 Is Code will be opening the Beast ofixa, Labour and the Chinese Party, and his next item of business is topical questions. We will start with question number one from Mike RumpBald. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with ScotRail, in light of the Tower of hasn't It and Salt, and the company reportedly receiving record fines for its performance in the last financial year. Minister... Olr are you, sov? I spoke to Alex Hines over the weekend and reiterated the fact that it is simply isn't good enough for officials at Transport Scotland.... performance with ScotRail on almost a daily basis and challenge areas that are not performing to an acceptable level. That has resulted in ScotRail providing action plans for several areas of concern and initiating now two internal reviews, one that will focus on recruitment and resourcing and the other one on managing proactive and reactive maintenance and repairs. This approach ensures that the onus to improve substandard assets, facilities and stations or, on trains, rests squarely on the shoulders of the franchisee. As penalties are deducted from the subsidy that they receive and reinvested in driving up quality through other customer facing improvements. Despite the volume of penalties accrued through the squire regime, it should be worth noting that there has been some recent improvements in performance, particularly on train punctuality and the recommendations within the Donovan review. The minister is aware that ScotRail missed the performance targets in 22 out of 34 areas and things like trains arriving on time, skipping stops, poor train seating and cleanliness. In the first three months of this year, he had accumulated £1.6 million in financial penalties. We discussed that with the minister at length in Parliament and in committee when he talked about his own Government's rail improvement plan. What happened to the Scottish Government's own rail improvement plan, which the minister said to us, would drive up performance levels? He is confusing a couple of areas. If I can provide some clarity in an effort to genuinely try to attempt to be helpful here, it comes to performance in terms of the PPM measures and what was happening in relation to skipping of stops. The two that he mentioned were part of the internal Donovan review, of which 20 recommendations came forward. ScotRail decided to accept every single one of those 20 recommendations. As a result of that, we have seen performance in terms of PPM. A positive trajectory, for example, in last week, most of the performance during both the morning and evening peak was in the mid to high 90s. In fact, the best day of 2018 was recorded last week. It continued to be the best large operator of ScotRail. In terms of skipping stops, that recommendation, we are also seeing the fruits of that. For example, on Friday, not a single train skipped a stop. We are seeing some improvements in some areas, but we are not seeing some improvements in clearly the areas that the squire regime measures. Therefore, some action plans have been requested because we are two consecutive squire periods. The trajectory has been downward, but the request was action plans. I will keep the member updated on how that progress is going. There is still a way to go, but it would be wrong to suggest that there has not been any performance improvements where there clearly has been. Mike Rumbles No one has suggested that there has not been any improvements, but they have failed 22 out of 34 areas. First giving 1, trains arriving on time 57 per cent, which is lower than anywhere else. When ScotRail announced on 30 March that it had commissioned an independent rail expert to produce its own improvement plan, setting out 20 actions aimed at improving infrastructure and rolling stock performance, plus the commitment to suspend stops skipping except as a last resort, what confidence can we have as MSPs and the people that we represent? Confidence in there yet another improvement plan that will be successful? Mike Rumbles You can have confidence from what I just said in the previous answer. A review took place, an expert that came, Nick Donovan, well respected in the rail industry, looking and taking a thorough forensic examination of performance, given 20 of the recommendations. Within weeks we are already seeing the fruits of that coming forward, which is positive in relation to ppm improvements. In terms of right time arrivals, again I have just cautioned. There is a reason why to the minute is not used as a measurement. I will give you my own example from this morning. My train coming into Edinburgh waverly a few minutes delayed when I asked the conductor the reason for it is because he was helping a disabled passenger and it took a little bit longer to help with some of the access issues with that. That is why right time is not used but ppm is used and one of the reasons ppm is used. In terms of giving confidence, there are action plans in place. Donovan reviews 20 recommendations will see a driver's performance but I am not taking away from what he is saying. It is disappointing and frankly not acceptable that the squire regime measurements and criteria are not being adhered to. I know that he has Alex Hynes in front of the committee and in fact in a matter of days or tomorrow I am being told and I have got no doubt that he will rightly ask the questions that the Government is also asking of Scotland. Stuart Stevenson, recognising that many factors affect the performance of ScotRail, can a minister advise us of what adverse effects derive from Network Rail? There is a very sensible conversation to be had with the UK Government around further devolution of Network Rail. There is a politics of devolution that will undoubtedly rumble on. There is a space to have a conversation with the UK Government because there are clearly some areas where greater devolution to this Parliament and the sooner that can happen, the better for all of us. There will be no surprise to the chamber at all that Network Rail should be fully devolved and fully accountable to this Government and to this Parliament. One example of performance would be that 54 per cent of delays are attributable to the infrastructure that is owned by Network Rail. A sensible conversation with the UK Government particularly when they appoint a new chief exec of Network Rail around further devolution of Network Rail to this Parliament is something that hopefully most in the chamber can agree with. Colin Smyth. The squire performance figures show that ScotRail has gone from hitting 19 targets for the same quarter in 2015-16 to just 12 for 2017-18. Behind those figures are hard-pressed passengers paying ever-increasing fares for a failure of performance in two thirds of targets from the state of stations to the cleanliness of the trains that they travel on. Will the transport minister therefore issue a public apology to those passengers? Given that ability, I have never met the target for station CCTV and security since they were awarded the ScotRail franchise. When will the transport minister personally intervene to put a stop to the cuts in CCTV staffing being implemented by ScotRail that has led to the current industrial dispute and plummeting performance? It was incredible when I have just mentioned the fact that last week they had their best performance day of 2018, the best-largest operator in the entire UK, the fact that skip-stopping has been reduced to its lowest figures in recent times. The fact that he cannot even recognise and put in record his thanks to railway workers for the incredible effort and tireless energy that they put in to building Scotland's best of a railway speaks volumes of how interested he is in his cheap political attacks as opposed to standing up for railway workers who are doing a great job, I have to say, in terms of answering his question in a little bit more detail. Let me say to him that I find it again incredible that Colin Smyth never comes to this chamber with any constructive ideas. When it comes to squire regime, there are action parts, there are action plans in place, so instead of sniping from the sidelines he might want to come forward with something constructive and get involved in this effort to build the best railway Scotland has ever had. Jamie Greene The transport minister wants to have a conversation about the full devolution of Network Rail, where Network Rail is not in charge of litter, train cleanliness, seats, food and beverage, health points, ticket machines, toilets, taxi ranks, CCTV or even station parking. ScotRail is. Given that it fails 75 per cent of those key performance measurements, is the transport minister satisfied with ScotRail's current performance? If he is not, what is he going to do about it? Mike Rumbles My answer to Mike Rumbles's question is very clear that I am not satisfied. It is not acceptable that there are a number of areas within the squire regime, which is the toughest audit regime anywhere in the UK when it comes to train and railway performance. They are not performing to the levels that I would expect them to do. What we do about it is a sensible question. Again, in my answer to Mike Rumbles, there are a number of action plans that I have requested on areas that the squire regime has fallen below particular levels of the benchmark in two consecutive squire periods. We have those action plans, but there are also two internal reviews. When it comes to the squire regime, a round about a third of the failings are due to the fact that ScotRail has not recruited enough staff and therefore is going through recruitment exercise and fairness, as the unions have been asking them to do. They are going through that recruitment process, which will make a difference, particularly when it comes to the staffing, for example, of ticket stations. There is a staffing issue that is now being addressed. Again, when Alex Hynes is in front of the committee tomorrow, I am sure that it is an opportunity that the member will take to question him further on that. Clare Baker To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with DF Barnes since the announcement of redundancies at BiFab on 4 May. I met DF Barnes on Wednesday 2 May, at which point I was made aware of the redundancies. I subsequently spoke to Gary Smith of the GMB trade union and Bob McGregor of the Unite Union on Friday 4 May. In addition, the Scottish Government officials remain in close contact with the companies concerned, as well as with the relevant trade unions. Clare Baker We all welcome the announcement of the new ownership of BiFab, the news that was particularly welcomed in Fife, and I recognise the positive role of the Scottish Government in achieving that. I accept now, as I did then, that securing new contracts is vital to the future of the company and that there would be challenging times ahead, but the workforce and their unions, who fought so strongly for their jobs, as well as the wider Fife economy, were all shopped by the announcement of redundancies to core staff on Friday, only weeks after hearing such positive news. The cabinet secretary, as he outlined, has a significant stake in BiFab. As the cabinet secretary said, he first found out about the announcement on 2 May. I asked him to appreciate the shock that was experienced by the workforce and the trade unions, who were taken by surprise on Friday by the announcement. What can the Scottish Government do to ensure that the unions are fully engaged in decision making? I think that I do to answer Clare Baker's question. I do appreciate the shock that was caused by that. I spoke, as I have mentioned, to both the trade unions on Friday when this was announced, so I do appreciate that reaction and a completely understandable reaction from the trade unions. In relation to ensuring that the proper communications channels are held open, the Scottish Government has had regular contact with the trade unions right the way through this process, and I have committed to continue to do that. Of course, those redundancies really are falling on from the bowl contract, which was at the centre of BiFab's difficulties. We got involved because of those difficulties, had we not done—I have mentioned before to the chamber—that three times in one week or two weeks, the company was going to administration, the gates were going to be closed, we managed to stop that and get to the point where the bowl contract could be delivered. Clare Baker is absolutely right to say, as I said to the chamber when I mentioned the deal that had been done, that it is entirely bound up with winning future work. As well as hearing from the company about the redundancies, we spent much of the meeting that we had on Wednesday talking about how we can best achieve those new contracts, two in particular. That is why the focus of Scottish Government efforts is also where the focus of trade union efforts is as well as the company. It is simply the case that work there in future, the expansion of the workforce depends on winning that work. That is where our energies are focused, although, of course, we will put in place whatever support we can to the employees who are affected by our latest announcement. Clare Baker. At the announcement of the rescue deal in Messell, the First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary and DF Barns all spoke about employment, growth and continuity. I appreciate the Cabinet Secretary's comments about the work being done to secure new contracts. We are facing an immediate problem. I believe that there is still an opportunity to try and bridge the gap at the yards at the moment and keep those valued jobs. Previously in the steel industry, we have seen Scottish Enterprise step in to provide training and support for diversifying skills. If consideration has been given to the role of Scottish Enterprise in maintaining employment, is the Scottish Government exploring any opportunities, particularly in the oil and gas sector, to bring short-term work to the yard and to try and bridge the gap that we are facing at this current time? First of all, DF Barns takes the operational decisions for the company, but we recognise that the Government has a role to play in helping to try and secure that work within the procurement guidelines that apply. In relation to Scottish Enterprise, it has been made clear to Scottish Enterprise to provide whatever support is possible to the company, including the potential for training that Clare Baker mentions. I would also point out that Scottish Enterprise has been a very constructive part, and the deal that was put together to keep BiFab as a going concern, so it will be committed to trying to ensure that it can do whatever it can. That discussion is going on, and Scottish Enterprise and, for that matter, Skills Development Scotland are being advised to be as helpful as possible, given what has been said. It is true to say that the company is also the ones that will be looking for work opportunities, as well as those areas in which the Government feels that it can be helpful. The company's background is in oil and gas, and it is actively looking at other contracts. I have mentioned oil and gas, because Clare Baker raised that. She is also aware of the two contracts that I have referred to in relation to renewables. Beyond that, DF Barns has a number of other interests and abilities to do other work. It was mentioned in response to a question from Loose McDonald last time in terms of fabrication. All those opportunities are being explored by the company and we, the Scottish Government, will provide whatever support we can, to either keep employees there for as long as possible or to shorten the time between contracts being finished and new contracts coming on stream. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, following the challenges faced by BiFab, there is now a need for a concerted regional effort to bring jobs to keep skills and to grow the wider Fife economy, thereby tackling the deep-rooted poverty that is still present in communities today? I think that there is a big job of what to be done. Myself and my colleague Paul Wheelhouse have been actively involved in that and a number of fronts, not all of which we can make public. However, I understand the point of bringing jobs, not just jobs but good-quality jobs, paying the living wage to areas such as Fife where such jobs are needed. We will continue to work on that and I am happy to have a discussion with Jenny Gowryth or, indeed, through Paul Wheelhouse to update her on some of the activity that we are undertaking. There is no more time than we have had this afternoon, because we are so short of our time. I apologise to Mark Ruskell, Willie Rennie, Jackie Baillie and Dean Lockhart, all of whom wanted to ask questions on that issue. However, we move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on the Scottish National Investment Bank. We will just take a few seconds for members of the chain seats.