 Ychydig yw ystod y byddiau 11 o'r cwrthog y Cyfrom lysgwyr hefyd ac y Dyma sydd y Ch לחysliad Cymru o 2024. Yn y Toryl y 1rhyw o'r ymgyrchu, mae'n teblog yng nghyrch yn cyfgareddau rhywbeth lleidiau 5, 6 a 7 i'r cyfryd. Eitem 5 yn cyfredig cyfraith o'r cyfredigau ond maen nhw'n teblog yng nghymomer �nig yng Nghyrchu Cymru. Item 6 is to consider the evidence that we will hear today on Scotland's railways. Item 7 is to consider correspondence relating to the appointments to the Scottish Land Commission. Do we agree to take these items in private? We are agreed, thank you. Our next item of business is gender item 2. It is an evidence session with the Scottish Government on the UK Automotive Vehicles Bill. The bill implements the recommendations of a joint report by both the GB law commissions on the regulation of automated vehicles. On 20 December, the Scottish Government lodged an LCM legislative consent memorandum that reserved its position on whether the Scottish Parliament consent should be given. On 29 February, a supplementary memorandum was lodged which recommended consent to all of the provisions outlined in the LCM other than clause 50. I note for the record that there seems to be a difference of view between the Scottish and UK Governments about whether certain clauses require legislative consent and that clause 50 is one of these. The committee has been designated lead committee for the scrutiny of the LCM. In the limited time available to report, we are having this one evidence session with the Scottish Government. We have also written evidence from the Confederation of Passengers to Transport. I am pleased to welcome Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. She is joined today by Liana Vatlawski, a Scottish Government lawyer. Jim Wilson, the licensing team leader for the Scottish Government. Oihang Chu, the UK bill and legislative consent manager for Transport Scotland. George Henry, the operational manager for road safety, policy and education for Transport Scotland. Thank you all for joining us today. Cabinet Secretary, I am going to give you the opportunity for a brief opening statement. Thank you for inviting me to discuss the supplementary LCM for the UK Government's Automated Vehicles Bill. The bill implements the recommendations of a four-year review of the regulation of automated vehicles carried out jointly by the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission. The bill prescribes a new framework for the safe deployment of self-driving vehicles in Great Britain. Autonomous vehicles represent a vital part of mobility of the future. The focus on public safety is required to support that. I welcome the necessary legislative framework, albeit that there is concern over some clauses. The late engagement by the UK Government on this bill has also been challenging, given the complexity, novelty and technical nature of the bill. The Scottish Government considers a number of provisions engaged the LCM process. Clause 40 will require Scottish ministers to provide the Secretary of State with reports from police and local authorities. That is in line with our current policy on sharing safety information with partner agencies to allow us all to learn from incidents. Therefore, we recommend consent. Clause 46-51 establishes the legal liability of the user in charge. A person in a position to exercise control of a vehicle which is being operated by an authorised automated function. The Scottish Government is in disagreement with the UK Government as we consider these clauses to be devolved. Our view is that determining the liability of a user in charge or any other person for devolved offences involving the use of a vehicle would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. However, we agree with the policy position of the user in charge provisions and recommend consent to clauses 46-49 and 51 only. Clause 50 provides the Secretary of State with the power to change or clarify existing legislation, including acts of the Scottish Parliament, without a mechanism to consent or consult with the Scottish ministers or Scottish Parliament. Therefore, we do not recommend consent on Clause 50. Clause 82-90, excluding Clause 86, provides the new powers for Scottish ministers in relation to a system of interim passenger permits over the use of automated vehicles within a private hire and taxi regulatory regime. Those clauses are an appropriate approach to reflect the devolved nature of private hire and taxi licensing and the effort that we are recommending on legislative consent. I wish to conclude by saying that the extensive engagement has been taken forward by officials with the UK Government's Department of Transport, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Services and Police Scotland. That ensured that we were provided with the expert advice to allow us to consider and take an informed view on the policy intent of the bill. Thanks very much, Minister, and our committee members have some questions. The first question is going to come from Mark Ruskell. Thanks, convener, and morning to the panel, and thanks for that explanation. Can I ask you a little bit more than Cabinet Secretary about Clause 50? My understanding is that there might be certain traffic regulations which the UK Secretary of State for Transport could choose to amend. Can you go into a bit more detail about what the scope of that power might be and what your concerns would be specifically around the nature of those regulations and the changes that may or may not happen in Scotland as a result? Right, so if you can bear with me and I might bring in colleagues in this because it is fairly complex. Clause 50 contains a broad power for the Secretary of State to change or clarify the application of existing relevant legislation, including acts of the Scottish Parliament to user in charge, and that legislation is relevant if it relates to the driving or use of a vehicle. The UK Government maintains that those provisions are reserved because they relate to the subject matter of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which is reserved under the Scotland Act 1988. As far as it is concerned with the use of vehicles on roads, the UK Government acknowledges that those provisions will apply to devolved dynamic driving offences, but considers the impacts on devolved matters are incidental to this reserved matter. In the most recent letter, which has been corresponded so that you can appreciate back and forward with ourselves and the UK Government, in the most recent letter dated 13 March 2024 from the UK Government, this has been summarised as the reserved policy of the use of automated vehicles on roads. The Scottish Government considers that that takes too broad a view of the reservation. Any and all regulation of the use of conventional vehicles is not reserved. For example, traffic regulation under the Road Traffic Act 1984 is not reserved. Therefore, any and all regulation of the use of automated vehicles is not a reserved matter. Our view is that the provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1988, which is quoted by the UK Government, is in relation to the construction and use of vehicles are connected with the regulation of minimum standards for the safe use of vehicles. That is why Part 1 deals with the regulatory regime there. In terms of the provisions of the user-in-charge immunity, which is the 46 to 51 clauses, do not appear to relate to the regulation of minimum standards for the safe use of vehicles. Instead, the Scottish Government's view is that the primary purpose of those provisions is to clarify liability for traffic offences. In the case of clause 50, that is civil penalty contraventions of persons in an equivalent position to the driver of a conventional vehicle. Accordingly, modifying offences, which is clause 50, gives the power to the UK Government reserved or devolved to remove or clarify liability, cannot be incidental. It appears to be the primary reason that those provisions are being made. To give you some examples of what would be in the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament issues in relation to civil penalties, bus lane issues and things that are to do with offences under devolved legislation and offences that would be part of devolved areas, those are the areas that the provision would allow the UK Government to legislate on or to make provision for in the future in relation to the use in charge immunity. I know that that is quite complex. I apologise to colleagues if I have not quite got that right, they can correct me. That is the explanation of what the difference of opinion is. I think that it is a genuine issue of concern. I know that the committee stage of the UK Government on this bill is taking place today and that is one of the issues that is being debated there as well. I wonder if there is any more detail of examples that you can give. Is there a potential here for divergence in the way that liability is treated across the UK? There is a principal point here, which is that the Scottish Parliament needs to be able to decide on that. Is there any practical issues that may arise in relation to that liability regime? There is a framework bill, but there is a desire to have consistency approach across the UK for what is a new policy area in terms of automated vehicles. We agree with that, and that makes sense. When it applies to devolved areas, that is where we think that needs to be at the very least, as the committee and others will know, consultation with the Scottish ministers about issues that may impact. Of course, the user in charge immunity is a brand new concept, but the issues about what can happen to the vehicle in devolved areas is similar to what might happen to a vehicle if it had been driven by a human being. It is a consequence of that, and the penalties are the civil offences that are at issue. Help me, because it seems quite abstract. I am still trying to get around the fact that I am going to get into a car and there is going to be no driver. I am going to put my life in the hands of a computer, which I have some fears about. People may say that about my driving anyway, but what I am trying to work out is where an example of an offence would be that you think is. If one of your officials could give a real-life example that I can understand, it would probably make it less abstract. At that very moment, I was about to bring in George Henry, who would hopefully help to illustrate what that could mean in practice if it helps to bring it to life. I know that conceptually this could be quite a challenging area, but we do need to move with the times, convener. I think that they are already on the automotive vehicles abroad. Therefore, in terms of the framework legislation, we need this, but we need to do it in a sensible way and anticipate what the implications would be. That will include various devolved legislation in the criminal sphere in relation to dynamic driving offences, such as contraventions to traffic orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Speed limits could be one of them. Other examples could be low-emission zones, as well as parking and bustling contraventions. If the user in charge in the vehicle is travelling along a road and the speed limit is different, they could end up having a speeding offence that is attached to them when they have not been in charge of the vehicle. Again, that is devolved powers that are obviously set within the Scottish Parliament. Just help me. User in charge is muggins driving the vehicle. That is me driving the vehicle. If I park in a bus lane or I enter an early Z, I will be subject to an offence. However, if it is an automated vehicle, I am not in charge of the vehicle. The responsibility lies with somebody else. I do not understand why there is a difficulty here. We agree with you, because we think that the concept is the same, whether it is you as an individual or the automated vehicle. However, the UK Government is differentiating the difference because the automated driver is an automated driver. It does not apply in the same way. You are right. I understand that if you have one vehicle designed to use across only the United Kingdom and there are some faults in the software and it commits an offence, it cannot be the person who is normally in charge of the vehicle but not driving it at the time. Yes, that is correct, because the problem would be with the vehicle and the manufacturer of the vehicle. The issue about clause 50 is about changes to devolved legislation, the speeding or the other aspects that would be offences. The 1988 road traffic act, which you come up, did it anticipate automated vehicles? That is the problem, I suspect not. Therefore, that is a retrospect. How do you fit in what is novel legislation in a situation that you are almost bolting it on to existing traffic provisions? Quite clearly, many of them are devolved. All that we are trying to do is respect those devolved issues. You bring up an important point that I have not referenced, which is the need to review the legislation precisely because it is new legislation. It is an issue that we have raised with the UK Government. Clause 38 is sufficient because it reviews the practice and the experience of automated vehicles, whereas we think that this is going to involve a framework bill, so the secondary regulations are going to be important areas as well. The UK Government has said that it will engage with Police Scotland and the Crown Office, but it is new territory, so we think that a more established form or review of the actual legislation will be needed precisely because you have a new piece of legislation that is working with old pieces of legislation in a brand new area, which is novel to all of us. We could get into the inadequacies of framework legislation, if you like, but I troll on your toes, George, when you were speaking. Do you want to complete what you were saying? Just to try and provide an explanation, an example is that there will be devolved legislation that is being brought in either by roads authorities or even through the Scottish Parliament that the Clause 50 allows the Secretary of State to the potential to change that hence the reason why we are not supportive of that area because there could be decisions made by this Parliament for the right reasons of why we have implemented something. That could potentially be changed through the Clause 50. Mark, it was your question. It was my question indeed, but you have done well to kind of dine out on it. I think that that is clear for my point of view. It is a complex area and it is a new and emerging technology, but I think that it would be odd to have two sets of rules effectively. A set of rules for automatic vehicles and a set of liabilities and regulations are resulting relating to that, but then a completely different set of rules for everybody else. It feels like there is the potential for mismatch there. I hope that that would never happen, but I think that Clause 50 raises the spectre that that might happen and that would be very problematic. If that summarises your concerns with some real examples that you have just given us, I can understand where it is coming from. I think that clarity is what is needed right now rather than a confusing introduction of a technology that apparently has a different set of rules to everything else. It is potential for change in the future, so if we are going to have some consistency across the UK, even the basics of talk to us about it or consult with us formally in terms of if there was any changes in the future, that is all that is to be asked for by the Scottish Government, which we do not think is unreasonable. Bear in mind, the rest of the bill, we are giving consent to. There are still issues that the UK Government probably would not want to consider, 46 to 51 of them, as LCM issues that we do, but as it happens we agree with the policy content, so we are not objecting to the rest of them apart from 50 for the reasons that you set out. There are lots of questions. I've got Monica, followed by Ben, followed by Pop. Thank you, convener. I think that my questions will be quite boring now in comparison to what we've just heard. We know that the bill will create a new system for the regulation of bus and taxi services provided by automated vehicles. Cabinet Secretary, can you tell us a little bit more about the Scottish Government's consultation with bus and taxi industry representatives on those proposals? What were the key issues that emerged and how have any concerns been addressed? In terms of the consultation, remember that this came out of a multi, it took over a number of years, and it was the Scottish Law Commission that conducted the work and also the consultation, and there's probably a list somewhere of the people that they consulted with. This is a UK Government bill that's come out of, obviously legislation can come out of law commission reports, so it's their recommendations and that's what's come out of this in terms of what the legislation is. There are provisions, and if we can bring in Jim as to the issues, and I suspect the need for on-going issues around licensing in relation to the taxi and bus industry in relation to this. Jim, can I bring you in on that? Of course, thanks very much Cabinet Secretary, and thanks to Ms Lennon for the question. We've had a pretty strong engagement with a range of stakeholders in relation to taxi and private hire car policy more generally, so there is a pool of key stakeholders that we can certainly tap into in relation to regulations that will come further down the line. Some of the concerns that from a policy making perspective that I wanted to highlight to committee generally revolve around the need to think about unintended consequences. I'll use a retail sector analogy with self-scan until points where I'm sure retail workers might have had some concerns about what's the impact on their jobs, what's the impact on their livelihoods if the intention in the store was simply the customer can go to the self-scanning point. I suppose if you're thinking about people that have a reliance on taxis and private hire car licensing and ultimately they have a provision in their communities to travel from point A to B, if suddenly there's a real desire to have a behavioural change so that there is no driver, I think we need to be mindful about the impact on citizens but also the impact on the taxi sector more generally. I mean it was a debate in Parliament many, many months ago around the challenges around the provision of taxi drivers or taxi services within Glasgow, so I think that from an employment perspective we just need to be mindful about the impact. Technology is a wonderful thing but we need to be mindful about the impact on sectors that would be directly impacted upon that. So just to give a flavour of some of the key stakeholders that we're engaging with, so in the main it would be because this would disapply the taxi and private hire car licensing provisions, we have strong working relationships with solar so they provide the legal advice to licensing boards for alcohol and also licensing authorities for civic licensing including taxis and private hire but we also have a good engagement with a range of other stakeholders that includes representatives from Unite the Union, private hire and private hire. We also have private hire operators and some other key taxi stakeholders as well. I think for me there's two key points to be brief. The first point is really just in relation to accessibility so I appreciate the divils and the detail when it comes to the regulation making powers but we just want to ensure that there's not any unintended consequences to ensure that any services where there is no driver but it doesn't actually have an impact on accessibility for those who want to use that service. So it needs to be as opposed to that equality lens that we look at the policy development going forward and just picking up on Mr Ruskell's point, I think more generally one of the concerns would be usually just around the consistency of approach so if we have an interim permit regime it would look odd to an operator who has a UK wide presence if the system is completely different in England and Wales compared to Scotland. So I think that we need to absolutely do what's right for Scottish policy interests but closely collaborating work with the Department for Transport are in the makeup of this regime going forward. So we've got the communication channels are well in place in terms of engaging with taxi and private hire stakeholders but we need to go wider than that and ensure that when we're actually trying to develop or design a new system that would place users at the heart of that development going forward. Thank you to Jim Wilson. That's really helpful so encouraged to hear there's been maybe not a formal consultation but there is wide engagement and you mentioned a number of key stakeholders including some of the unions as well which is important. So maybe a wider question then because obviously there's the provisions of this bill which is not a Scottish Government bill but more generally there have been concerns raised about the impact of automated vehicles on workers. You gave that good example about the self scanning check-outs in supermarkets we've all had our ups and downs with those I'm sure. I know there was a trial in Scotland with self driving buses I believe in 2023. Concerns were raised about what this could mean for workers in terms of safety but in terms of workforce planning for the future. So I just wonder cabinet secretary if you can maybe speak to that in terms of workforce planning because we know that there's obviously a shortage of bus drivers but are there any issues that you're picking up on and maybe just to pick up on Mr Wilson's point about the importance of that collaboration and discussion with the Department of Transport. Do you feel satisfied that there's good dialogue with the UK Government on these matters? So there's quite a lot in there so I'll try and recall a number of them. The project CAV4 ran from May 2019 and the bus service entered operation from May 23 to August 23. That was a project that partners had fusion processing stagecoach Alexander Dennis, Napier University and Bristol Robotics. It was also support in the UK. Transport Scotland has not been subsequently directly involved but obviously there's a number of trials that are taking place in different parts of the UK and obviously the exchange and monitoring is really really important. In terms of, what was it that there was another, I'm trying to remember, a point that you were asked about? There were certainly two points, Ms Lennon raised during the workforce ramifications which I think is a hugely important point and needs to be worked through. I think that the other point, and again it'll come as no surprise that what I'm thinking about, the opportunities that this framework bill can offer which are significant, but I also think that we need to be mindful about the safety aspect. I think that citizens would want to have absolute confidence that if they were to take that leap of faith and actually go into a vehicle where there is no driver, that safety has to be at the heart of that permitting regime. I think that it's worth drawing committee members to one of the key law commission recommendations within their report which actually call for a new safety assurance scheme to provide regulatory oversight of automated vehicles throughout their lifetime to ensure that they continue to be safe and comply with road rules. We recognise that safety passages are used in private hire and taxes at parament and as the bill progresses there will certainly be an opportunity to have wide-ranging discussions with the Department for Transport to absolutely ensure that there is safety that remains at the heart of this process. I think that there is a change in trying to persuade the general public that this is the right way to go because I think that there will be a nervousness among certain individuals around going from the safety of their own vehicle, driving that vehicle to maybe jumping into a vehicle where there is no driver. User in charge therefore becomes quite important because that's somebody else in the vehicle although it's been an automated vehicle but there will be times where there might be instructions from the computer to say in transition you need to take over because of whatever circumstances. In terms of people and deployment and drivers working there are likely to be a transition where it would go to a user in charge as opposed to the vehicle just drives itself and there's no other human there. In terms of socialising the issue around jobs and the implications I think we've all got a responsibility to raise what does this mean and I know the Parliament had a debate, I think I took part in it as I mentioned during last year on AI and what it means generally. We can't give you all answers because this is a developing area but if you don't prepare for it and anticipate it then the market will take over and that's the interesting aspects about how you regulate in this sphere and that's obviously what the UK Government has done after quite an extensive period of that Law Commission study report. Ben, you've got some questions there and Bob. Thank you, good morning Cabinet Secretary and to your officials. I just wanted to go back to the proposed clause 50. I share your concerns and that you've expressed on behalf of the Government. You spoke about how there had been some engagement prior to publication of the bill and some correspondence but I just would be grateful if you could comment further on how meaningful that engagement was from the UK Government on clause 50 both prior to and since publication and what the timescales were. The bill was announced at the King's speech and it's moved quite rapidly. I think that's a fair to be said despite the fact that there was anticipation that something would be coming because of the various Law Commission's collective work. Therefore, there was a quite tight time period in that. I think that it's not just ourselves, there's obviously the issue today for the Crown Office and also for Police Scotland as well as policy officials so I think in that short period of time there's been as much engagement at official level as they can do. I hadn't spoken to the minister in charge although we've had various pieces of correspondence. Some of it in the last week which hasn't been copied to the committee happy do so but basically we've been reinforcing the main points of 46 to 51 is in devolved areas. We'll agree to all of them from a legislative consent point of view, they dispute that and also the issues around review, the issue around clause 38 not being sufficient because it just reviews the practice of what actually happens on the roads as opposed to it is this legislation fit for purpose and does it need reviewed. That's been the tenor of it, it's been as co-operative as it can be but as I was trying to explain later that the secondary regulations are going to be as important I suspect as obviously the substantive framework aspects of the UK bill so there's going to be the need for that. It's moving fairly rapidly I think through the committee stage in the House of Commons this morning so this is a staging post I would suspect and what will be a continuous dialogue but I don't know if anybody else of my colleagues would want to add anything to that. Before you bring anyone else in Cabinet Secretary you generously offered that correspondence to the committee, the committee would like to see that, I think it would be useful for us. Could I also just add that if there's anything further the Government wants to relay to the committee following the committee stage in the House of Commons, I'd be interested in any further comment on that. It strikes me that the engagement prior to the bill's publication in terms of considering devolved matters wasn't as meaningful as it could have been. That would be a fair assessment. I think it could have been better but I recognise it's complex and I think the issue is at the heart of this is a failure to differentiate between the technology of the automated vehicle and the rules of the road. The rules of the road effectively are what are devolved whereas the technology monitoring is obviously, we can appreciate that in a reserve matter as is the 88 legislation that talks about the standards of vehicles but the issue is that you've got this bridge now where the vehicle becomes the driver as opposed to the cars that you and I drive which are obviously regulated by reserve matters. It's when it starts interacting with the rules of the road which is the issue. I don't put officials in the position of having to answer where they are in terms of that discussion. It's a challenging area to be fair. I'm disappointed that there isn't an understanding in such a challenging new and novel area that the UK Government doesn't appreciate that there has to be good understanding and even preparedness to consult us on clause 50. That addition would recognise that they understood the difference between devolved competence under 1984 traffic offences legislation which is the rules of the road and the rules of the road are still devolved. They're not reserved. This opens up the opportunity for them to become reserved. I don't even know that that's their intention. It may well be but that's when you completely get conspiratorial as to the reach of the UK Government's powers but I'll leave it there. I just very briefly on this again. It's in clause 15 and Mr Henry was very happy to bring this to life because it can be quite abstract until we actually see the detail. Listening to some of the explanations, I was seriously having googling bustling infringements to see what this could mean in practice and I think, I could have got this wrong, that Scotland sets the maximum you can find for breach of a bustling by statute instrument in this place. Sixty pound maximum and there's variations. Thirty pound if you pay early. Fifty percent additional if you don't. In the UK it's a hundred and thirty pound in London and I think it's up to seventy pound elsewhere in the UK so just hold that thought there a second. If clause 50 was exercised for automated vehicles and set the fines regime for infringement across the UK could we end up with a two tier system in Scotland where drivers of vehicles pay one set of fines and the libel individual for the automated vehicle is paying under a different fines regime and is that a two tier system that I think would be undesirable within Scotland? Yes and that's exactly what the clause 50 as it currently stands could lead to. I'm not saying it will lead to it but it could lead to it. I would also say that there are requests from some local authorities to increase the bustling infringement amounts in Scotland as well but they are devolved currently but that's probably a very good example of what the UK Government in its current drafting would enable to happen and that could end up if you had a judgmental view as to trying to drive the market to automatic vehicles for example then you might want to have a differentiated system but I don't think that makes sense because going back to the point about the rules of the road I think it would be easier for everybody if the rules of the road were consistent between and there will be a period where there will be hybrid use, there will be ourselves and then there will be everybody else and user in charge in vehicles etc. There could be potential for a period of hybrid activity and I don't think it would make sense for that differentiation between rules of the road fines etc. I'm not saying that the UK Government would do it but that's exactly what the clause 50 would enable and allow. I think that's helpful and just for clarity I'm sorry Miss Henry, I think that you might want to come and just add to this. I've given the example of a two-tier system in Scotland between automated vehicles and drive vehicles up and driven in the way Mr Mountain would drive his vehicle or maybe safer than Mr Mountain would drive his vehicle but a two-tier system potentially in relation to bus lane fines but also in relation to parking infringements, also in relation to speeding, low emission zones, so there's quite an extensive list where there could be a two-tier system within Scotland for vehicles committing the same infringements. Is that a good explanation? I agree with you Mr Doris, that's exactly what the potential is with clause 50, hence the reason why we don't accept that it's the right thing to do. I think that from a rules of the road in law and understanding perspective from Scottish motorists and road users and from a safety perspective a two-tier approach I don't think is beneficial. I'm sorry for laboring the point, I just had to be clear on my own head, thank you very much. Right, we are running short of time so Mark I'm going to give you a short question. Just further to that, I was just thinking about speed limits and is there potential for two tiers with automated vehicles and conventional vehicles with speed limits? You've got to develop context now in Wales where there's a national speed limit built up areas of 20 miles an hour, could potentially automated vehicles be run at a different speed, so different set of rules of road under clause 50? If the UK Secretary of State used his powers that are enabled under the current law of clause 50 to do that, that would be a policy decision hypothetical in that situation. In theory that grants the powers. Mark, can I ask George? Just to be clear on that, if the Secretary of State was to change the speed limit on a road, that would apply to all vehicles, not just automated vehicles because it would look like they would be changing everything, the actual speed limit on that road. That's where there's a bit of a concern in terms of if a speed limit has been reduced because we're going through the national strategy for reducing speed limit and built up areas in Scotland at the moment down to 20 miles per hour. If there was a suggestion of a change in that then it could impact legislation that we've already approved in Scotland. Can I just ask a final question then? It's just about the broader policy context here. Can we devil's advocate and say that I see automated vehicles as a bit of a costly distraction and I'm just wondering where it sits within the Scottish Government transport policy just now because we have got major issues with infrastructure investment for bus, for conventional bus. I know that the Government is working hard to try and support the bus sector on. Is this right now a realistic, tangible option for bus operators to be investing in automated bus technology? Isn't the cost of this going to be quite astronomical going forward to redesign streets and systems to accommodate these vehicles? I'm just interested in where we are right now, where we think this might be going in the future. Cabinet Secretary, I'm very happy if you briefly answer that. It's not part of the LCM. I think it's a legitimate question for a two sentence answer, Cabinet Secretary. These are things that we will all have to consider as we go forward as AI and automated vehicles become increasingly part of our every life, but is it, as I said, a journey to go on this for everybody? Is that sufficiently short for you? That's completely short enough for me and I think I'm with Jim. I'm a bit concerned about the whole thing anyway, but just looking around to see if there's any further questions. I've got two questions for you, if I may, Cabinet Secretary. You said that the Scottish Law Commission has been involved in this from start to finish. Do they have a view on section 50, if they've been involved in it? It wouldn't be for the Scottish Law Commission to specifically take that kind of analysis. If I could just ask the convener what aspect of clause 50 in particular are you thinking of there? I'm seeing clause 50 to me seems to be about potentially bears hiding behind trees which haven't actually exposed themselves and become a threat. It's hypothetical. I'm wondering if the Scottish Law Commission, if they've been involved right the way through this process, have a fear or do they share the Scottish Government's fear? Are they more sanguine about it on the basis that this is developing and what happens today could change tomorrow with the speed of AI? I'm not aware of the Scottish Law Commission taking a particular view. I understand that their recommendation was for the bill to have a power that would enable the application of existing legislation, as it applies to the new concept of a user in charge of an automated vehicle, to be clarified, as you say, because once the operation starts to take place, it will become apparent where there are gaps and where certain existing legislation now doesn't make sense with regard to a user in charge. I think that's the intention in terms of clause 50. It's just in terms of how that will apply to devolved offences and devolved legislation in the sphere of civil sanctions. Insofar, as clause 50 would be used to amend that legislation, Scottish Government views that that engages the LCM process. I understand that. Does the any other administration, what do they think about this in Wales? Are they signing up to it? I have a briefing about where Wales is, but I would rather come back to you. I don't want to misrepresent the Welsh position, so we'll come back to you later. Very dangerous thing to do, I would say. I'm trying to find out if other people share the Scottish Government's concerns or whether it's just the Scottish Government. Remember, there are different responsibilities devolved and reserved in Wales in relation to different aspects. I'm not an expert on Welsh traffic legislation, so I would be happy to come back to the committee on that once we've checked. I think that we have got some indication of what their general views are, but I do not want to misrepresent the Welsh. I think that they would say that they've got 20 miles an hour speed limits rolled out across Wales quicker than Scotland, so they must have some powers that could be affected by this. I'm assuming they have, but I can't give you—you asked me about what their view is about clause 50, and I don't want to misrepresent them. Cabinet Secretary, we're going to have to write a report. I think that by next week things are moving that sufficiently quickly. A quick response on that and the correspondence would be helpful. The correspondence will get right away to you. We'll check what we know about the Welsh position. If we don't know about the Welsh position, we'll let you know that as well. Okay. Thanks very much, Cabinet Secretary. That concludes our evidence session. As I said, we are going to consider and agree a short report to the Parliament next week. Thank you for your time this morning. I'm now briefly going to suspend the meeting to allow a changeover of witnesses. Thank you. Welcome back. Our next agenda item is an evidence session on Scotland railways. The committee has held evidence sessions on rail services annually since ScotRail entered public ownership in 2022. Since then, we aim to take stock of the state of the rail service in Scotland over the past year. I'd like to put on record the committee's thanks to three trade unions who have provided us all with written evidence for this session, ASLEF, UNITE and the RMT. For our first panel, we'll hear from two of Scotland's independent watchdogs for rail services. I'm pleased to welcome Liz McLeod, head of regulatory analysis, office for rail and road, and Robert Sampson, senior stakeholder manager for transport focus. Thank you for joining us this morning. We have a series of questions, and I'm going to start off with a very simple question just to get you into the flow of it. How has ScotRail's performance changed since the committee last considered the issues in May 2023? Are passengers getting a noticeably better service? Who would like to go on that to start with? Robert, do you want to go on that? Well, it has improved from a passenger satisfaction point of view over the last 12 months. The last rail customer experience survey was published in January, and out of five of seven key factors, including overall satisfaction, punctuality, frequency of trains on the route, level of crowding, cleanliness, value for money, information during journey. On five of those seven important factors, ScotRail is in the top 20 per cent of train operating companies in Great Britain, and none of them are significantly lower than average from a passenger perspective. Although passengers are biologically travelling on the ScotRail network when compared with other operators, satisfaction levels are quite high in the last 12 months. Has that changed? Yes, it's improved in the last 12 months. It's improved from about, overall satisfaction, 12 months ago. I'll give you those figures. It's about 88 per cent, and it's been improved to an average of 90, 91 per cent. So it's a small improvement in overall satisfaction. And nothing in there about reduction in services is just the satisfaction? The satisfaction survey is with current passengers, so, by fact, they're travelling on the service. They're not travelling because there's a reduction, but we have recently published a piece of work on motivations and barriers to rail use. The two 12 ones that come across as barriers are the cost of actually using the rail service, the perceived reliability of the rail service and the frequency of trains. Also, are trains going to the places where I want to go? It's not a viable alternative compared with cars or bus. We're going to an out-of-town shopping centre or something, and there's no train station close to it. Liz, do you want to add to that? I was just going to pick up on train performance, so, whether passengers are getting to the destination on time. So, ScotRail is measured by the public performance measure, which is the proportion of trains arriving at their final destination early or within five minutes after the scheduled time. Currently, as we close out this financial year, that measure is sitting at 89.81 per cent, which is below the target, the regulatory target, of AM92.5, and that was set by the Scottish Government, the Scottish Minister's high-level output specification for CP6. So, there's definitely room for improvement. There has been some improvement since you last met last year, but still a good way to go to achieve 92.5. Do you want to comment on that slightly? I'm slightly confused by that. If you're running less trains, which is what they're doing, and you're still not meeting the target, the Government said it was the reason for nationalisation. How are things getting better because of nationalisation? I need to clarify where our role in monitoring performance in Scotland is. We are holding Network Rail, the infrastructure manager to account. We don't hold ScotRail trains to account for their delivery. There are elements of delay caused by the infrastructure manager, and as you know, there will be elements of delay caused by the train operator. I can only really speak to the Network Rail element. One of the big drivers in performance in Scotland, without a shadow of a doubt, is weather. Since the end of mid 2019-20, the trajectory for weather related to delay has increased, and it is at the highest cause of delay in Scotland. So, while there are less trains running, there is still the impact from extreme weather that is hampering recovery of performance and achievement of targets. That's not leaves on the line. It's serious weather conditions, storms and such like which, unfortunately, caused a loss of life some years ago. Well, there are a whole heap of questions. I'm trying to remember who the next person on the list is. Mark, I think you're with the next questions. I'd like to ask you about the off-peak all-day pilot that ScotRail has been running and will continue to run until June of this year. What are your thoughts on that? Do you think that that could or should be made permanent? Do you think that that's a good use of public investment? Or are there other ways to support the return of people back to the railways? Two parts. We welcome at passengers like it want. The top priority is value for money. Value for money is not just linked to the fare, but it's also linked to a good service in terms of punctuality, reliability and visible staff presence. We welcome the pilot, but it's got to be evaluated to see if it has overall value for money. It's new, so the analysis on it will be very interesting. I think that the Scottish Government estimated that it will cost £15 million for the initial six-month project pilot, but now it's extended to the end of June. It will be interesting to see where the passengers are coming from. Is it existing passengers making additional journeys? Is it passengers transferring from another mode of public transport bus to rail and what's the consequences for the bus funding? Are the passengers coming from—when are they related? Are they coming from active travel on to train services because it's affordable? Are the meets-the-government objectives coming by car? How many passengers are making those journeys and what's the impact on revenue? Is it revenue neutral? Is it costing more money for the Government? You have to evaluate it and see, but passengers are being spoken to to welcome the off-peak. It's not just because it's cheaper, it's simpler as well. We know that passengers have been caught away in the past in the east of the country. There's a morning peak and there's an evening peak where, if you're in Strathclyde, there's only a morning peak. We know that passengers are travelling back from Edinburgh. I never realised that there was an evening peak. There's not an evening peak in Glasgow. That's why I was confusing for passengers. It makes it simpler and it makes it more affordable. We welcome the pilot, Mike, to understand the analysis of it and the valuation to see if it can continue as part of the fair sphere review. We wouldn't have a view on how the price of tickets are set, but the one thing that I was going to add to this is that we are due to the 21st of March when we were publishing some statistics on passenger numbers. The last publication didn't quite pick up the change, so we can share that with the committee. I think that that could have some interesting detail in it. That would be interesting. Do you see, then, the need for a simplification of the fair structures across the UK? We understand that in the UK we've got some of those complicated fair structures of rail in Europe, sometimes the most expensive fairs, sometimes fairs that are of very good value, but it is, I think, because you've just said, Mr Samson, quite confusing for commuters and travellers to work out where that value is. I recognise that the system is complex, especially when you're travelling across Britain—different operators, et cetera—and simplification is ultimately good outcomes for passengers. Is there any other way that the Government—would there be another option to say, okay, we're going to subsidise some other form of price support or fair camping or whatever for the railways that might have helped? Or was this a pretty obvious thing to do to move forward on removing peak time fares? I think that that would be a decision for government. Ultimately, it's a decision for government within the funding envelope, but the latest piece of work that we've published, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, about motivations and barriers to train is one of the top. Motivation was about cost, lower the cost, you remove a barrier and you increase rail use. In that context, it will be interesting to see the analysis and the figures that ORR put out for what is the comparison. Not just the numbers, but I believe Transport Scotland are doing a deeper analysis of where have they actually came from. As I mentioned earlier, additional journeys, what mode of transport have they actually came from to make that journey. That will be interesting to see as well to inform Government decisions going forward. Monica, you've got a supplementary on this. Good morning to our panel. On the back of Mark Ruskell's question, I was looking at some media comment from Stop Climate, Chaos Scotland, Mike Robinson, who is a chair. Just on this issue of value and affordability, he says on behalf of the coalition that reverting to expensive tickets would be a hugely retrograde decision and would be bad news for workers, passengers and the public. The climate, is that something that, when you're taking the temperature of the travelling public, that desire to do the right thing by the climate as well and the environment, but also have more affordable train travel, is that something that you're picking up on? A lot of things with fairs, A, that they're affordable, B, a point we've been arguing for years, that they're easy to understand, they're simplified and having a window from six in the morning to midnight, there's no peak restrictions where it's the same price throughout the days, easy to understand. So, in those areas, that is definitely welcome. Just because of the way things have panned out, I'm actually going to bring Jackie in because you've got a question that you wanted to ask and I'll go to you and then I'll come to Douglas Slumstone afterwards. OK, thank you and good morning panel. Yes, it was to go back to what Liz was saying earlier about weather disruption and we're seeing an increase in the extreme weather happening. Can I ask how satisfied are you that Network Rail and the train operators have got the required skills needed and also the resources to cope with what is an increase in disruption? It's a major challenge for Network Rail in Scotland. Since Carmont, there has been a huge focus, particularly from Network Rail, on what steps are needed to improve resilience of the network and that's both operational aspects. For example, having dedicated weather meteorologists in the control room to try to predict the weather and understand what the right course of action is for the railway. There's also a dedicated helicopter, which they use to do aerial surveys and the condition of earthworks. For Network Rail's plans for the next control period, we're just about to start that. That starts from April this year, the next five-year funding cycle. There's around £500 million in Network Rail's plans to cope for climate change work. There's also quite a significant document produced by all of Network Rail's regions, but with a sort of scrutiny on the Scotland one, it's a 70-page document which sets out their approach to climate change adaptation and resilience. In some aspects, that's future proof in the railway. For example, when Network Rail goes in to do a drainage renewal, it might fit a bigger catchment to predict that, unfortunately, the rainfall will be greater in the future. There's lots going on. It's not the same in the operator space as well, but I can speak better to the Network Rail side of things. You're confident with what's being put in place. We think that the Network Rail will have climate change adaptation plans for CP7, and we think that they're credible, yes. Thank you, convener. Thank you, convener. I was just going to ask one question about the peak fares. I was listening to a radio phone and, yes, most people said that it was a good thing. But one person did call up and say that it was the worst thing that's happened because now heart strain is jam-packed at peak times because people obviously don't have to change in some of their behaviours. So, Robert, is that something that you're seeing as well? And did the Government maybe need to look at their timetable because of the change? Yes. When the peak fare trial started in October, I had meetings with ScotRail about what you're going to do if trains are crowded in the morning, more passengers are travelling before. We have to monitor it, but this is brand new. We don't know what areas passengers will come from, what will happen in Fife, what will happen in the north, what will happen in the west of the country. We have to look at it and move our train sets around accordingly. Talking to the train performance people at ScotRail, there has been one or two instances of crowding, but not to the extent that they predicted they didn't know when they were going to move carriages around to suit. There's a limited amount of trains, most of them are out in the morning, so there's a limited amount of what they can do, but if this policy pilot has to be adopted long-term, then the timetable has got to reflect that. Where are the passengers coming from? Do we have to improve the frequency of service in that route or do we have to have longer platforms to have longer trains? There are solutions to a welcome problem of more people wanting to use the network, but in saying that, passengers in Scotland, it was quite ironic, I suppose, but we did a piece of research a few years ago. Passengers in Scotland expect a seat on the train, where in the south they're more willing to stand to expect a space to stand. I thought, oh, but you've got to have seats for passengers in Scotland. No, your right is a good problem to have. Other question I was going to ask about, as a committee, we've heard concerns that passengers cannot access the cheapest tickets through apps or vending machines at stations. We've also heard concerns about potential ticket office closures. I'm just trying to think, what is the future of rail in terms of vending and how we procure our tickets? What would you, if you had a crystal ball, think we're going to be doing in the future? Mix and match, for what the passenger actually wants. We went through a consultation two years ago in Scotland about the ticket office, about changes to ticket office openings. The Scottish Government is still going to make a decision on that and how they're going to take it forward. I was involved with a large consultation last year in England about almost every ticket office and we got feedback from about three quarters of a million consultation responses. Ticket vending machines have got to be easy to use, understandable and meet the needs of passengers with disabilities. A lot of passengers do appreciate apps and mobile technology, but again, due to the complex nature of the fare system, a lot of passengers seek the reassurance of talking to someone on the train or someone at the station about the best value ticket they have for their journey. So, until you actually simplify the fare structure totally, you've got to have a staff presence to actually help passengers. Is it a case where you make a cheaper ticket using the app as opposed to a vending machine or is that mainly because you've maybe purchased ahead of time? On a ticket vending machine, some ticket vending machines can buy advance tickets, but most passengers use ticket vending machines to purchase on the day they're actually travelling or to pick up tickets that have actually booked in advance and they can get from a ticket vending machine. Internet apps and at the station, again, it's a mix where you can buy tickets on the day or you can use the app to buy a ticket in advance and maybe get a cheaper ticket, but ticket vending machines would be more expensive because most passengers use the purchase tickets on the day rather than for travelling for five weeks time. I guess that's what we were saying earlier. The fare structure should be simplified to allow people to... If you go on to a station to buy a ticket four or five weeks in advance, most passengers would want to speak to someone in a travel centre rather than go to a ticket vending machine for that day for purchase because they feel reassured and they will get the best information from the ticket clap. Liz, that's probably out with your scope, is it? No, I would agree with the comments. I mean, I use the ScotRail app by the ticket in the morning. I'm usually running late and it works for me, but it's not going to work for everyone. I agree fully with Robert Stendman that there has to be solutions for everyone, that the railway has to be accessible to all and that's what... Or, from our perspective, we would make that sort of focus in accessibility and passenger information, so I would agree. I guess, though, that if you've got an app, you're probably more likely to get a cheaper ticket because you may book in advance as opposed to people who maybe elderly, for example, don't have that confidence and always will go to the ticket office just as the train is going and they would probably potentially pay more. Yeah, but that's potentially right. If you have the internet, you have the app, you can book a ticket six or eight, ten weeks in advance, where if you're at the station, you have to go to that station eight, ten weeks in advance to speak to the ticket clerk to get that. It's easier for a lot of people to use the app on the internet and it's more difficult to get to the station. It all depends where you live as well to make that journey to actually inquire about booking a ticket. Okay, thanks. Okay, thanks Douglas. The next question has come from Bob Dorris. Thank you. Good morning. Can I just go back a little bit to dig beneath the statistics in relation to performance and satisfaction if that's okay? First of all, good news. We're not there yet, but both are improving, so that's positive. But I do note in relation to performance, ScotRail will often contend that two thirds of the reasons for delays are matters outwith their control. So getting to a figure of 91.2 per cent compliance is relatively positive. But of course we don't know what the figure is if you were to strip out failings with network rail or trespassing on line or adverse weather. So do we report on this performance by stripping out the matters that it would not be reasonable for ScotRail or that they're not able to deal with directly to see what their performance is as a Scotland's national operator now in public control? I'm not sure that's reported on anywhere. We do try to report on network rail cost delay and it's called talk on talk, so the delay, the operator causes. I do have the statistics here. Network rail is currently causing about 54 per cent of delay on the Scottish network. We don't strip out the network rail cost delay because it's a whole industry measure, so we know that network rail will cause some delay and that the operator inevitably will cause some delay. But it's about reducing the types of delay that each is causing to get performance in a better place, if that makes sense. It absolutely does make sense, but what I was wondering was, I think, a current situation where ScotRail is doing pretty good, yes it has to do better and things are improving, but where statistics show they need to do better, sometimes that will actually be network rail needing to do better and not scale up ScotRail, sometimes it will be severe weather as opposed to ScotRail. So it would seem to make sense to have a performance statistic based on the matters that ScotRail can directly control. That's not just why the numbers look better for ScotRail, because in a few years time Ms McLeod, because a situation where network rail gets its act together and does a lot better and performance actually improves, but ScotRail's performance could theoretically diminish and that will be masked by an improved performance by network rail or with a particularly mild winter. So it's how we report in a way where we can actually hold Scotland's national train operator to account or to commend it for improved performance. It seems to be the current situation. So do we get any stripped out data reported on consistently? So we get lots of data. There's no shortage of data. There is a measure that we use, again, with the ORR hat on with the network rail. We have to understand what level of delay network rail is causing and there is a metric that allows us to do that. It strips out the delay and it kind of focuses in on Scotland network rail and there will be targets for that level of delay. Network rail's achievement target basically that will enable achievement of the 92.5 per cent PPM target. We obviously don't regulate the operator, but what I would say is one lesson that we're probably learning from the past two years since public ownership is can we should be interacting more with ScotRail holdings? So the companies that's above ScotRail and kind of appropriately challenge each other on whether, from a regulatory point of view, we're taking the right action, whether there's more to do. So that's something we've kicked off with ScotRail holdings and I think that will help us understand each other's position and any challenge and improve where we can. That's very helpful, Mr Samson. Before we move on to my next line of questions, do you have any reflections on how, I know for the passenger, they just want trains to run on time, on schedule and get to where they want to go efficiently and in comfort, and I'd like to learn more, I'd like to get a seat here in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK, but we still have to improve the passenger experience. Of course we do. Do you have any reflections on who's fault is or who's responsibility as far as there's been delays? Any reflections on that? Are you just focused on the overall passenger experience? It's the overall passenger experience, but what is infuriating for passengers when you sit on a train and the train is delayed and there's an announcement? This is not a ScotRail fault, this is due to Network Rail. A passenger, I don't care who's fault it is. Work together, like Laura was trying to do, get Network Rail, ScotRail holdings, ScotRail transports going all together. Deliver the high-level output specification for the railway which I've done, and hopefully there's a clear trajectory in Network Rail's delivery plan when they publish it later this month for CP7 that will show how Scotland's railway and its totality will get to 92.5 per cent PPM, which is the target. If you do that, you'll improve the passenger experience and the passenger satisfaction figures that we produce should go up because the biggest driver of passenger satisfaction is reliability and value for money. I want to ask about accessibility for Scotland's rail network for passengers, so I should point out that a recent visit to Springburn station in my constituency, which fingers crossed it will get access for all funding that we've put in. If you've got a small train as I have, it's more of a salt course than a train station, so I'm conscious accessibility can be for families with small children, for disabled passengers. For lone females, it feels safe to use the network. In the last year, are there any reflections that either Ms McCloud or Mr Sampson wants to make in the accessibility of Scotland's network more generally? I'm not directly to any of those particular aspects, but any observations you want to make before we move on to the next line of questioning? Focussed on the network rail network and the access for all. We are in a position where, because we regulate the whole of Britain's rail, we can compare against how other regions within England and Wales are doing. Network rail in Scotland is doing really well in the delivery of access for all projects. We are aware that projects are ongoing, like in Annie's land, but we've seen really good progress. The other element that I was going to touch on is tactile paving to the raised paving in the platform. I've got some statistics with network rail. There are 148 stations to be upgraded, so far they've done 140. 148 has to be delivered by March 2025, so they're well ahead of progress on that. That's quite a good news story. I won't indulge myself by asking questions about the local rail network. I'll leave it with Mr McCloud and Mr Sampson in the reflections on accessibility for passengers on the rail network. We know, again, from the network rail's strategic business plan, that they're looking at developing an accessibility strategy, a better accessibility strategy. It doesn't just look at the infrastructure, but at least at it from the passenger experience, not just at the station. How do they get to the station? From a start-to-finish journey point of view, rather than just the operational hardware, we look at it from the passengers. Although there are less passengers travelling on the network compared to pre-pandemic, the number of passengers needing passenger assistance is roughly only about two or three per cent lower than pre-pandemic. From an ageing popular, there's more passengers booking passenger assistance. It's looking at how you actually deliver passenger assistance. 100 per cent of the time, how the handover is from the department station to the station you arrive at, how the handover is applied to the person on the train, the ticket he's having, or the train guard. We know that, again, we talked about, from the ticket, the use of passenger assistance apps that operators use now as well, so that the chain from one member of staff to another isn't broken and a passenger is left frustrated on a train, can't get off or at a station, can't get on. We know that, with the new rolling stop procurement, it's coming down the line. One of the key specifications for new trains is to have level boarding at all stations that would help in that matter as well, so that would be welcome, but that's some years off. Before my colleagues come in, I did mention that Springburn Station is not about Springburn Station, but when we were there for a site visit, this is a bit rather than the station itself. Scotland Railway was there rather than Network Rail or ScotRail, so both were represented, as was Sustrans, as was Glasgow City Council, as was a local charity that I'm also a trustee of who are interested in town centre regeneration. There seem to be juries outweller that will bring the positive outcomes that we all want, but there seem to be much closer collegiate partnership working than maybe I've seen before. Is that something that you're aware of, Ms McLeod, or was I just fortunate on that particular day? That's probably a good reflection. Alex Hynes is the MD of the ScotRail Alliance, and we see it in the performance space in particular. There's really good engagement with both the operator and the infrastructure manager to try to challenge each other, what's wrong with performance, what do we need to do to improve. I think that's a fair reflection. Thanks, Bob. The next question is from Monica Lennon. Thank you, convener, and again good morning. I just want to pick up on the issue of accessibility. Before I move on to questions, I want to ask about safety and for women and girls in particular. Bob Doris asked about accessibility, and Robert, you talked about rolling stock procurement and, I suppose, future opportunities. I'm a committee, I'm a patron of Disability Equality Scotland, but I just wanted to ask, even at this quite early stage, is there positive engagement with disability organisations and disabled people about their experience now? Not just reliability, but perceptions around reliability, and I think that the point about passenger assistance is obviously a key one, so just to get a brief answer on that before I move on to other matters. The rolling stock procurement programmes still to be rolled out, but we have spoken to every transport Scotland, Scottish rail holdings and the procurement teams there saying that the procurement has to be informed, not just about the lump of metal that has transport passengers, but actually what's going to be on board in terms of seating, in terms of toilet provision, in terms of information systems, in terms of luggage space, in terms of wheelchair space, and that can only be informed by asking the people affected, such as... We've got a range of insight that we've done with other operators and what passengers wanted to see in terms of the interior features of a new train, and there's also talked to organisations such as Disability Equality Scotland, the Mobility Access Committee for Scotland, they can all inform the plans, and so that you get a new train that worked from day one in terms of what the passengers want, rather than having to retrofit it later on because you haven't thought of that issue to begin with, so let's get it right from the start. I'm speaking to Transport Scotland, Scottish rail holdings, there's a willingness to engage in that to make sure that the specification is correct, because those trains will be on the network for 20, 30 years, so we have to get it right. That's encouraging to hear, because it's important to build that in very early on to inform specification for procurement, so thank you for that. I wanted to come back to the point about safety, so we know from your own research with passengers that you hear a lot that passengers like and value having staff around, and research published a lot about that. Research published last year by Transport Scotland into Women and Girls Safety found similar things. The rail unions continue to express concerns about anti-social behaviour and violence in Scotland's rail network, but in particular how that impacts on women and girls, and I should also remind the committee that I'm a member of Unite the Union and a member of the RMT parliamentary group. So, just with that set of background here, just to get a sense of what you think is happening around anti-social behaviour, the discussion around the safety of women and girls, because we know that Transport Scotland's report recommended increasing station staff. Is that something that you would agree with and what practical steps can be taken to improve safety and to tackle unacceptable behaviour? There's a lot of issues involved in that. From all our research over the years into personal security or safety, whether it's at a station or on board a train, passengers welcome a visible staff presence, whether it's someone walking through the train or whether it's someone at the station. The option of travel safety teams at the ScotRail have introduced us to be welcome. It's also about good lighting at the stations, it's about adequate car parking, it's about safe walking routes, there are CCTV and health points at every station. One of the things that come through from our research with passengers, but I've been monitored in real time, more in Scotland than they actually are, but it's getting that message across to the passengers that can give reassurance. Although there's a CCTV camera, they don't actually know that someone's looking at it in real time. What we checked tomorrow morning for evidence, if something goes wrong rather than being proactive in helping me, issues like that. It's also about stations and trains being clean and well maintained. A lot of community groups in Scotland help at stations and it gives that sense of this is well looked after. If it's just small things like planters or if a station needs a coat of paint that it's done rather than if a station looks unlawful or uncareful, that gives a perception that it's not a safe environment. So there's a whole range of issues associated with that. No, Scotland or Network Rail aren't going to get any plods for keeping the station clean because that's what passengers expect. It's the basics and the same as the train, but it helps to foster a safe travel environment. As does at major events if it's a visible staff and British transport police presence after sporting events or after cultural events. Passengers are also reassured that stations with other passengers are being there as well. So there's a whole range of issues there. There's not one man, not one silver bullet that actually makes it a safe journey. That's helpful. You're giving lots of examples there and I think that point about communicating to the public that CCTV is monitored in real time. I think that's an important message. In terms of the experience of women and girls who have experienced sexual assault or sexual harassment, have you got any up to date views on that? Is that a situation that's getting worse, better, staying the same? And this point about staff and invisible staff, do you recognise that that has to be part of the solution? Yeah, visible staffing has to be part of the solution. That's what research is not only in Scotland but across the whole of Great Britain shows that passengers in terms of personal safety, that's an issue. It has to be addressed also on passenger priorities. The top ten priorities, I think number six and number eight is personal security for all passengers on train and at stations. You did a piece of work last year, which I'll write to the committee about. Birmingham was about perceptions of safety for women and girls travelling in Birmingham but there's a lot of the same issues that arise there from the issues of Transport Scotland report that was published last year about women and girls travelling safely. OK. I know that I think that Mark Ruskell wants to come in on this theme as well but just to pick up on another point about staffing, so as I understand it, around two thirds of ScotRail stations are unstaffed, which appears to be higher than the UK average of around 45 per cent and over half of the Scottish Network is operated via driver only operation. Although there's always a second person roasted on services, there's no guarantee that there's a second person on board all services. There's currently proposals by ScotRail to extend driver only operation to the barhead and East Kilbride lines and I'm not sure about other areas. Again, there appears to be a bit of a difference between the rest of UK and Scotland on that. Is that something that you can speak to? Do you have a view on that? The problem was a larger proportion of unstaffed stations in Scotland than a lot of the rest of the UK. The network depends on the location Northern Rail because of their reality and a lot of their locations have a lot of unstaffed stations as well and our recent report said that even if a station is unstaffed, the CCTV and the help points have to be there. It's got to have good lighting. It has to be well maintained including that sense of security for passengers. As for ScotRail, we would expect ScotRail to have a second member of staff in their real contract but we would expect a second member of staff on all trains because again that gives that not just a feeling of security but for general matters such as information, selling tickets from unstaffed stations. A lot of people buy their ticket on board. We would want a second member of staff on every train. Is there no guarantee at the moment that that happens? Do you think that there should be a guarantee that a second person is on the train? A second person should be rostled and we would expect that to happen on all occasions because that helps us not just for security or a feeling of safety for passengers but also for the other aspects about information, selling tickets and helping with accessibility as well. Is that an area for improvement then? It's an area for improvement, yes. Mark, you want to come in on the back of that. I think that that broadly covers it. I was just going to ask you, though, if you had any feedback from passengers using driver-only operated routes, have there been particular concerns in terms of antisocial behaviour or feeling of insecurity if there isn't that additional staff on the train to support people? That hasn't come through. It's having that second member of staff on board with the uniform on going through reassuring passengers. People in the noble know that it's at a galt who's responsible for opening the doors. Most passengers are a second member of staff helping me to sell tickets, to give me information, to help passengers with accessibility needs or whatever their job title is. Passengers look at it from that second member of staff point of view rather than the duties of that person. I'm just smiling slightly to myself when you talk about a second member of staff on some of the railway stations on the north line. You still have to hail the train if you want it to stop at your station. Staff numbers are quite light. Douglas, you want to ask a question? I'm just continuing the theme on safety and concerns raised by the church unions. That was around the HST rolling stock of the class 43s. Both your organisations have any concerns on the continued use of the HST trains? If we had concerns about the safe use, we thought that there was an imminent threat of danger. We would have served a prohibition notice to stop the trains running and we haven't done that. I hope that answers your question from a health and safety perspective. We are also monitoring our recommendations made as part of the recommendations from Carmen. We are looking at the HSTs to see if there is a better way. It looks at the driver's cab, it's looking at tables and there are some quite specific aspects. We observe those groups and we are happy with the progress that has been made. Robert, did you have anything to add to that point? The report said that the outcome could have been better if it was a more modern train as opposed to the HSTs. Was that not correct? I think that Rabe recognised that, unfortunately, if there was another train used, the outcome would have been the same. Going back to the current incident, it was the drainage that was at fault. That caused the accident. I think that Rabe said that another train would have the same outcome, unfortunately. Mark, I think that you've got a question that you want to ask now. It's about the decarbonisation programme and the objective of decarbonising Scotland's railways by 2035. Do you see that as being on track given current levels of investment? There are enabling works being done in feeder stations to ensure that the network is capable of supporting future electrification. Transport Scotland is responsible for specifying and funding the enhanced projects that will be needed to deliver electrification in the future. I think that we would need them to answer whether it is on track. The thing that I was going to add to the question is that there is lots going on elsewhere on network rail's plans for control periods. There are carbon emission reduction targets. Throughout this control period, we have seen good work between ScotRail and Network Rail on simple things such as recycling, reducing pollution at stations, etc. There is also some biodiversity work and some targets associated with carbon reduction in biodiversity in the next control period. It is an area of focus from a regulatory perspective. The enhancements that will be needed to future electrify the network. The other thing that I was going to add is that there is a good focus across Britain now on freight growth. Modal shift is really important. The more products you can get on freight trains, the better. In the last control period, the last five years, we only had a target in Scotland. The Westminster specification for CP7 included a freight growth target for all of the network rail regions. That really matters because, for example, if the eastern region of Network Rail is trying to push and grow freight, that will benefit Scotland as well. Are the nature of freight opportunities regional, or are they more about UK freight operations? It could be a bit both. What we said in our determination was that it was really important that each of the regions set out the actions that they can take to deliver growth. We do recognise that the economic conditions are tricky at the moment, but there are definitely steps that Network Rail can do to incentivise new entrants into the market, etc. There are regional plans, but there will be national things that can be done on the timetable, for example. I am going to come to you and then I am going to go to the deputy convener, Ben, to wrap it up at the end, Monica. Just a final question for Liz McLeod on control periods. We have heard from rail unions that they are concerned at a reduction in the level of investment in renewals by Network Rail in CP7 in favour of investment in maintenance and may have a negative impact on safety. Is that a view shared by the Office of Rail and Roads? Can you say what has been done to minimise any safety implications arising from this decision? My answer to this question is quite similar to the HST1. We go through a rigorous process, almost a year-long process, longer. Network Rail submits detailed plans to us. It is initial plans, which we reviewed last summer. We did not think that they were capable of maintaining safety. We challenged Network Rail to spend an extra £50 million on structures, specifically on a specific asset. Network Rail accepted that challenge. In finalising its plan, we deemed it to be a safe plan. If there is not enough funding to maintain a safe and reliable plan, which is what the Scottish ministers want in their high-level expert specification, the law allows the process to go back to ministers to say that we would send a notification to ministers to say that there is not enough money to deliver what they want. Can you reassess and take something away to afford the plan? We did not do that. We accepted Network Rail's plans. However, you are right that there are some challenges ahead. We have talked about climate change and the other challenges with rising inflation, which is what is eating away at the funding at the moment. You rightly said that there will be more maintenance and less renewals in some areas in the next control period. We are all live to the risks. Network Rail has established a safety risk assessment model, which we wanted to use throughout control period 7. That will provide the evidence. Inevitably, Network Rail's plans will change. We do not expect a perfect plan to be delivered five years in advance. When things need to change, Network Rail needs to demonstrate to us that it has been through the decision to reduce the track work that has been through that model. We see evidence of the things that we have taken into account, the risk mitigations, etc. We are all live to that. The measures have been put in place for the next control period, and we will monitor that closely. Where we identify issues or concerns, either from a health and safety perspective or an economic regulatory perspective, we will take action on that. Two questions that my constituents have raised with me, but they are relevant for the whole country. The first is regarding the Edinburgh to Inverness line. It has been raised with me on several occasions about overcrowding on that line. It is such an important artery for people living in the east coast and in terms of tourist visitors. I wondered whether that was an issue that you had any comment or direct feedback on. Secondly, with regard to reliability, the Edinburgh Glasgow connection between Waverley and Queen Street at periods during the Edinburgh festivals has been extended later into the night, which is a good thing. I think that there is a strong argument and so do many of my constituents for this to happen on a more regular basis so that people can go to concerts, football games and be able to come home later. Is this something that has been raised with you and part of your considerations in terms of your feedback? On your second point, there was a consultation exercise on the ScotRail franchise back in 2012 when the first group were ending the franchise and went out and asked passengers in terms of timetable provision, what would you like to see? I came back and it comes through from most franchise consultation exercises that we hold with passengers. I would like to see more early morning services then and more services late at night as well to allow for 24-hour economy and for cultural events. There is a definite feedback from passengers for earlier and later services, but that would probably eat into the time to maintain and renew the network and control period with half costs. From a passenger perspective, we would like to see later night services. ScotRail did that to a certain extent on a Friday night when it was a bellio. It took over the franchise and that has been sustained now. It is in public ownership. The feedback from passengers on longer distance services in Scotland is that they would like to see faster journey times and more carriages. It goes back to the generic point in Scotland that passengers want a seat to travel in comfort on all routes, particularly on longer journeys when there is a longer journey time. It is frustrating and inconvenient and will just take complaints and compensation when passengers are going to get a seat on a 2-3-hour journey. Liz, do you want to add anything? I am not aware of any health and safety issues from the overcrowding perspective. I might take it away if that is okay just to check with colleagues in the consumer team to see if there are any trends and complaints. Is that particularly that line to Inverness? It is of course great interest to me because the journey time to Inverness has gone up by 20 minutes, not come down by 20 minutes in the last 10 years and there is less services on it. I presume that, Liz McLeod, what was stated by Robert Samson about a later service between Waverley and Queen Street would not be prohibitive in undertaking maintenance and all those issues. I presume that it is not given that London Underground runs all night on a Friday at Saturday. If they can do it, we can do it, right? It would restrict the time or the opportunities available for Network Rail to do its work, but it would take that into account. Over the years we have seen so historically Network Rail do a lot of work over the new year period, but they changed that recently to reflect that people might want to go from Glasgow to Edinburgh to shop for the new year sales. Do you know that the plans can be changed to adapt if that is what the best thing for the passenger is? Great. That was really interesting. Thank you. That brings us to the end of this session. Thank you very much for coming and giving evidence to the committee this morning. Liz, you have undertaken to get back on a couple of points that we look forward to receiving. I am going to briefly suspend the meeting until 10.50 to allow a changeover of witnesses. Thank you very much. Thank you and welcome back. We will now continue our consideration of Scotland's railways by hearing from a second panel representing rail operators. I am pleased to welcome Catherine Darbandy, the Managing Director of Caledonian Sleepers Ltd. Alex Horne is the Managing Director of Scotland's Railway. Jan McGuire, the Chief Operating Officer of Scotland Rail, trains Ltd. and Leon Sumpter, Root Director of Network Rail Scotland. Thank you for joining us today. I am just going to put it on record. I think that I was one of the first conveners that Alex Hines had the misfortune of coming across when he took over his position in 2017. He is now accepted in a secondment to the Director General for Rail Services for Transport UK, which is a recognition, in my mind, of the hard work that he has done. I congratulate you on that appointment. It is fitting, therefore, that I get the last chance to have a go at you before you go. I do not be very gentle, and Alex, I am not going to remind you about the bridge at Darwin, except to put it on the record that you promised that it was going to be replaced, and it still hasn't. So my question is, just probably to Jan McGuire, just about budgets. How much does it cost to run Scotland rail a year? How do you go about sorting out the budget? Just say, well, this is what we need, and that's what the Government gives you. Or how does that work? Just explain that to me, if you wouldn't mind, please. Good morning, convener, and thank you for the question. If only we had the opportunity to come along and say that's what we would like and be handed to us. A lot of scrutiny goes into our budget preparations, and we work collaboratively across Scotland railway, looking across the network rail and the planning that goes into their next control period, if we think about the budget year ahead. We spend a lot of time across the business working from the bottom up in our budget preparations, looking at what we achieved last year, looking at very stretching targets, and in the first instance our draft budget goes to the ScotRail trains board. It normally goes through a couple of challenging iterations in front of that board, and it will then go in front of the Scottish rail holdings board before being presented to Transport Scotland. So there is a high degree of scrutiny and challenge both internally at ScotRail and through the agencies that govern us. I think that there was a line in the Transport Scotland budget last year of about £40 million to cover the wage increases. Is that going to happen every year, or is that going to be part of the budget? How is that going to work out? I suppose that, like all organisations across the UK, our employees have not been immune to the cost of living increases that everyone has been impacted by. What I would say is that over the past couple of years we have worked very hard, as have our trade unions, to improve industrial relations at ScotRail. We also need to be governed by the Scottish public sector pay policy, which we keenly await the publication of, so that that can help to guide us around our pay negotiations for the coming year. I understand all of that, and I accept all of that, but I want to understand that every time there is a wage increase, I think that it is roughly £14 million for the 5 per cent increase. Is that always going to appear in a separate line in Transport Scotland's budget to cover wage increases, or will that be within your budget as a whole? Within our draft budget, we are making a provision for pay increases, pending whatever the Scottish Government public sector pay policy we may say. We may need to review that line, but there is a line within the ScotRail trains budget for pay reviews for the coming year. I mean, I'm looking at a business. Most businesses would say, well, here's my budget. If I don't have enough money, I can't necessarily just go to somebody else and ask for more money. You have to make your budget work, so there would have to be cuts in other areas to fund that thing, but it appears that you've just gone to Transport Scotland and got that money. Have I got that completely wrong? To be fair to our employees and the organisation, there are lots of efficiencies that we look for within our pay increases. If I take us back to the previous year, part of the deal that we negotiated was to have our employees accept technology. The organisation had been trying to achieve that for over 10 years. I'm absolutely not disagreeing with the negotiating process. I'm just saying that you didn't have enough money, so you had to get more money from Transport Scotland to cover the pay increase. Is that what will happen every year, or will you expect to be expected from the budget for the money that you're getting to be able to fund your own pay increases for your staff? I think that Alex is going to come in, but the point that I was going to make was through technology what we have done is we have increased our revenue collection by having our ticket examiners and conductors scan more tickets. Through that, we've also decreased our refund numbers on our e-tickets as an example, which actually brings money back to our revenue line through efficiency. I don't think that 14 million, but there we go. In addition to everything that Joe has already said, we manage the costs and the revenues as a commercial enterprise in the public sector. The first year of public ownership, the subsidy that we required was 708 million, which was down on the previous year at 730 million. If ever we get any cost trends that are adverse to budget, our first instinct is to see whether we can fill that gap ourselves, efficiencies in other areas, but also revenue growth. One of the fantastic things about ScotRail right now is that it's the fastest growing train operating company in Britain. We're getting huge rates of revenue growth, which is helping us to reduce the cost at the taxpayer and cover some of those headwinds that we're seeing that have been related to inflation, which of course is not in anyone's control. I'll come back with some other questions probably towards the end. Mark, I think that you've got some questions you'd like to ask. I wanted to ask you about the kind of new normal, if you like, post Covid, travel patterns. Are we seeing a settling down of that picture? Now is the peak still a leisure driven peak in terms of travel? What has been the impact to your services over the last year? Is that more of a fixed landscape now? How are you operating within that? I'll ask ScotRail, Kelly Sleeper as well. I'll go first for ScotRail and maybe bring Joe in and then we'll hand to Catherine. I don't think that we have reached what might be described as a new normal, whatever normal it is these days, because we're seeing such rapid rates of passenger growth. So we're still growing at 10, 20, 30 per cent per annum in passenger journeys. We are the fastest growing train operating company in Britain, which is great news. Because we want to see our railway busier and for a course for every pound we collect through the fare box is a pound that we don't have to get from the taxpayer through subsidy. And we are about now 85 per cent of our pre Covid passenger numbers. So we're still 15 per cent down on where we were before the pandemic. But that average figure hides huge changes in the market. So Saturdays are now the busiest day, which would have been unthinkable five years ago. And that's influencing the way that we run the business, for example, when we decide to close the railway to do engineering work. Business has recovered relatively well, but of course we know commuting has relatively collapsed from where it was just five years ago. And therefore the mix of our passengers has changed significantly, and that means we've had to change the way we operate our railway and our timetable reflects that. And my favourite example, of course, is we run more frequently between Edinburgh and Glasgow on a Saturday than we do Monday to Friday, because Saturdays are busier than Monday to Friday. And as I say, the passenger journeys are growing back strongly, which is great news. And in June, when we changed the timetable, we add in some more services to reflect the market, which is now there for rail. So we're very proud that between us we're overseeing this growth. Joe, anything you want to add from the ScotRail perspective? Just to confirm that, from June, our services will be at around 93 per cent of the pre-pandemic timetable, and we're making improvements. We'll be excited to see Levenmouth branch opening, making improvements across Edinburgh, Perth and Dundee and also Inverclyde, and we're adding additional services in other areas. From a Caledonia sleeper perspective, it's a different business to ScotRail, as I'm sure everybody appreciates. So we recovered from the pandemic quicker, faster than most other commuter talks in the UK, and certainly would be true of ScotRail. That's because our guest base is very different, so it's probably worth just talking about a few nuances about the business. So 80 per cent of our guests are one-time travellers and our tourists, all visiting friends and family in Scotland. So we just have 20 per cent of our guest base is business travel, and I'll come back to that because that has changed ever so slightly. But I guess the fortunate position that Caledonia sleeper were in post-pandemic was we benefited in the first year from the staycation boom. So a lot of people were staying within the UK travelling. And then the second year, whilst the staycation boom tells off a little bit, the international tourists came back. So about 20 per cent of our tourist business is international tourism. So we recovered very, very quickly and quicker than most, and we were in a fortunate position in that regard. And we are very full. We are better than pre-pandemic levels now. Our forward revenue is 36 per cent up. What I mean by that is money in the bank, if you like, because we sell our tickets a year in advance, which again is another nuance with the sleeper. Obviously on the commuter talks it's 12 weeks before. So our forward revenue is 36 per cent up. And actually on the third of March, just gone, we had our biggest sales day ever. So the demand is there and we are full to the brim pretty much every day and every night. A little bit of trend information for you. Our highlander service, which is, as it says on the tin, to the highlands, recovered slightly better than our lowlander service. So our lowlander service is Glasgow and Edinburgh. A little bit more skewed to business travel, but actually both have recovered fully now. And our business travel market, the big difference really is people would have travelled Monday, come back Friday, and we're seeing a slightly shorter week. But actually that's advantageous to us because we can sell the weekends to our tourism market. So the change in buying behaviour and travelling behaviour hasn't impacted us dramatically. But we're in a very, very good position and we were very fortunate post-pandemic. Okay, thanks for sharing that picture. So Alex, can I come back to you then about off peak all day? Obviously we're waiting for an evaluation of that. We have a trial of that, obviously running at the moment, till June. But what are the figures showing at this point? Is it bringing in significant numbers of new passengers? Is it just making savings for existing passengers? What is that doing in terms of both patronage and fare box income? So it won't surprise you to hear that, like most things on the railway, it's quite complicated to work out what the isolated impact of off peak all day has been for two reasons. One is we're growing so fast anyway at 10, 20, 30 per cent per annum. So what is the isolated impact of off peak all day? But also, since we launched off peak all day, we've had 10 named storms. You've had more named storms than ever before. So we've got our clever people working through exactly what is the impact on revenue and patronage from a ScotRail perspective. We know it's made the railway busier, we know it's cost us money in fare box, but we're trying to work out exactly by how much. Our colleagues at Transport Scotland are doing the evaluation from a multimodal perspective. So if the railway has got busier by X per cent, then where have they come from? Are these new trips? Or were there existing trips on car, existing trips on bus, for example? So this work is being done as we speak, and we'll provide that information to Scottish rail holdings and transports Scotland so that Scottish ministers, who of course control affairs always have, can make a decision on what happens next. What would be your measure of success for off peak all day? To put it bluntly, is there a point where more people are coming back to using the railways, there's more fare box income and therefore the Scottish Government doesn't need to put any subsidy into this or minimal subsidy to support it? Is that a measure of success or is it something? Obviously we're in the business of moving customers around the country and we want to see a growing railway, but of course the off peak all day trial is a Scottish Government funded initiative about driving other policy objectives, whether that's helping with the cost of living crisis or indeed decarbonisation of modal shift. So it's not really for us to set the success measures because this is a Scottish Government intervention. They've decided with ScotRail under public ownership to give us some extra money to drive other policy objectives. I think whether the policy is a success or not really is a matter for Scottish Government. Do you think it should continue to become permanent? I've worked in railways for over 25 years and Scottish ministers control fares because it's a genuine trade-off who pays for the railway. Is it passengers or is it taxpayers? That's a decision for politicians rather than railway managers. Bob, you want to come in very briefly. It's very brief. Good morning everyone. I wonder if Mr Hines might want to comment whether there's other initiatives that ScotRail have taken part in relation to the market for passengers. I should declare I'm a newly club 50 member and the £17 return journeys. I added a kid for a pound. Journeys I wouldn't have taken otherwise, so getting on to the railway has that been, not that specifically, but are there other initiatives that are successful in growing the market? Absolutely, and I'll bring Jo in shortly. Revenue generation is a key activity for us now. We're industrial action free here in Scotland. We're delivering a good service generally to our customers and we're investing lots in revenue protection and in marketing. So it's difficult to pick up a newspaper or watch the TV or radio right now in Scotland without seeing a ScotRail advert in it. We're about to start a new financial year and our marketing budget goes up even further to around about £5 million per annum. We've got loads of great value offers, so we've got the club 50, we've got a kid for a quid and revenue generation and giving passengers good value for money for their fare is a key part of our activity. Anything you want to add, Jo? No, I think just the stable operating environment that we are building and the fact that customers, or 9 out of 10 customers, are telling us that they're satisfied with our services for giving us the platform to invest more in our marketing campaigns. Hopefully you've seen some of our Christmas campaigns on TV. We did a leaflet drop around households. Kids for a quid, four children travelling return for a pound each with an adult is a great campaign that we will push out especially over the summer holidays. So there are lots of initiatives that we are looking at in addition to off-peak all day. Rather than a follow-up question, perhaps I wouldn't indulge myself, Ms McGuire, it would be quite helpful in correspondence to see how Scotland will report those initiatives, how successful they have been, or otherwise it sounds very positive, but it would be good to have some of that information from the committee to look at. That was the next question. Thank you, Gavira. I was just going to ask about the Caledonia sleeper. What impact has it been bringing that service into public ownership? It's fairly early doors for us. We're only six months in. We transitioned over at the end of June. Impact in the business is very little and that's because everybody took it across. Everybody who works in the Caledonia sleeper, including myself, we feel very passionate about what we do and everybody wants it to remain in the business, so everybody took it across. On a daily basis, we're doing exactly the same and we've got the same focus as we've got the same team. There are differences in governance, in meetings, but I think it's important to say that Transport Scotland and Scottish ministers were always our customer anyway, even in private ownership. Therefore, we already had that transparent and open dialogue and meetings conversations, so all of that continues really positively, just a few different ways of working. We are looking forward to being able to contribute to policy. We feel that we've got a lot to bring to the table and we've just submitted our first business plan formally, which outlines our focus for the next year. We're looking forward to being able to plan for the longer term. We believe that it will be a more stable environment and therefore it will be easier to think about the longer term and doing the right things for the longer term, but it is really early doors and, in the business, very little change. You mentioned that business plan. How can we expect to see the service develop in the future? There are many aspects to the business plan. Even though we're full, it's important to note that 80 per cent of our guests are one-time only travellers. We've got a lot of focus on filling the trains every year because we have to find those guests again each year, so making sure that that continues, the revenue growth continues positively, ensuring that our right-time performance continues. We are doing extremely well. We've just hit a record high of on-time performance of 87.22. Again, we don't take for granted that that will just repeat itself next year. That's an important measure and also guest satisfaction. Continuous improvement of the guest satisfaction. Again, we're doing very well. We're set on a rolling average of 86 per cent against a target of 85. It's a very difficult measure. We're proud that we're achieving it, but we don't take for granted that that will just continue. Continued focus on revenue, filling the trains, operational performance and guest experience. In terms of wider developments, there are some initiatives looking into the longer term. For example, we have some diesel lurkers that run our highlander service, and we obviously want to support the net zero policy and we'll be looking to replace them. That's not something we'll deliver in the next year, but we'll start thinking about it in the next year. There's just some examples. You mentioned that the trains are full already. Is there any ways to increase the capacity? In terms of fares, has that changed since it moved to public ownership? No, and I'll talk about fares first. The new trains came into service 2015, as I'm sure most people are aware. The proposition and the fares were set at that point when the new rolling stock came into service. More recently, we haven't increased fares since 2020. We wanted to make sure that we did recover from the pandemic and we've just recently increased fares for the first time. Because the trains are full, we need to keep an eye on that and make sure that what we do with fares doesn't affect demand. That's a real balance, but we've got a very talented team in the business that look at that. The fares are pretty stable and they are approved. As Alex said earlier, they are approved by Scottish ministers and government. We recommend that, but that is ultimately a decision for Scottish ministers. In terms of capacity or question on capacity, as I said, 80 per cent of the guests are new every year, so it's not a given that we'll fill the train every year, but we've done well for the past three years. There's very little capacity, if I'm honest with you. There is some off-peak, shoulder season, winter, midweek. We've got people looking at opportunities to fill every single cabin and every single seat, but there's very little capacity available. In terms of subsidies, has that changed from probably pre-pandemic levels until now? Where's that gone? It's remained fairly stable. As Jo spoke about her budget, we're expecting that to remain stable next year. We've gone through exactly the same budget process as Jo outlined before. It's around the £40 million mark and we're hopeful to deliver against that the same number next year. I'm trying to take it all in. In terms of subsidies haven't reduced, capacity hasn't increased, fares haven't reduced. I'm still trying to work out what was the point of taking it into public ownership? That was a decision for Scottish ministers and Scottish Government. That's really all I can say on that. Thanks, Camino. Just to clarify, your fares do ratchet up fairly quickly, don't they, close to the day of travel? What would be your basic birth at roughly £120, £140, can suddenly find itself at £220 when there's a few of them available? There are peak fares operating on Caledonian sleepers. The way that we price, we sell our tickets a year in advance, as I mentioned earlier. We've got a number of different products on offer. We have seats, we have three grids of rooms and we also have our accessible rooms. All of those product types are priced differently. We also offer a really excellent family price. I'm trying to get down to the fact that as you get closer to the day of travel, your prices can double for an overnight accommodation. The fair's work is that we dynamically price them, so we do change the fair's based on demand. A lot of our trends book up a long time in advance, but if there's very few rooms left, very close to departure, then the price will be higher. Double sometimes? Sometimes possibly, but not as a standard. The system works on an algorithm on learning and history, and we've got a really talented team. We also put a cap in, so we won't let it go above a certain amount. I've learned that mistake. Ma, if you'd come in very briefly with one of the questions to one of the questions. I mean, the choice is... Caledon Sleeper is an excellent service, but the choices are quite stark. You've got seated accommodation, or you've got a very high-end hotel-grade accommodation with en suite. Most European Sleeper services are running kind of Couchette type services, which get more people on the trains and are perhaps more affordable for more regular travellers. What can you do within that? Can you add more carriages? Can you procure more carriages? It feels quite stark choice at the moment. It's excluding a lot of people. Within the realms of what we have today, there's very little that we can do without huge cost, because you'd be talking about a complete reconfiguration of the train. What we have today was specified in 2015 and obviously approved by ministers and government. I would say very little, because it's maybe not quite as stark as you say, because we do have some products. We have a good family product. We also have the opportunity for regular travellers to buy 10 tickets in advance, which are dramatically reduced. So we are conscious of that and we do have some good products on offer. If the Scottish Government decided that they would like to allow us to procure more trains, I think we would take the brief from the Scottish Government, of course, but we would consider and take into account lessons learned on the design of that. I think it's been hugely successful based on what was procured and what was set out and the mandate that was given to the business. I guess it's a decision for the Scottish Government if they wanted to bring a sleeper service in that was more aligned to what we're seeing in Europe. We were very interested in what's happening in Europe, but I would say that what we're designed to do today is different. Okay. Monika, I think that you've got some questions. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. First of all, congratulations to Alex Hines on your new appointment as director general of rail services at the department for transport. Moving from Scotland railways to Britain's railways in just four weeks' time. I wonder if you can advise a committee who will take over from you on 15 April. Obviously, this news was only announced yesterday. Arrangements are in place and discussions are happening between Network Rail and Scottish Rail Holdings, and any arrangements which succeed me will be communicated before I leave. Are you able to say that your role is jointly MD for Network Rail Scotland and ScotRail? Will that arrangement continue? The alliance between Network Rail and ScotRail will continue. It's widely perceived to have been a success to operate track and train together. There's great interest in everything that we've achieved in the last time period in Scotland. As we know, the UK Government wants to bring track and train back together on the railway south of the border. I'd like to pay tribute to everyone who works for ScotRail and Network Rail for all their hard work, for everything that they've delivered during my time here. Hopefully, I'll be able to export some of that good practice to other places. That's just for two years, so you might be back in front of us. I wanted to speak about the impacts of weather events. You mentioned earlier on that even during the pilot scheme for the abolition of the peak fears, there's been 10 named storms. I won't ask you to name them all, but extreme weather events appear to be having an increasing impact on Scottish rail services. Can you update the committee on how the issue is being addressed both in the short term and in the coming years? Maybe this is something that Liam Sumpter could add to. Given the challenges around control period 7 and cuts to investment, what impact that might have on any of the actions that we're about to hear from Alex Hynes? Thank you. I will start and then hand over to Liam. In this five-year control period, Network Rail has had £4.2 billion to manage the infrastructure. In the next five-year period, the number is about the same, £4.2 billion. A consistently strong commitment from the Scottish Government to invest in infrastructure. What we're seeing is the impact of climate change happening quite rapidly. Mean rainfall in Scotland in the last 10 years has increased by 8 per cent, which is quite a lot because it was quite wet to begin with in some parts of the country. Of course, our railway was primarily built by the Victorians when the weather was very different. Therefore, whilst we've been putting our business plan together for the next five years on the infrastructure side, we've specifically targeted additional investment in those railway infrastructure assets, which are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, structures, embankments, drainage, etc. £400 million in the next five years will be spent to make the railway more resilient. Obviously, we had the tragic accident at Carmon on 12 August 2020 and, quite rightly, we've been applying more precautionary speed restrictions to keep our passengers and staff safe when we get adverse and extreme weather. We've done a whole host of really good work there to make sure we can run a safe and resilient railway. For example, we've invested more in infrastructure and particularly knowledge of our drainage assets. We've modified the trains. As I say, we now apply precautionary speed restrictions more often, but also our control centre on the outskirts of Glasgow is the first railway control centre in Britain to have full-time 24-7 365 days a year metrologists. That's helping us to learn the impact of weather on our network. As we've got better at running what I would regard the basics of railway operation both in ScotRail and in Network Rail, which is underpinning our improved punctuality over the last 12 months, the growing impact of weather is a headwind that is pushing us in the other direction. There's no question that we need to spend more time, effort and investment on this issue. It's good to see that in the Network Rail Scotland business plan which starts on 1 April we've got an increase in investment in those type of assets which should hopefully mean that we don't have to apply those precautionary speed restrictions as much. For example, we've just completed a multi-million pound project on the Edinburgh Glasgow line which means under extreme rainfall events we don't have to apply a speed restriction at all because we've made the asset so resilient. Sometimes our response is to go in and invest in the infrastructure and make it more resilient. Sometimes we use softer measures like precautionary speed restrictions and we're rolling out all sorts of clever technology across the network. For example, earthworks failure detection systems which we are probes which sit in the side of embankments and they detect movement which can be a precursor to a landslip. There's lots of really good work happening in this space and Joly and I sit down with all four trade unions every quarter and we take them through where we are with each of those recommendations. We've made some good progress in this area but I agree with you that the impact of weather is significant is disruptive for our passengers and indeed our staff and we need to do more to tackle that growing problem. Liam, anything you'd like to add? I'm keen to hear to Liam and obviously you mentioned the resilience on some routes that will be more challenging than others because of issues around drainage and other factors so I don't know whether Liam could expand on that briefly. Good morning committee. Alex's answer was quite extensive and covered a lot of what I would have mentioned but I'll pick up on a couple of points. The technology point is really important because of the size of Scotland's railway using people to go and look at what's happening all the time is not safe and it's very labour intensive so we're using more and more technology. The tilt meters that measure whether the embankments are slipping if you're travelling about on Scotland's railway and you see these little yellow poles that are about a metre high sticking out of the bank that's what they are and they're installed over 100 sites now so you'll be able to see that yourselves. We've also added technology at bridges to measure scours so scours when water erodes old structures around the bottom of bridges so we've done that at 25 of our key scour locations and we're using the helicopter more and more as well so we've got a dedicated narrow rail helicopter that can go up with cameras on the front that actually the camera on the front of the helicopter costs more than the helicopter such as the technology in that camera that really identifies you know you can see very very small things that might interfere with the railway so that can spot land slips early because sometimes they come from quite far away from the actual railway itself so people travelling on the railway wouldn't see them it also detects different levels of heat so we can see whether there's something happening around electrification assets and things like that but to your point some lines of route are harder to tackle than others so the west highland line in particular is very very challenging to tackle because it's a railway built very close to mountains in some cases the topography is very challenging and of course it's the wettest part of the UK so some parts of the west highland line saw more rain in a day in October than Glasgow would see in an average October, the whole of October it's very very wet so we have to target our mitigations quite carefully to try and make sure that we can do as much as we possibly can to benefit as many passengers as possible but at an affordable rate as well because some of our measures are expensive infrastructure measures can be very very expensive so we need to target them accordingly where we can't do the immediate infrastructure fix that's when we can apply operational restrictions such as speed restrictions and we're trying to target them to locations that are the most sensitive and there's the most risk so that we don't disrupt passengers unnecessarily there's a lot to comment on we don't have time but in my head I'm just wondering in terms of some of those operational restrictions like on speeds if that's going to be something that we'll see more of and the helicopter, that's new information for me so thank you for that I'll come back to Alex you know you said that Scotland Railways are industrial action free but I'm aware that the RMT is balancing tomorrow balancing the ScotRail members on the proposed extension of driver only operation so possibly quite timely that you're here I just wondered why the issue continues to be a problem unions are saying the fear that driver only operation has been brought in by the back door so I know you care about having good industrial relations so what has been done to address this and will Scotland continue to be or Scotland Railways continue to be industrial action free I don't know if Alex or Joanne are best to speak to this but perhaps both I'll start and then bring Jo in so the first thing to say is that the constructive relationships that we have with our four trade unions in both businesses is absolutely critical to us underpinning that the service that we provide and of course they represent our people who do a fantastic job every day and every night to deliver a fantastic rail service that's not going to change where we have disagreements we continue through dialogue to try and resolve those disagreements and of course we are committed to having two people on board every train there are in the west of the country we tend to operate services on a driver only basis with a ticket examiner on board and in the east of the country we tend to have a driver and a conductor on board and what we find is if we allow the drivers to open and close the doors that's really good for visibility protection etc so both of these are safe methods of operation as we call it so one of the things that we're doing with the investment we're getting from the Scottish government is to electrify some lines in the west of the country so we recently completed the electrification of the bar headline we're completing the electrification of the Glasgow to East Kilbride line between now and December 25 December next year and so we're talking to our relevant trade unions about the method of operation on those roads routes and hopefully we'll be able to resolve those differences without the need for any industrial action the ballot does open tomorrow however our door is still open as well and we are still in discussion it's a really interesting situation because this involves RMT and ASLEF and ASLEF are in fact supportive of the changes that we want to make we find RMT in opposition and as opposed to pushing a change through the back door we had wanted to implement this change in December when the newly electrified line was opened but because of concerns that unions had raised we agreed to delay the implementation of the change to allow for further consultation and negotiation on what we intend we have guaranteed the employment of all of the conductors because there are other services running out of Glasgow central where they are based that we can deploy them on and in fact rather than services being unsafe we have evidence that we can actually provide better value for the taxpayer by improving revenue collection and ensuring that the second person on the train is there visibly to better defend against antisocial behaviour and provide a passenger assistance should it be required but the key factor is we are guaranteeing the employment of the conductors and we are committed to delivering a second person on every train okay it sounds like there's a way to go here in terms of getting everyone around the table so just so I've got this right so the Scottish Government's position is that it specifies a requirement that all Scotland services should have a second staff member on board to assist passengers I think that RMTs appear to be concerned that there's going to be discretion and that will be for the train driver to make that decision although there'll be pressure on the train driver am I getting that correct conscious of time I'm happy to have a follow-up discussion or correspondence if required we operate just now where the fleet is enabled that the driver will open and close the doors there is always a second person rostered on those services but if at short notice that person isn't available then the train will run what we're suggesting is that that would remain in place and as Lifer accepting that's a current practice and it's safe to do so so we do not plan to run trains but if there is a short notice cancellation it would still be safe to operate a service without the second person but as part of these negotiations and as an on-going matter since we've come into public ownership we have been working hard to close the vacancy gap at ScotRail which helps us deliver the guarantee of a second person on the train okay I think we would appreciate more information it's always a live issue and I'm not entirely sure what the business case is but there's the commitment on rostering but then there's no guarantee of that second person I'm not sure how often there won't be a second person I'll leave it there for now okay I'm really struggling a lot of you want to come in on supplementary questions the clock is against me if you want to come in on supplementary questions some members aren't going to get questions so that's going to be difficult so I'm going to stick with the list that we've worked out and I would ask members to keep their questions short and where possible the panel to answer as succinctly as possible which I'm sure they'll say they've done already so the next questions go to Bob Doris Bob so we're going to roll two or three questions together for brevity purposes so it's about purchasing of a new rolling stock and opportunities within that so perhaps witnesses could set out how ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper will go about procuring a new rolling stock in the future so for instance we'd like to know will new trades be procured through rolling stock leasing companies I should point on record I've got some dissatisfaction with that model to be honest with you but any issues you may have that be good directly by operators or some other public body but also there's a lot on this question how will real users be involved in the design and layout of new rolling stock two aspects of it such as procurement but also design and dialogue with passengers I see Jordan McGuire and Catherine Scribbling I'll be furiously there I don't know who wants to come in first we were worried you would have three questions so I'll come in first if I may so obviously on ScotRail our fleet is actually relatively old and it's getting older and we operate more types of rolling stock than any other operator in Britain and therefore we need to invest in new rolling stock for two reasons one is we want to remove diesel vehicles from the network and the second is we have some trains which we need to replace because they're approaching life expiry and so we are working with the Scottish Government on those plans specifically in ScotRail around the replacement of our intercity trains secondly a suburban electric train and a suburban battery electric train which is aligned with our older rolling stock in the west of the country which we need to replace and the fact that we continue to electrify the network and we want to exploit the benefits of electrification to decarbonise the railway so between ScotRail network rail Scottish rail holdings and the Scottish Government those conversations are alive both for intercity rolling stock and suburban and hopefully we'll make some progress on that this year I think our default assumption is that we would continue to procure trains in the way that we have done in the last 25 years which is through rolling stock leasing companies because they frankly put the money up so other people don't have to it's a market that works relatively well but that's not to rule out any other options in terms of financing I have no concept and I'm not sure people listening in will have for the cost of a railway carriage or a train they're very expensive go on give us a clue a couple of million per carriage and a train to pull it the new version of the 125 which I seem to remember having on my railway track when I was a kid so what's the new version of that cost? If you take a four-car electric train between Glasgow and Edinburgh I mean most of the room has eight carriages that would be £8 million for just a four-carriage train so trains are very expensive we have a thousand carriages in the fleet and we need to replace around 65% of those trains in the coming decades so this is going to be a huge investment just put it into context back to Bob's question I apologise Mr Hikes for pausing you there one of the reasons these rolling stock operating companies did be Rosco's by any other name my concerns are that effectively a financing arrangement with lease back if I'm right under previous iteration without any control the purchaser is where the work goes to construct and maintain those trains so there's a lack of flexibility in Scotland so you'll always be able to direct some of that work to if possible through procurement to create and maintain and preserve jobs within Scotland, is that a reasonable reflection? You're absolutely right they are essentially a financing arrangement so if you're not going to finance new trains through wrong stock leasing companies the Scottish Government would have to decide where that finance is going to come from it was very interesting recently to see Porterbrooke one of the rolling stock leasing companies buy a stake in brodies at Kilmarnock which I think is a really interesting development because we would love for more of our work to be spent in depots and facilities based in Scotland rather than having to send trains to England and bring them back you asked around about how the passenger will be involved so we've agreed with officials at Transport Scotland that when we go out to procure these new trains we will specify level boarding which closes entirely the gap between the train and the platform where we have a modern platform and that will be an absolute game changer for accessibility on our railway provide genuine turn up and go the ability for people to reduce mobility to travel unaccompanied perhaps and then of course once we get the authority to commence the procurement and procuring new train takes rather a long time we would fully consult passengers in layouts so we've already got some really exciting ideas about family friendly spaces for example on board trains which will really help grow the market I've spoken for quite a long time there I'm afraid colleagues wish to come and add Catherine anything to add from my perspective I can be really short we're not planning to procure any additional running stock we've got new trains as we spoke about before so I can be quite succinct before I ask my own other question this year did you want to come and add something in my apologies I think we just welcome the huge opportunity to replace 11 different types of train that we currently run potentially simplifying that both for operation and for our customers and improvements to accessibility as Alex said we will consult more fully with passengers but be reassured we have done some initial consultation with stakeholder groups so before we move on to minutes question just for clarity when battery electric was mentioned convener that would mean we made a whole line where it's not electrified battery electric could run modern trains on that line without electrification would be my understanding is that the benefit of battery electric so battery electric trains have that you can use the overhead electrification system where it exists and where it doesn't it uses energy from the batteries on board the trains so on a line which is a relatively small range like Maryhill line that could operate using within the range of a battery so that would enable us to decarbonise that route without any overhead electrification in addition we're looking initially at the partial electrification of the railway in Fife and the partial electrification of the borders railway and again having a battery electric train would enable us to decarbonise in advance of full electrification on the economic as well doing it given the cost of full electrification can I just check in terms of financing Roscoe's would appear to be the only real opportunity appear to be the only show in town because of the huge costs involved does Government and ScotRail have the ability to to get alternative financing arrangements or is that just how it is well I mean obviously we we're the buyer here so we're free to decide how we want to finance our trains and so, you know, alternatives are available, you know, for example Scottish National Investment Bank might be interested, I don't know but at the moment our priority is making the business case with the Scottish Government to enable us to start the procurement and then the exact financing we can work through later and move on to accessibility for Scotland's drill network in the first panel I brought up the example of Springburn train station in myself and my small my small child, more of an assault course than it is a train station to navigate the good news is other train stations with similar issues are available, convener, but I just make the point that in that particular station it's the second time it's made it onto the shortlist for the access for all scheme decision will be by the Department for Transport in due course it's been on that shortlist previously do you think that system works well Mr Hines in relation to access for all in terms of not just Springburn station but across the country and any other comments that you would like to make about how we have to do more to make our train stations more accessible to all, not just families, wheelchair users visually impaired and others it is one of the oddities of the railway structure that rail accessibility is reserved to Westminster and we've got a strong track record of using the DFT access for all fund to invest in improving access for all stations so we've just completed Port Glasgow and we've got a number of live schemes across the country and we want to do more on Springburn specifically it was great to see recently a joint ScotRail network rail team go to Springburn to see what relatively low cost but high impact accessibility improvements we could make there obviously there's a large local college it's also the nearest station to our control centre so I'm sure we can do some improvements there the First Minister and the MSP for Pollock seeing the improvements we've made at Cardinal station and as you rightly point out it's not just people with accessibility needs who benefit, everyone benefits from often these relatively small scale investments which can make a big difference to using the rail network No more questions, but for clarity and transparency I was at the visit at the Mr Hines references to Springburn station but also put on record to come up in the first session that Sustrans was also there the college was also there a small charity spirit of Springburn that my trusty office involved in town centre regeneration Glasgow City Council was also there so there was a real sense of proper collegiate partnership working Done in the last 12 months between ScotRail and Network Rail is producer sustainable travel to stations policy and actually someone from Sustrans was seconded into the Network Rail team for Scotland's Railway so active travel links to stations is a growing part of our agenda and we're seeing that at Levermouth where the active travel links to the stations are being built in from the start Thank you, the next question is from Douglas Lumsden Douglas Thanks, I'm going to go back to anti-social behaviour something that Monica Lennon mentioned earlier so it's really just to find out what more your organisations can do to combat anti-social behaviour on our railways and what we can do to assist and another part of the question was obviously alcohol just now on ScotRail services as banned at all times of day there was a consultation and you can maybe give us an update on what's happened with that consultation and where it's going to go So I'll start on them perhaps bring Jo in firstly we're doing lots of work during Covid we saw an increase in anti-social behaviour and it was a big theme which came out from our staff surveys so we're investing heavily in this area we've created a travel safety team in the west of the country we're on a massive recruitment drive to fill front-line vacancies and we recently renewed our fleet of body cameras and we've now bought many more body cameras than we used to have because we're seeing the use of those as staff grow we've also strengthened our relationship with the British Transport Police who of course are responsible for the policing of the network in Britain and working with them in partnership to respond to the issues that we see both the actual issues and also perception of security on trains and on stations so we're working really really hard on anti-social behaviour and in our staff engagement sessions we're starting to notice the difference so no doubt Joe will provide some more detail on that on the alcohol ban that's one of the things that really divides opinion everyone's got a view on it and some people would love to be able to drink on trains and some people are vehemently against drinking on trains and it's for Scottish ministers to decide what they would like the policy to be on the alcohol ban but as I say there's no clear there's no clear winner in terms of public opinion here and it comes back to what are the policy objectives that the Scottish Government is trying to deliver and therefore it's a matter for Scottish ministers just on that point before we move on when I ask Scottish ministers they say that it's up to ScotRail you were carrying out a consultation give your views so when does that get reported back to Scottish ministers so they can actually make that decision Joe is there anything you want to add on this topic so as Alex said that was part of the feedback that we have reported back and there is no clear winner it's roughly around a 50-50 split on views of alcohol and we are conscious that it is a policy decision because there's a broader impact of alcohol on society not just the safety of our trains so that information went back to Scottish ministers can you tell us when that was I would need to write to the committee it has gone back to Transport Scotland my frustration is that I'm getting ping between different places when I'm asking the questions from yourself you've been quite honest with when it's went and I asked ministers and they said it's a ScotRail decision it's good to have that clarified it requires anti-social behaviour not wanting to repeat what Alex has said conscious of time but just to confirm the body worn cameras we had support from Scottish Government in investing in that and the number has gone up threefold so we've moved from 300 to just over a thousand body worn cameras available for our staff and we're actually also double staffing trains and known hotspots so on certain lines of route where we're seeing specific challenges you will find two ticket examiners at night and over weekends and in terms of that body camera is that going to be is the aim to have one for every ticket inspector who's going to be wearing these so the numbers that we have now allow for ticket examiners on train staff and we've also made provision for staff in stations to wear them if they want to I'll go on to my next question convener because I know we're pressed for time and we've heard concerns that passengers are the cheapest tickets through apps or ticket vending machines so can you maybe outline your plans for the future of rail ticket vending in Scotland? I mean the ferzen ticketing system in UK rail is furiously complicated as I'm sure we've all experienced and the industry has wanted to reform that for a number of years now but isn't able to without changes to regulations so those conversations between industry and the UK Government around fares reform continue and are a part of the plans for the creation of Great British Railways to create a simpler and better railway our retail strategy is to invest in what we call supported self-service so we recently launched well relatively recently launched the ability to buy mobile tickets on the app for example and we've seen a massive growth in customer numbers through the app and actually satisfaction with the ScotRail app went up to four and a half out of five customers and indeed colleagues like it but of course we recognise that people also need a bit more help which is one reason why the staffing of our railway either on board or at stations is a key part of our customer offer and as Joe mentioned the recruitment drive which we're currently delivering in ScotRail is making real positive impact in this area excuse me I believe there was was there a trial running at Glasgow Central with new vended machines and can maybe explain what that was about and no success there's a new vending machine there which we're trialling from one of the manufacturers and we're looking to see the impact of that trial on the customer experience what's the difference between this new vending machine how does it compare to the last one? I'm not an expert in this area because I don't buy too many train tickets but perhaps Joe knows a bit more of the detail so what we've done is we've replaced one of our existing vending machines at Glasgow Central with this new machine as part of a trial if you get the chance to look at it for example you will see that it's around half the size of a vending machine and it actually has two screens in terms of improved accessibility but we will be taking feedback before we make any decisions unfortunately it wouldn't make a ticket purchasing any simpler due to the challenges around our ticketing regulations but what has made ticketing much simpler in Scotland has been the off-peak all day trial that has made the offer much simpler for our passengers Can we now go on to my next question about the ongoing use of the HST rolling stock Are these trains safe and when will they be replaced? They are safe and meet all the requirements for the UK rail network and they are on lease to us until 2030 and as I mentioned since the tragic accident in 2020 we've made a number of changes to the way we operate the railway including the trains themselves and we made good progress on that working with all four trade unions we are also working really hard in our engineering teams to get better the reliability of those trains the availability of those trains and our delivery of seats to customers and I'm really delighted to see that we're seeing good improvements there since the start of this calendar year where the reliability the availability and the seats to customers is improving and it was great to have Fiona Hyslop MSP Cabinet Secretary for Transport at Haymarket last week to see that progress in action we are working through with the Scottish Government on the business case for their replacement and that is happening as we speak and hopefully we'll be able to make some progress on that this year because of course 2030 isn't actually that too far away in railway in railway time Trade unions have been they've raised concerns about the HST trains and I was looking at the the rape report on Carmont and they consider it more likely than not that the outcome would have been better if the train had been compliant with modern crashworthiness standards so is that not a reason to have them replaced sooner? So in 1994 the crashworthiness standards changed so any wrong stock which predates 94 which is a lot of it on the UK rail network has different crashworthiness standards so because we've made changes to the way we operate the railway precautionary speed restrictions for example we also don't operate trains in Scotland if we get a red weather alert from the Met Office we've also invested in the infrastructure to modify the trains themselves so we've done lots of work with the trade unions to improve the safety of those trains and as I said I sit down with them every quarter and we go through each of the 20 recommendations that the rail accident investigation branch made and where we are and most of those recommendations are either complete or 99% complete and just a waiting sign off from the regulator so they are safe but we do need to plan for their replacement You mentioned 2030 before replacement of the HSTs could they be extended further than that because obviously you'd probably look to have electric trains I would imagine on the east coast I'm thinking up to Aberdeen but that's probably not going to be likely by 2030 is it Alex? Well by 2030 there'll be more than 50 years old and I would argue that's too old for a train trains generally have a life of between 40 and 50 years and we're looking at their replacement rather than their extension beyond 2030 But in terms of looking at replacement is that going to be electric up to Aberdeen on the east coast line that's probably going to be unlikely isn't it? That's one of the current debates and this is where we might have a role to play so we have a few options for replacement of intercity we can go and buy an existing diesel train from the market which exists in GB rail or we could decide to procure what's called a diesel electric hybrid train so for example a train going from Glasgow to Aberdeen could travel electrically from Glasgow to Stirling and then we could drop the pantograph which is the piece of the equipment which collects the electricity from the overhead wire and then proceed on diesel so there are pros and cons and those debates and discussions and business case work are currently being discussed between ScotRail, Network Rail, ScotRail Halsings and Transport Scotland it's not easy which is why we need to take time to go through those deliberations quite carefully and if we can just ask Liam in terms of 2026 there's meant to be a 20 minute reduction between Aberdeen and the central belt in terms of train journeys is that going to be met by 2026 do you think, Liam? I'm not sure I can answer that I can write to you with the detail unless Alex you're aware I was just going to say next week there's a meeting between ScotRail, Network Rail, ScotRail Halsings and Transport Scotland where we're going to have a budget for what we call enhancements on the rail network next year and once those discussions have taken place that we're clear about what enhancements the rail network we can deliver including of course Aberdeen to central belt upgrade which is a big part of our plan so our aspirations to cut journey time by 20 minutes improve capacity for passenger and freight and ultimately stay away remain undimmed but obviously we need confirmation of the funding before we can proceed with those projects 100 million not appeared on a budget line as yet of asking your last question and then asking a couple of more very briefly and this is your last question I just wanted to know if that 200 million is in the budget so I think as we discussed in the past until any money passes to us it's not yet a funded program so neither ScotRail nor Network Rail has 200 million pounds in our budget lines to deliver that the capital expenditure on enhancements is something that we're discussing next week and there is an issue there are a variety of options we can lay out for the Scottish Government there Thank you Douglas Mark I think you've got a brief question Are we on track to meet the decarbonisation target by 2035? So yeah, we're continuing with the delivery of decarbonisation we said we've already electrified the rail between Glasgow and Barhead we delivered that in December we are delivering electrification between Glasgow and East Kilbride that finishes December next year when Transport Scotland publishes its decarbonisation action planet committed to refreshing that strategy my understanding is that Transport Scotland intend to publish that later this year and that will be the result of lots of really good work between ScotRail Network Rail Scottish Rail Holdings and Transport Scotland on this topic but of course the fiscal climate has changed somewhat since then so the ambition and the policy direction is absolutely unchanged the plan will be refreshed later this year Thank you Monica, do you have a brief question? Yeah, I do, convener it's just to try and get an update on current major infrastructure projects that are hopefully in the pipeline including the Levenmouth rail link but I'm also having a really con the STV news website so Winshborough seems to be topical again today in terms of the new station there can you give an update on those two projects? Obviously despite the financial climate from a capital perspective as opposed to an operating expenditure where next year Scottish Government is putting 1.6 billion into the railway we continue to invest in a bigger and better railway for Scotland so we will be working on train services on the Levenmouth branch for the first time since the 1960s and open two new stations at Cameronbridge and Leven and connect those communities to the capital so we're also completing the electrification of the East Kilbride line which isn't just about electrification it's also about a brand new station at Hairmines for example better access to the hospital, bigger park and ride and we're talking about where we go next on decarbonisation Fife borders Aberdeen to Central Belt we're also doing a number of smaller projects for example we're currently doing platform extensions on the West Hein line which will enable us to operate more of our Highland Explorer trains these are the carriages which are dedicated to cycling and active travel they can take 20 bikes on the back of passenger trains and we're attempting to do that this year's tourist season on Winchborough obviously there's a big third party developer in that part of the world and I was lucky enough to do a site visit a number of years ago with the local MSP who's now the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and last year I did a piece of work for Transport Scotland on what a new station at Winchborough might look like the good news is that in Scotland a new station costs around about £15 million in other places new stations are £25 million so we've done a good job of reducing the cost of new station construction a new station from Winchborough is not in the easiest place to build one of the sites we're looking at is in actual quite steep cutting and it's on the main Edinburgh Glasgow line so we continue to talk to Transport Scotland about the business case for that I think the aspiration is that if there is a new station for Winchborough there's a contribution from the developer which seems fine and there's a planning consent in principle so not quite shovel ready but getting there so realistically when do you expect a new station could be open for the public so firstly those decisions are made by Transport Scotland on behalf of ministers the investment priorities and the capital budget for next year is still under discussion and being finalised but it also depends how much money the developer would like to put in so if the developer wanted to put the full cost of the station in we're building a new station at Balgrey and it is 100% funded by the local authority so as ever some of this is around a discussion about who actually pays the cost of the station those discussions will be easier the higher the contribution from the developers okay, just so I've got this right cos it's not my parliamentary regional law to get lots of emails about it there's on-going discussion about who pays what but it's sounding less certain from what you've said today Alex that that this might not even happen is it definitely going to happen or is there a chance that because of those funding issues that you've raised and some of the technical issues that might not happen at all we've got a strong track record of delivering new stations Eastlinton, Reston and the Ministry of Airport, Cameron Bridge Leven but until it's just to get clarity on this one but until anyone asks us to build the station then it's not yet what I would call a funded project and that's why the business case work but critically the contribution the developer is going to make to the cost of new station could potentially unlock those plans for the future very briefly there's been a lot of studies done through the local rail development fund looking at potential for other new stations that could be delivered at a relatively low cost within the existing network do you see the business cases building for those going forward do you think we're closer to getting decisions despite the fiscal constraints that the Government has I think there's two things we can do in the rail industry which is grow revenue as fast as we can because that improves the business case for any new station but also to continue to drive down the unit cost of building new stations which we've done very successfully over recent years and then that makes it an easier decision for the people who control budgets in order to build new stations and it's great that because Scotland's railway is perceived to be such a success story more and more communities across the country want to be connected to the rail network and it's fantastic being at the opening of East Linton Station December last year and listening to the people who've lived there for years on the train station and it's changing their lives for the better thank you and a couple of questions from the deputy convener Ben thank you these questions are probably primarily for Alex Hines and John Maguire I'm on MSP for the capital here Edinburgh and they relate to casework that I've received on two important issues that relate to the whole country firstly it's well known that the line from Edinburgh to Inverness is often busy sometimes over crowded given the tourist attractions that there are on that line and its importance to the tourism economy as well as local travel so I wondered if you had any comment on that in terms of increasing the capacity in the short medium or longer term and secondly we have two remarkable cities in the central belt as well as a number of other important areas but two worldwide cities that have great nighttime economies and cultural offerings and sporting events this summer as in sorry last summer in 2023 the festivals came to an agreement with yourselves and the Government to have travel later on in the trains and from all accounts that was very successful what thought is going into providing later trains between Waverley and Queen Street on a more regular basis say on a Thursday, Friday and Saturday night because you talked about the market and demand earlier and how it's increasing around weekends but exploration as to what demand could be created with later services in the nighttime economy hasn't really been properly explored in the way it has been in other places right okay thank you for those questions so firstly on the Edinburgh to Inverness line well I live on that line so I'm familiar with the issues on that route very intimately and critical to our performance on that part of the rail network is the delivery of our high speed trains because our high speed trains have four or five carriages and customers enjoy the experience that they have on those trains we send a shorter train than planned and that's something we need to stop doing and the way we are going to resolve that issue is by delivering our recruitment drive on depots so those trains are primarily maintained at either Haymarket here in Edinburgh or in Manus and we are in the process of filling every single vacancy at all at those two depots and indeed other depots across the country so I was at Haymarket last week it was great to meet some of the new joiners and as I said to Douglas Lumsden MSP since the start of the year we've started to see the benefit of that in terms of better consistency of delivery on that route by September of this year we will have filled every vacancy and all of those staff will be fully competent in the tasks which they have to undertake on the depot so I am expecting month by month improvement between now and September as we give our teams on depots the tools to do the job to maintain them and keep them available for customers in terms of festivals and later night services obviously we operate later night services during the festival anyway we have been experimenting in previous Christmases with later night services and one of the issues we always face if we run an additional service is it going to cover its costs or not? Clearly we've been through a pandemic our passenger journeys are still 15% down but if we carry on growing fast as we are and customers continue to come back to the network that enables us to make better business cases so we can go to Scottish rail holdings and go to Transport Scotland and say we'd like to add these services in and commercially they wash their face whereas at the moment what tends to happen is when we look at business cases for additional services sometimes they don't always cover their costs and then it becomes a bit of a difficult equation around is that something we want to do but put the subsidy requirement up relatively high over £700 million a year so it's something we're acutely aware of it's something we're keen to do more of in the future and by as the railway comes back post Covid it's something we can look more at but we have to remember there are still 15% fewer customers on our railway than there were five years ago and that makes the economics commercially wash their face more challenging we would use it if it was there later into the night but it's how do you survey that and quantify that limited trial periods that's some insight but I think it would require a longer trial period to see the commercial benefits which... sorry, John McArthur did you want to add anything? Just to confirm that on your Inverness to Edinburgh concerns every time we change the timetable we plan the length of the trains against that and we are planning enhancements where we'll be sending further five car services as opposed to three at key times of the day including weekends when previously we've only looked at that on a Monday to Friday basis and that all links back to the improved maintenance resource we've got in the depots improvements and we're conscious of the number of passengers we will carry over the summer as we see tourist season ramping up and the important impact that has on the economies of those cities Thank you both, that was very interesting I'll just clarify that the night time economy in Inverness stops at 9.32 which is the last time you can get on a train from Inverness to head back towards Aberdeen so there's no late night services on that line. Two quick questions if I may we've got Caledonian sleepers and we've got ScotRail two different organisations part of the same organisation now we're going to see a merging of boards and management structures so it all comes under one because it all belongs to to one group of people the people of Scotland Jan, Catherine, who wants to answer? Happy to go first so that will be over time I'm sure a matter for Scottish rail holdings as our owning group to consider but for the current times there are no plans because we run two very distinct businesses and the decision was taken some years ago to maintain those as two very distinct businesses so at this present time there are no plans to merge our very much daytime service very much distinct customer offering through the night for keeping those apart when they're within the management structure so what we have said is potentially separate to management structure there could be opportunities within what we would call our back office and support structures that we might be able to explore in future in terms of how we could work together might in the future is that being looked at at the moment as Catherine said, it's very early days for sleeper and public ownership and she might want to add more but I think six months in it's not being top of the priority list in delivering the transfer To ensure I don't repeat what Joanne said our back office services are being delivered by Circa under a 12 month agreement so we're concentrating on successfully extracting ourselves from Circa and being a standalone business so that's our focus at the moment that's quite high risk project and we need to make sure that goes well once that's done and it's settled phase two would be to look at if there are any back office synergies my personal view is there would be and I think we're all committed to looking at that Okay and the final question I guess is can I answer it but I remember when Alex you first came into this committee that we had the PPMs with the excitement figure and it was used to be to bellow up about why they weren't performing to the requirement that the government has set well Scott Rylane meeting those targets either and they've got less trains on the track so my question is is there a marked improvement and were PPMs unnecessary, unrequired or unhelpful and is everything fine now despite the fact that you're not reaching the targets that Abelia reached in the past well actually it's not a target for Scott Ryl it's a target for Scotland's railway so transport Scotland's Scottish Rail Holdings set 92.5 ppm as we measure it for both Scott Ryl and for Network Rail and as of this morning we were hovering about 90% of PPM pleased to say that since the last time we were at committee performance continues to improve and together we're working really hard to improve performance on the network particularly in the area of Scott Ryl fleet and Network Rail weather management to work together to reach that target as fast as we can it's a challenging target to meet because it measures lots of things that we don't control like trespass and vandalism and weather for example but our good performance the most punctual large operator in Britain is underpinning the service that we're providing to our customers and so it's pleasing to see that 9 out of 10 customers are satisfied with the service that they pay for and I guess that answer took me back to the answer on that subject which I seem to remember was probably lodged by Stuart Stevenson at the committee but interesting nothing's changed then thank you very much that concludes our session briefly going to suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave but I'd ask committee members to be back here by 12.30 at the very latest please thank you our next item is consideration trading scheme amendment order 2024 the instrument is laid under the negative procedure which means that its provisions will come into force unless the Parliament agrees to a motion to annul the instrument no motion to annul the instrument has been lodged as the clart's paper notes the instrument is laid in all four UK legislators and is UK wide do any members have any comments on the instrument Mark I'm just going to make a brief comment that I think it's important that the UK emissions trading scheme continues to align with the EU emissions trading scheme because as we've seen with the interaction between the Swiss scheme and the EU scheme the direction of travel here is probably to link the schemes at some point in the future and that offers more certainty for business but from what I can see what's been brought forward here has changed that question around alignment number of free allocations is not being altered by the instrument so I don't really see any significant divergence coming as a result of this so that satisfies me that we've got our own scheme, EU's got theirs but the potential to link those together after reform of the trading co-operation agreement is still on the table Monica, do you want to come in? That's a good summary by Mark Ruskell and I would agree with that Okay so therefore that noted and thanks Mark for doing that I just invite the committee to agree it doesn't want to wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument are we agreed? We are agreed, that concludes our part of the public meeting and we're now going to private session