³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is very helpful. David, do you want to add anything before I go to Mr Cameron?

I am not asking about new rolling stock; other folk might do that. I should first point out that it is encouraging that there appears to be a strategy for retaining the skilled workforce and for a rolling programme of electrification. There will be other electrified lines right across Scotland, but my local line never seems to be in the mix, and it is unlikely to be in the mix. I keep telling commuters that it is an absolutely valued part of the Scottish rail network, but, until we see the rolling stock solutions come out, it is hard to say more about that and a decarbonised railway. Do you want to say anything more about the parts of the country where it is clear that, in the short or medium term, there will be no electrification?

The deputy convener has raised a very important question. This is for Joanne Maguire to comment on, if she is able to. Earlier on I mentioned that it was clear that not all parts of Scotland’s rural network will be electrified but it must all be decarbonised. I also made the point that in my part of the world, if a line is not on the list for electrification, questions are asked about the long-term future for that line. I specifically mentioned the Maryhill line—Glasgow through to Anniesland. I have had repeated commitments that it is core and of value to ScotRail. There are also other technologies out there, including hydrogen fuel and battery electric.

I would like something on the record from ScotRail today to say that just because every part of the rail network is not electrified does not mean that it is not of equal value for passengers, including passengers in my constituency of Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn.

I will bring in Liam Sumpter in a moment. We do not know the extent of the issue with ScotRail, but you are going to tell me how you are going to fix it anyway. I am genuinely not trying to be sarcastic; I am just trying to understand the situation. Maybe you can continue with your answer that I interrupted—my apologies for that.

Thank you.

That data is helpful. I have been scribbling it down and I will look back at the Official Report of the meeting. On the 46 per cent of delays that related to an engineering or Network Rail matter, what improvement plan does Network Rail have in place? Obviously, there is extreme weather, for which you cannot be held to account, but it is about how quickly you get the network back up and running—that is what we are looking at there. From a Network Rail point of view, how does your improvement plan seek to proactively reduce delays?

I do not drive, I do not cycle and I have a young family. I am heavily dependent on buses—First Glasgow buses, predominantly—so the three bus corridors that I mentioned have a profound impact on me and my family’s ability to get around. The Maryhill Road corridor is particularly important to us, but the Great Western Road and Dumbarton Road corridors are important, too. When you discuss those corridors with partners, what input into those discussions do the travelling public—as an MSP, I have a separate influence that I can bring to bear, but I am talking about members of the travelling public who might have a similar travelling profile to me—have?

That is very helpful, and it brings me on nicely to Mr Cameron. The reason I have kept you waiting until now is that I have a significant constituency interest in some of this stuff.

I was having a look to see where we are with bus services improvement partnerships in my area. Of course, First Group and First Glasgow would say that there has always been a strategic relationship with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and local authorities, and that that was the case before the 2019 act came into place. Earlier, you mentioned the Glasgow city region bus partnership, which did not require BSIPs.

For fairly obvious constituency reasons, I am interested in the plans for strategic bus corridors and, in particular, those for Dumbarton Road, Great Western Road and Maryhill Road. Where are we with those? Did the development of those corridors not require any of the powers in the 2019 act? Could that happen in partnership anyway?

That is helpful. It would be helpful for the committee to know how that has changed over time, so that we can see the movement in performance. If you can add anything else now, that would be welcome.

I apologise that I have had to be remote this morning. It has been a really interesting conversation.

I am conscious that the minister will not have an opportunity to come back in and reflect on the points that I make, so if he feels the need to intervene on me at any point, he should feel free to do so.

Many of the arguments about the list of public bodies that could be added are well made, particularly around higher education and healthcare. If there had been the ability to add the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office to that list and to put the ask and act duty on them, we should have done so, but there was not. I will make an alternative suggestion that will be within the powers of our Parliament.

Let me make the case first. We all know from our constituency casework that when someone relies on benefits and entitlements from the DWP, advances or sanctions can indicate a threat of imminent homelessness, yet we do not have any provisions in relation to the DWP.

In relation to the Home Office, if we look at our asylum system, it is absolutely clear that, when an individual or a family gets a property anywhere in the UK, such as somewhere in Glasgow, on day 1 of the asylum process, one thing is guaranteed—that individual and their family will end up homeless, irrespective of the outcome of their asylum claim.

We can put the ask and act duty on organisations and relevant bodies through the amendments in this group, but we cannot do that with the DWP and the Home Office. However, we can proactively seek partnership agreements with the DWP and the Home Office and we should do that, whether it be through a protocol or set of principles. I do not know what it should be, but we have to do something.

People who are watching this will look at the main drivers that lead to people being threatened with homelessness. The provisions in the bill will not tackle those drivers because of the UK benefits system and the Home Office, so we have to work in partnership with the Home Office and the DWP. Rather than just chastising them for things that I do not like them doing, we have to work constructively and in partnership with them to stop people becoming homeless. Crisis has told me that there are already models in England where there has been partnership working between the DWP and local homeless sector partnerships to do that prevention work on homelessness.

I know that the minister will say that the DWP and the Home Office would do those things anyway, but sometimes it is good to have such things in the bill. I would therefore be inclined to lodge an amendment at stage 3 that mandates that the Scottish Government be required to seek those partnerships, and that specifically mentions the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office, given the huge drivers of homelessness and pressures on homelessness services in Scotland today that come through those two particular agencies.