ruling out looking at those things in the future. I would say that they cost a lot of money, so we will need to look at budget lines associated with them. I know that officials have done some preparatory work around the unions vision for Scotland's railway, which tells me that it is going to be rather a lot of money. We will need to think again about how we budget for those things in the past and in the future. Those are things that we will look at in the future with the support of the unions. I think that a lot of the ideas in that document I am broadly sympathetic to. It is about how we finance them and how we find the budget for them in government. I think that that is the challenge going forward because we recognise some of what we are facing just now. It is quite difficult. We look at cost of living, for example. We need to make sure that our public transport system is fit for purpose but also is affordable for people. I do hear some of the criticism that the unions have made on that point about fare freezes and not ruling out in the future looking at what that might mean in the future for real travel because I think it is really important that folk can afford to use our railways. That is a wider challenge of course as we move into public ownership and we make sure that our railways are sustainable but also efficient. Do you want to say more on the union report? I and some of my colleagues made a point of turning up to the presentation of that report during the COP26 conference. One of the great strengths that I found throughout my career in the railway industry is just the passion of railway staff for the success of the railway and for what it can do for society. It is a huge strength in the railway industry. I found a lot in the report that was very easy to support. I was very interested in some of the challenging questions about our fare structures. Do peak fares make any sense when we don't have a peak anymore? There is a perennial challenge in railway management and financing that there are in essence two ways in which the railway can be paid for. One is from the passenger or freight customer and the other is through the taxpayer. That is why the point about securing value for money and driving through the efficiency delivery is so important. I think that there is a lot to like in the union report. There is a big question about how much of it is affordable and how we make it affordable but a really valuable contribution to the vision for future Scotland's railway. The good news is that we have demonstrated in Scotland already that it is affordable to make bus travel free for under 22s and for others. Obviously, there is a wider campaign to extend that. I think that the point that the minister makes about making sure that it is all joined up and integrated is important. My final question is in terms of the fare, fares review, what is the timescale for that and how can the public engage with that? As I mentioned in my answer to Natalie Donne, I have a submission on this which sets out a number of options. I will arrive at a decision imminently and I will be happy to share that with the committee. I think that the current associated timescales may lead us to 2023. I am keen to see results on this sooner than that. I want to speak to officials about how we can do that and how we can best join up, as Ms Lennon has said, modes of different public transport options. We do not just look at rail narrowly on its own, but it is really important that we do this preparatory work. The other thing to be cognisant of is that the patterns at the moment are not what they were two years ago and they are not hopefully what they will be in two years' time. When we are looking at the data, some of what we are seeing at this moment in time, it is difficult to prejudge how the public might feel in three months' time, for example. I mentioned earlier on if there is another wave of Omicron, for example, or an equivalent that might put people off returning to public transport, so we need to be cognisant of that, too. However, I do not have timescales to share with Ms Lennon just now. I do have the submission with me and once I have made a decision on what that looks like, I have been more than happy to share that with the committee, given that we are at the planning preparatory stages just now. I do not have that detail to add. No, thank you. Again, because we are in a cost-of-living crisis and we know that many people are priced out of using the trains, it would be good to see that work accelerated. Thank you so much. Minister, earlier on Mr Reeve talked about the procurement of rolling stock and said that the new company might buy electric trains. Can you just clarify for me, will the new rolling stock be leased through Roscoe's or is there a move to have train sets owned by the operator? If it is the latter, is there a cost implication of that? The existing rolling stock that we have is already secured through lots of different leases and it will be necessary to maintain some of those initially to keep the ScotRail fleet available for use. However, we will look at future fleet procurement and I think that that offers us an opportunity to look at purchase or lease, which will be decided having regard to the availability of capital and resource budget funding. We need to look at, essentially, the costs. Will it be cheaper or more expensive to lease or to buy? That funding mechanism is going to be explored actively to look at how the fleet is procured with the balance of cost and that ownership risk too, so I had a conversation with officials about this yesterday about what that would look like. If, in the future, we look to purchase rolling stock, for example, there will be an associated risk with that and we need to fax that in. In terms of value for money, my own personal view would be that we look to, in the future, potentially own some of the rolling stock, because it might provide us with greater value for money in the longer term, because we are not leasing them, but we all need to look at the financials involved in that. Bill may want to see more on that specifically. When we have conducted analysis before, the whole life ownership cost of a train that is owned rather than leased tends to be cheaper, but there is inevitably a question at the start about the availability of capital and how you allocate that most efficiently. There is an established rolling stock leasing market in Britain, so I suppose we are in the nice position of having a choice about how we allocate that capital. Certainly, short leases where, at the end of seven years, you end up being charged the same price as if it was a new train because the lesser one knows that you have not got very few choices is not a great way of securing best value either. We have taken some steps for some of the existing leases to get perhaps the best of both worlds, so the Caledonian sleeper, the Scottish Government, contributed approximately half the capital cost, so we own half of that fleet working with the lesser for the rest. That is an interesting model that brings some of the strengths of both models, and each fleet we will need to take a decision appropriately as we approach that investment decision. Fourth of March, I read in the Scotsman Alex Hynes saying that ScotRail's budget had yet to be fixed. Has that been done now? Is the budget fixed now? The budget bill has a rail services line, which has 719.5 million allocated for this year, for rail services, and 312 million is fixed track access charges, which are paid in a slightly Byzantine way that railway finances work through the train operating companies on to Network Rail, which leaves a budget of £407.5 million for the remaining subsidy for the Caledonian sleeper and for ScotRail. What is not certain yet is what the revenue of ScotRail will be over this next year. We have learnt over the last two years how demand has gone up and down at different stages. We were lowest, under 10 per cent of revenue at one point. On some Saturdays, we are up to pre-pandemic levels at the weekend, but we are bumping along the 55 to 60 per cent of revenue on a weekday at the minute. We can all look over the next year at a range of very plausible scenarios. It will take us to very different passenger demand and therefore revenue figures. Could I look you in the eye and say that I am confident what the net cost of operating ScotRail over the next 12 months will be? No, but bluntly that is not an issue of ownership. That is just an issue of the market conditions. One more question for me. Minister, I would like to go right back to the start of this session because the convener asked a really important question that I am not sure I heard the answer to, because he asked about what does nationalisation of the railway actually bring and your answer involved relations with the trade unions, consideration of service cuts, consulting on ticket office cuts and other consultations. You finished by saying that the important thing is how to best meet passenger need and public ownership will allow us to do that. That is the bit that I was not quite understanding because it seems to me post 1 April that we have the same people, the same rolling stock, the same leasing arrangements in the short term, the same network at a cost of £3.6 million, with potentially fewer ticket offices and fewer services. The issue that Monica Lennon raised about no compulsory redundancies and you mentioned a possible fairs increase. The question is, what can a nationalised rail company do that the previous operator could not do? I think that the answer lies in accountability to ministers. The franchise ScotRail is now accountable directly to ministers. Ministers are accountable to Parliament, accountable to this committee. You talked about passenger need. I think that there is a place for passenger need to be met in the debates and the discussions that we have in the chamber, but also in this committee. I think that it is hugely important. Mr Kerr touched upon a number of different challenges that we have talked through in today's proceedings. I am very live to all those challenges. We have to be pragmatic and realistic in that people walked away or were not able to use our railways during the pandemic. They were not able to use our railways because they were told to stay at home and there was very good public health advice on that. At the same time, we were providing emergency funding to allow the railways to continue. We need to look at the sustainability of the revenue structures that we have in place for our railways. Just on the point about fairs increases, there are no proposals for fair increases. That was a historic point that was raised potentially by the last evidence session of the committee whereby fairs increased by 3.8 per cent. There are no future proposals on that that I am aware of. On the ticket office closures, I have given an undertaking to the unions that I will work with them on this. I recognise the strength and feeling on it. However, I do think that this goes back to what will be different. It is about accountability. It is about making sure that ministers are held to account, but equally, that we deliver a railway service that best meets communities' needs. I know as a Fife MSP some of the challenges that we face with the Abellio contract in the years leading up to where we are now. Some of the very real challenges around about not having enough seats on trains, for example, trains being cancelled, delays, I am very alive to all of that. All of that is going to go away under public ownership. I hope that some of it will be released, but at least there will be accountability to Parliament and at least there will be ministerial oversight in the process. I think that that is hugely important. The second point is that, yes, some of the people will be the same, but those people are experts in their field. We would want those people to be in charge of running ScotRail trains, for example, but the new framework agreement, which will be shared with the committee as and when it is published, will allow for ministerial oversight. I think that that is the main difference in that. Ministers are accountable and the ScotRail trains are accountable to ministers. Therefore, there is greater democracy in the way in which we hope to run ScotRail trains in the future, which we do not currently have under the franchising network system that we currently use with Abellio. I recognise some of the challenges that have existed there in the past. Bill may want to say more on the opportunities that I suppose it presents, but to my mind it is about accountability. It is not so much the opportunities, just if I may, Bill. It is about what the nationalised rail company can do that the previous operator could not. You have said that it is the accountability. That is what is different in your view. However, Mr Reep, do you have anything to add? That is one reflection. That is about how things can be changed and the difference between negotiating a change with a contract that was set out seven or eight years previously and for things that you thought were a good idea at the time, but the world has moved on. Any negotiation is, well, just that and negotiation, as distinct from the ability to agree and direct changes under public ownership. I first met that principle when I visit to The Rowers of Victoria in Australia, where the Government was looking at investing in the system and for two of the bits of the system, they took those back out to franchise, but the bit that they were investing in substantial change, they chose to keep in-house for a period because that facilitated managing those changes more easily during that period. So that the speed with which we may be able to respond to changes in market condition, I think, will be easier under those arrangements and would be the case under contractional arrangements. I think, too, just in terms of our responsibilities. I think that this is in a response to Jack Dunbar earlier on. So keeping the Parliament informed about Scotland Holdings performance, there is a requirement that ministers will have to do that now. Approving SRH's strategic plan and approving its budget too, there is that accountability built into the new arrangements and I think that that does allow for greater scrutiny actually from members like Mr Kerr on behalf of their constituents that we don't currently have under the Abelio-Frandeth. Okay, thank you Liam. Let me pass over to Fiona Hyslop. So the ministry will be aware that the committee is obviously interested in what is continuity and what is the opportunity for change. I want to move us on to Network Rail. Network Rail is going to be subsumed by Great British Railways, so could you provide us an update on the discussions between the UK and Scottish Governments on the development of Great British Railways and how it will operate in Scotland, what will be the responsibility and powers of Scottish ministers and clearly the interaction between the new ScotRail and Network Rail when it comes to new lines or even potentially new stations to help get commuters out of their cars and on to rail? This relationship will be very important, so could you provide us what will be continuity and what will be potentially a change in that relationship? First of all, we are really clear that a devolved railway public sector controlled and operated in the service of the public, which is fully integrated as Ms Hyslop spoke to and truly accountable, as I mentioned in discussions with Mr Kerr, is going to deliver that better and more efficient service for Scotland's communities. As part of the rail review, Scottish ministers and officials presented a clear case for the full devolution of rail powers, but the UK Government plan outlined in the White Paper did not deliver on that. I know that Transport Scotland officials are engaging with the DFT on further clarity on the detail of the White Paper. I will probably bring in Bill on that, because I have not been involved in any conversations with GBR on the issue thus far in post. I appreciate that the committee took evidence from GBR at last week's evidence session, so I have familiarised myself with that. I am looking forward to meeting with GBR in due course. There are a number of issues around continuity, but I think that challenges are potentially going forward. I was heartened to see some of the comments from GBR last week with regard to that working closely together and recognising, of course, devolution and the different rules and responsibilities that are involved in our railways. I suppose that the honest answer to the question is that are we clear how this will be applied in Scotland? The answer is no. We do not yet know. We have not yet seen firm proposals. We do have, and please say, a very constructive relationship with our fellow officials in working for the Department of Transport and the UK Government, but there is as yet nothing settled, as I understand. There are three broad principles in the GBR reform. One is the bringing together of the management of the track and train in the interests of more efficiency and better service. I think that we would strongly agree with that. That is what we have been trying to do in Scotland for a number of years. The second is a clearly stated principle that the devolved responsibility of devolved administrations will continue to be respected for railways established. That is the least we would expect. The third is that there should be a single controlling mind for the railways of Great Britain. It is not yet clear how you could reconcile that third one with the first two in Scotland. That is the area that we are looking for further discussions with the UK Government. That might be something that the committee might want to take further as that develops. We are running up against the clock. I want to come back to the proposed service cuts that were raised earlier. I understand that you campaigned against those cuts last year, including a number of proposed cuts to services in Fife. Is that still your position? I, before I was Transport Minister, raised concerns on behalf of my constituents about a reduction in services in the local area. I am aware, though, that the pattern is that this moment in time has not regained where it was prior to the pandemic. I recognise that the ScotRail fit for the future consultation, which was undertaken during the pandemic, has sought to reduce a number of services. However, ScotRail, I think, would have been February 14, and it committed to reinstating, I think, over 150 services if I am not wrong. That is an improvement from the initial consultation. My own view is that we need to have a railway service that meets passenger demand. At this moment in time, patchingage is not there yet. Bill gave an outline of where we are in terms of the stats. I think that around was around about 60 per cent at the moment. That is about 55-60 during the week, but much stronger at the whole time. We have seen a complete shift in patchingage, which is that people are using railways at the weekend and not as much the rate because people are working from home. I think that we need to be cognisant of that in terms of the timetable delivery and what that means for the travelling public. However, would I like to see more trains in the future? Yes, absolutely, but we need to get patchingage up to where it was prior to the pandemic to justify the action. Do you see a scenario in which Covid restrictions are being lifted, people returning to the office, commuters commuting from five to Edinburgh and elsewhere? Do you see a scenario in which pre-Covid levels of service will be reinstated? I hope that we will get to that place, but it depends on patchingage. It depends on people's behaviour in terms of whether or not they choose to work from home. Hybrid working is with us. We have an example of it here today. The Parliament has been a great example of hybrid working throughout the pandemic. We cannot account for what that might mean in the future. Prior to the pandemic, none of us might have imagined working remotely as politicians, and yet we have all learned to cope with it over the course of the past two years. I would like us to get back to a more sustainable footing on our railway provision, but that will require passenger demand to increase at the same time, and I think that we need to reflect that better in time-sabeling in the future. I believe that Liam Kerr has a supplemental. Very briefly, if I may convener, I am going to go local, and this will not surprise you, minister. I do not think at all. STPR2 does not allow for Frisbur and Peterhead into Aberdeen to be relayed. Does that mean that the Government's mind is closed to those lines now, or would you be receptive to ordering a feasibility study into those lines? I am not going to give Mr Kerr an undertaking to the feasibility study right now, but I would say that STPR2 is out to public consultation at this moment in time until next month, so I would encourage Mr Kerr and other members to please respond to that public consultation. Additionally, STPR2 does not preclude campaigns such as that in his region from coming forward. Levenworth Railway, for example, had, I think, two stack options appraisals, and then another options appraisal before the railway line, am I right, was approved. So there were two different processes and then a final options appraisal that was considered before we gave approval to that line, so I am not ruling out any lines out in the future. STPR2 is quite a high-level document. It doesn't preclude those local lines from coming forward in the future. I appreciate that Mr Kerr has written to me on this, and I know that the campaign group has too. I have been more than happy to meet with them, I am with Mr Kerr, to discuss this in detail, because it was one of the first things I did when I was first selected to meet with Mr Eustaf and campaign on behalf of my constituents for Levenworth Railway. Look where we are now. I would be very grateful, and I look forward to setting that up, minister. Okay, thank you. That brings us to the end of our allocating time. Minister, thank you to you and your officials for taking part in this evidence session. It is greatly appreciated. The committee will have a private discussion on the evidence given later in this meeting. I now suspend the meeting for a few minutes before the next public agenda item. Thank you. Welcome back everyone. Our next agenda item is the consideration of three petitions. I refer members to paper 3, which provides some background information on each petition and outlines possible options. The first petition that we will consider is petition 1750, independent monitoring of satellite tags fitted to raptors. The petition was lodged by Alex Hogg on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association in August 2019. It is calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce independent monitoring of satellite tags fitted to raptor species, to assist the police and courts in potential wildlife crime cases and to provide data transparency. This is the first time that this petition is being considered by the committee. I now invite the views from members, noting in particular the options set out in paragraph 15 of the paper. Let me begin by exploring some options that we can take forward this petition. My view is that we should keep this petition open. One option is to write to key stakeholders such as NatureScot and Police Scotland to gather views on the implementation of the new data sharing protocols in the first year. The predecessor committee kept the petition open on the basis that there were still concerns over the robustness of the data gathered. I think that that is an area that we can explore with NatureScotland and Police Scotland. The other option that we have is to write to the Scottish Government asking what action has been taken by the Scottish Government following the WERITY report to address those concerns. Once we get responses from that correspondence, the committee can consider appropriate next steps, including whether to keep the petition open following correspondence. Are members agreed and does any member have other options to consider? Agreed? Okay, fantastic. We will take those actions and follow up with correspondence. The next petition is petition 1815, Translocate protected beavers to reduce licensed killing. The petition was lodged by Steve Michael Wright on behalf of Treats for Life in August 2020. It is calling on the Scottish Parliament to or the Scottish Government to initiate a programme to translocate protected beavers to suitable habitats outside existing beaver ranges to minimise the need to kill animals adversely impacting arable farmland. The committee first considered the petition a couple of months ago on 30 November 2021. Following that meeting, the committee requested more information from NatureScot and the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity to inform our consideration. We have also received an update from the petitioner. Again, I now invite views from members in terms of how to progress this petition. The options that we have, which I think we should explore, is to write to NatureScot and the Scottish Government seeking further information and clarification on issues raised in their letters. In particular, the committee could ask NatureScot to respond to the petitioner's claim that NatureScot continues to rely on their argument that once they have decided to issue a licence, the law does not require them to licence the least harmful activity such as translocation before lethal control. As far as we know, beavers are the only protected species that are treated in this way. I think that that is an important point and I think that it is an area that we should seek clarification on. Are members agreed? Thank you very much. One other option is to write to the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee to ask whether beaver management is something that could be addressed through their future work programme through consideration of new rural support schemes, which will or could be considered in due course by that committee. Also, if committee members are agreed to that correspondence to the RAIN committee, the committee could write in similar terms to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands. Is that agreed? Thank you very much. Finally, the third petition for consideration this morning is petition 1872, to improve the reliability of island ferry services. Again, the petition was lodged by Liz McNichol in May 2021 and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to urgently ensure that all islanders have access to reliable ferry services. As with petition 1815, the committee first considered this petition a couple of months ago on 30 November 2021. Following that meeting, the committee decided to request more information from Caledonian McBrain and the Minister for Transport. You will note that we have also received two submissions relevant to the petition since we last considered it from residents on Tyree and Mull, which have been impacted by the reliability of island ferry services. I now invite views from members, noting in particular the option set out in paragraph 42 of the paper, and I also remind members that we will be undertaking a discussion on our work programme in private after this public meeting. Given that we are going to be discussing our work programme, I think that the best option in this situation is that we come back to this petition once we have agreed our work programme in the weeks ahead, because I think that the subject matter of this petition might very well be covered in the future work of this committee. We also have the Audit Scotland report in relation to ferry procurement due to be published by the end of this month. That is currently the schedule for the publication of that report. I think that we will have the best and most current and the fullest information available to the committee to reply to this petition if we come back to it shortly. We will have a more informed position if we have the benefit of the Audit Scotland report and the benefit of an agreed work programme established by the committee. Our members agreed. That means that we have dealt with the three petitions. We will thank again the petitioners for raising these issues with the Scottish Parliament. I now close the public part of this meeting.