REC/S5/16/4/A

RURAL ECONOMY AND CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE

AGENDA

4th Meeting, 2016 (Session 5)

Wednesday 21 September 2016

The Committee will meet at 9.00 am in the Mary Fairfax Somerville Room (CR2).

1. Subordinate legislation: The Committee will take evidence on the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) () Amendment Regulations 2016 [draft] from—

Fergus Ewing, Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, Mike Palmer, Deputy Director Fisheries, Marine Scotland, and Andrew Voas, Veterinary adviser, Scottish Government.

2. Subordinate legislation: Fergus Ewing (Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity) to move—

S5M-01446—That the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2016 [draft] be approved.

3. Common Agricultural Policy Payments: The Committee will take evidence from—

Fergus Ewing, Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, David Barnes, Chief Agricultural Officer, and Jonathan Pryce, Director for Agriculture, Food & Rural Communities, Scottish Government.

4. Scotrail Alliance update: The Committee will take evidence from—

Phil Verster, Managing Director, Scotrail Alliance;

Karl Budge, Regional Director, Infrastructure Projects SNE, . REC/S5/16/4/A

Steve Farrell Clerk to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee Room T3.40 The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh Tel: 0131 348 5211 Email: [email protected] REC/S5/16/4/A

The papers for this meeting are as follows—

Agenda Item 1

SSI Cover Note REC/S5/16/4/1

Agenda Item 3

PRIVATE PAPER REC/S5/16/4/2 (P)

Agenda Item 4

Office of Rail and Road Briefing REC/S5/16/4/3

PRIVATE PAPER REC/S5/16/4/4 (P)

REC/S5/16/5/1

Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee 4th Meeting, 2016 (Session 5), Wednesday 21 September 2016 Subordinate Legislation

Title of instrument The Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2016 [draft]

Type of instrument Affirmative

Laid date 31 August 2016

Minister to attend the meeting Yes

SSI drawn to the Parliament’s attention by Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee No

Reporting Deadline 10 October 2016

Procedure 1. The Rural Economy and Connectivity (REC) Committee has been designated as lead committee for this instrument and is required to report to the Parliament.

2. Under Rule 10.6.1 (a), these regulations are subject to affirmative resolution before they can be made. It is for the REC Committee to recommend to the Parliament whether these draft regulations should be approved.

3. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity has, by motion S5M- 01446 (set out in the agenda), proposed that the Committee should recommend the approval of this instrument.

4. The Cabinet Secretary will attend to answer any questions on the instrument, and then, under a separate agenda item, will be invited to speak to and move the motion for approval. The formal debate on the motion may last for up to 90 minutes.

5. At the end of the debate, the Committee must decide whether or not to agree the motion, and then report to Parliament accordingly. Such a report need only be a short statement of the Committee’s recommendations.

Purpose 6. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 provides that it is an offence for a person to carry out a prohibited procedure on a protected animal, unless the procedure is carried out for the purpose of medical treatment of the animal or is

1

REC/S5/16/5/1

specified in regulations. The Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2010 (“the 2010 Regulations”) specify procedures which are not carried out for the purpose of medical treatment, but are permitted.

7. The instrument under consideration is to amend the 2010 regulations to authorise the ear tagging of bovine animals for the purpose of genetic analysis. This will enable the taking of ear tissue samples (‘tissue tagging’) for that purpose. Currently, ear tagging of bovine animals is only authorised for identification and screening or routine or random testing for disease.

Consultation

8. The Scottish Government issued a consultation document to a range of animal health and welfare stakeholders. The consultation was also uploaded to the Scottish Government Citizen Space portal and received 21 responses in total (responses are detailed in the Policy Note at Annex B).

Consideration by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

9. At its meeting on 13 September 2016, the DPLR Committee considered this instrument and determined it did not need to draw the attention of the Parliament to the instrument on any grounds within its remit.

10. The regulations and accompanying documents are included at Annexe A and Annexe B. They are also available online here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2016/9780111032497/contents

Claire Murrie Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee September 2016

2

REC/S5/16/5/1

Annexe A – Draft Affirmative Instrument

Draft Regulations laid before the Scottish Parliament under section 51(3) of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 for approval by resolution of the Scottish Parliament.

DRAFT SCOTTISH STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

2016 No.

ANIMALS

The Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2016

Made - - - - 2016 Coming into force in accordance with regulation 1

The Scottish Ministers make the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by section 20(5)(b) of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006(1) and all other powers enabling them to do so.

In accordance with section 20(6) of that Act, they have consulted such persons appearing to them to represent relevant interests and such other persons as they consider appropriate.

In accordance with section 51(3) of that Act, a draft of these Regulations has been laid before and approved by resolution of the Scottish Parliament.

Citation and commencement 1. These Regulations may be cited as the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2016 and come into force on the day after the day on which they are made.

Amendment of the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2010 2.—(1) The Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2010(2) are amended as follows. (2) In schedule 1 (bovine animals), in the entry relating to ear tagging, for the entry in column 2 (purpose) substitute—

“1. Identification;

(1) 2006 asp 11. (2) S.S.I. 2010/387, as amended by S.S.I. 2011/164 and S.S.I. 2012/40.

3

REC/S5/16/5/1

2. Screening or routine or random testing for disease; or

3. Genetic analysis.”

Revocation 3. Regulation 2(2) of the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) Scotland Amendment Regulations 2012(3) is revoked.

Name A member of the Scottish Government St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh Date

(3) S.S.I. 2012/40.

4

REC/S5/16/5/1

EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations) Section 20 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) provides that it is an offence for a person to carry out a prohibited procedure on a protected animal, unless the procedure is carried out for the purpose of medical treatment of the animal or is specified in regulations. The Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2010 (“the principal Regulations”) specify procedures which are not carried out for the purpose of medical treatment of an animal and to which section 20 of the 2006 Act does not apply. Regulation 2 of these Regulations amend the principal Regulations to allow the ear tagging of bovine animals for the purpose of genetic analysis, in addition to the purposes of identification and the screening or routine or random testing of those animals for disease (as currently). Regulation 3 of these Regulations revokes regulation 2(2) of the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2012.

5

REC/S5/16/5/1

Annexe B – Policy note POLICY NOTE

THE PROHIBITED PROCEDURES ON PROTECTED ANIMALS (EXEMPTIONS) (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 2016

The above instrument is made in exercise of the powers conferred by section 20(5)(b) of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. It is subject to affirmative procedure.

Background Section 20 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) provides that it is an offence for a person to carry out a prohibited procedure on a protected animal, unless the procedure is carried out for the purpose of medical treatment of the animal or is a procedure which is carried out for a purpose, in such manner as, and in accordance with such conditions as, the Scottish Ministers may by regulations specify. Currently, provision is made for the latter by the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2010 (“the 2010 Regulations”), as amended.Under the 2010 Regulations, ear tagging of bovine animals, is currently only authorised for the purposes of identification and screening or routine or random testing for disease.

Policy Objectives The purpose of this instrument is to amend the 2010 Regulations to also authorise the ear tagging of bovine animals for the purpose of genetic analysis. This will enable the taking of ear tissue samples (‘tissue tagging’) for that purpose. The Scottish Government has recently introduced a £45 million five-year Beef Efficiency Scheme (“the Scheme”) under the Scottish Rural Development plan 2015- 2020 (as funded under the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union). The Scheme’s main aim is to improve the sustainability of beef production through improved breeding stock, and in particular to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through more efficient production in order to benefit our environment both locally and globally. The Scheme involves cattle keepers taking ear tissue samples from 20% of their herd for genetic analysis (also known as genotyping). The genomic data will over time be used to enhance pedigree based Estimated Breeding Values (EBVs) and has been shown to be particularly useful for traits such as female/maternal performance and health traits. More generally, genetic analysis tools are becoming commonplace in livestock production. They are used for assigning parentage and for assessment of beneficial (and deleterious) genotypes that are associated with phenotypes such as feed conversion rates, conformation and disease susceptibility or resistance.

6

REC/S5/16/5/1

Information about these genotype-phenotype combinations can then be used to select animals for breeding in order to deliver breeding goals such as increased production efficiency. The 2012 report “Developing Options to Deliver a Substantial Environmental and Economic Sustainability Impact through Breeding for Feed Efficiency of Feed Use in UK Beef Cattle” showed that improvement in the uptake of genetic improvement in the beef industry, with enhanced data recording (breeding, abattoir records) could reduce greenhouse gas emission/kg of carcass by up to 19%. In addition, the Farm Animal Genetic Resource Committee (FAnGR) produced a report in August last year on how beef genetics can help profitability of the UK beef farmers. There are a number of recommendations in this report including the focus on genomic improvement in beef cattle. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/beef-genetics-increasing- profitability-for-uk-beef-farmers. While under the 2010 Regulations it is currently possible to ear tag bovine animals for the purposes of identification or screening or routine or random disease testing, this does not include ear tagging for any other purpose such as genetic analysis. This means what while the use of existing identification and management ear tags to take a tissue sample is authorised when applied primarily for the purpose of identification or disease testing, the application of ear tags principally for the purpose of taking a tissue sample for genetic analysis is not currently permitted. The Scottish Government and the partners involved in developing the Scheme would therefore like to ensure that, through the amendment to the 2010 Regulations by the above instrument, cattle keepers will have the flexibility where appropriate to also be able to use additional ear tags to take tissue samples for the purpose of genetic analysis under the Scheme. It is important to note that we are not proposing to allow any new procedures in addition to ear tagging; only to expand the scope of the currently permitted procedures to be used for other purposes.

Welfare implications Ear tagging using commercially available tags inserted in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions will cause momentary pain and discomfort at the time of application, but there are rarely any longer term adverse effects on the animal. Infection at the point of tagging sometimes occurs but this can be minimised by storing and applying tags in hygienic conditions. Tags can sometimes be pulled out of ears if they become caught in fencing or other equipment which may cause injury to the ear at the time. Ear tissue tags must be approved by the Scottish Ministers in the same way as any official identification tags and must meet their criteria. The welfare implications of using a tissue tag are equivalent to using a normal identity tag. For the Scheme it is expected that the majority of tissue tag samples will be obtained using a management tag on the calf. The tag will be sent to keepers by a laboratory that is commissioned to carry out the genetic analysis and each farmer will test 20% of their herd. In considering the welfare implications of having an additional tag

7

REC/S5/16/5/1

applied there are expected to be cumulative and permanent benefits to the national herd from improving genetic selection in respect of growth rates, feed conversion, maternal behaviour, nutrition practice and disease resistance.

Consultation In a consultation issued on 26 July the Scottish Government proposed that ear tagging of bovine animals should be allowed for the purpose of taking tissue samples for genotyping, as well as for identification and disease control. The consultation document was sent to a comprehensive range of animal health and welfare stakeholders and was uploaded to the Scottish Government Citizen Space portal. The consultation period ended on 29 August with a total of 21 responses submitted, including 12 from organisations (such as the National Farmers Union Scotland, Animal Concern and the British Cattle Veterinary Association) and 9 from individuals. Of the total responses 15 were in favour of the proposal with 5 expressing opposition. One respondent did not indicate either agreement or disagreement. Among those in favour of the proposal some reservations were raised. One respondent was concerned about losing beneficial genetic traits. Animal Concern were in favour of the proposal but raised the welfare implications of unnecessary tags and preferred to see the procedure incorporated into the main ID tag. However they also referred to a recent BBC television documentary on genetic screening and highlighted the potential for this to minimise the number of cows having difficult deliveries due to oversized calves, as well as screening out unsuitable animals for breeding. There was also a concern raised from the Farm Animal Welfare Committee about multiple tagging, and where possible they would prefer tissue tagging to be carried out and combined with the formal ID tag. In addition they indicated that they would like testing to be limited to one additional tagging operation. The Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers made a similar point about using main ID tags so as to avoid any confusion between official ID tags and tissue sampling management tags. There was one additional comment proposing that the amendment should be extended to include other livestock; specifically sheep, goats, pigs and horses. Comments from respondents in opposition to the amendment were generally concerned with subjecting animals to invasive procedures. There was also a comment suggesting that current procedures were sufficient for collecting tissue samples.

Scottish Government Conclusion We note and understand the concerns which have been raised relating to animal welfare. However we do not consider, from the evidence available, that there would be a significant adverse impact on animal welfare arising from the proposal to exempt bovine tissue tagging from the prohibitions under the Act. Any adverse impacts would be outweighed by the potential benefits to be gained from genotyping, both in relation to the long term welfare of cattle and for improving the efficiency of cattle production systems, including carbon efficiency. We will ensure that the tags sent to farmers have very detailed guidance on their use. The guidance will remind

8

REC/S5/16/5/1

farmers that incorrectly applied tags, or those applied with an applicator designed for another tag type, may cause pain and infection and that the correct applicator should be used. Participants in the scheme are obliged to tissue sample 20% of their calves, which are selected on the information recorded by the farmer. With regard to the suggestion that ID tags be used for the purpose of taking tissue samples, we understand the attraction of such an approach in terms of minimising the number of tags applied to cattle. However, using ID tags would lead to farmers tissue sampling 100% of their calves (whereas under the scheme they are obliged to tissue sample only 20% of their calves.) For various reasons this would present challenges in terms of administration, logistics and cost which could not practicably be resolved at this juncture, although we are open to considering improvements to the scheme over time to see if the approach to tagging could be streamlined in the future. At this time we do not propose to amend the legislation to include other livestock as our primary aim presently is restricted to bovine animals. Were we to propose to apply the amendment more broadly we would bring forward a separate consultation.

Financial Effects This instrument may lead to increased benefits for ear tag manufacturers and retailers but it is not possible to either quantify these or separate them from the effects of the Beef Efficiency Scheme. Evidence to date shows there is no or negligible impact on business, charities, or the voluntary sector so a business and regulatory impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument.

Scottish Government Food, Drink and Rural Communities Division 14 September 2016

9

REC/S5/16/4/3

Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

4th Meeting, 2016 (Session 5), Wednesday, 21 September 2016

Scotrail Alliance / Network Rail evidence session

Background

The Committee will hear from the Scotrail Alliance, a formal alliance between Abellio ScotRail and Network Rail designed to make the industry in Scotland more responsive to customers' needs. Both organisations remain separate companies, led by ScotRail Alliance managing director Phil Verster.

Network Rail runs, maintains and develops Britain's rail tracks, signalling, bridges, tunnels, level crossings and many key stations. Abellio ScotRail started operating on the Scotrail franchise on 1 April 2015. It provides passenger train services throughout Scotland with intercity, regional and suburban rail services across the Scottish network.

Representatives from the ScotRail Alliance appeared regularly in front of the previous ICI Committee in order to update the Parliament on rail network and rail service issues.

Submission from ORR

The Office of Road and Rail (ORR) is the independent economic and safety regulator for Britain’s railways. It regulates Network Rail including setting the targets it has to achieve and reports regularly on its performance. It also regulates health and safety standards and compliance as well as overseeing competition and consumer rights issues.

The ORR has produced a briefing to inform the Committee’s evidence session with Network Rail. This is attached in Annexe A.

Heather Lyall Senior Assistant Clerk Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee September 2016

1

REC/S5/16/4/3

Annexe A

Scotland enhancement project reviews and Network Rail’s train service performance in Scotland

Briefing for the Scottish Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Office of Rail and Road 15 September 2016

1. Background

1.1. In July2016 we published our NetworkRail Monitor Scotland1 which provides our assessment of Network Rail’s overall performance in Scotland in 2015‐16. The Monitor referred to a number of specific actions by ORR relating to enhancement projects and we thought it would be helpful to update the committee on these.

1.2. We also reported on train service performance and are closely monitoring Network Rail’s delivery of its regulated performance targets in Scotland. This paper provides a recap of the issues and an update on recent developments.

2. ORR Scotland enhancement project reviews

2.1 In the Monitor we said that Network Rail had successfully completed some major enhancement projects in the past year, including the , Scotland’s first new rail line in over 100 years. However, we noted the electrification work on the Edinburgh to Improvement Programme (EGIP) was behind schedule and could cost more than expected. We also commented on cost pressures on other projects; due to these concerns we said that we would be reviewing Network Rail’s plans around costs and capability, to provide further challenge on efficiency and delivery. This work is described below.

The risk to the on‐time delivery of EGIP

2.2. Network Rail agreed with Transport Scotland that it would have done enough work to allow the first electric services to run by December 2016. This obligation will not be met. It also has a regulatory milestone, agreed with ORR, to have ‘infrastructure ready for use’ (i.e. at the point where Network Rail has completed all of its works to allow ScotRail to start running electric trains on the route) by March 2017.

1 Network Rail Monitor Scotland: http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/22346/network‐rail‐ monitor-scotland‐2015‐16‐q3‐4.pdf 2

REC/S5/16/4/3

2.3. Network Rail has stated that a number of factors contributed to the slippage on the project, including late identification of the scope necessary to achieve a safe and sustainable railway through compliance with legal obligations and European standards, competing demands for specialist electrification resources and poorer than expected productivity from the contracting alliance. An additional underlying problem with EGIP has also been the transparency of reporting by Network Rail, with delays and cost increases reported inconsistently. An improvement plan has been put in place with immediate effect.

2.4. Network Rail has provided us with details on the improvement plan including the organisation, personnel and delivery management changes. The plan demonstrates the company has identified reasons for the problems on EGIP and specific initiatives to tackle them. It is designed to give greater visibility and transparency on the project and should mitigate the likely slippage and overspend.

2.5. Network Rail is considering whether it is possible to intensify works so as to pull back the programme to deliver the March 2017 milestone. The question is whether the company is doing everything reasonably practicable to meet that – and future milestones. At present we have not got sufficient assurance that everything reasonably practicable is being done and hence we are following our standard processes and have escalated our concerns with Network Rail. We will consider next steps shortly.

Cost pressures caused by Network Rail not planning effectively to comply with technical standards.

2.6. Network Rail is addressing such cost pressures as part of its GB‐wide Enhancement Improvement Plan (EIP) but we need clearer evidence both of how this is being implemented in Scotland and how it will benefit Scotland.

2.7. We found Network Rail in licence breach in September 2015 because of systemic weaknesses in its ability to plan and deliver enhancements. We concluded that the EIP (which Network Rail was already working on) would address these weaknesses, but we would need assurance that the plan was being delivered and embedded and hence we would monitor this.

2.8. The aim of EIP is to improve the governance, management and delivery of the enhancements portfolio, across the rail network in England, Scotland and Wales. Network Rail has, as part of its EIP, strengthened its early design processes to help ensure that electrification projects are compliant with all standards and regulations, to help establish robust project costs.

2.9. We are currently reviewing Network Rail’s implementation of EIP specifically in Scotland. The review will include general progress with EIP, and then compare evidence of implementation in Scotland with the rest of the network. This comparison will concentrate on three workstreams where there has been significant progress to date and where changes are starting to be embedded in the business, including:

• Workstream 1: Clienting and governing the enhancement portfolio; • Workstream 4: Project governance (stage gate assurance); and

3

REC/S5/16/4/3

• Workstream 5: Project portfolio monitoring.

2.10. We will produce a draft report on findings and share this with Transport Scotland and Network Rail in October 2016. We will then publish the report alongside our Network Rail Monitor in November 2016.

Forecast costs increases on the Aberdeen to Inverness Improvements Project.

2.11. The estimate for A2I increased significantly earlier this year, due to Network Rail’s late identification of additional scope required to deliver the project’s outputs, including accommodating existing freight access rights and again the systemic issue of delivering a safe and sustainable railway through engineering standards compliance, in this case additional scope required for track and civils engineering compliance.

2.12. Discussions are underway between Network Rail and Transport Scotland to consider scope and phasing options. This could include for example whether some lower priority elements of scope could be pushed back into the first year of CP6, to make sure it is affordable in CP5.

2.13. We are completing an efficiency review of the project. This will determine whether Network Rail’s submitted estimate is robust, efficient and challenging. We will make adjustments to Network Rail’s estimate where necessary to produce an efficient determination on costs. We expect to have draft conclusions in early October which we will discuss with Network Rail and Transport Scotland. We will publish our decision shortly thereafter. The timing of our review will allow Network Rail to proceed with works, but we will be able to make adjustments to the phasing of our assessment of the efficient cost (between CP5/CP6) depending on the outcome of discussions between Network Rail and Transport Scotland described in para 2.12.

Forecast cost increases on the Rolling Programme of Electrification.

2.14. The Rolling Programme of Electrification (RPE) involves the following three electrification projects: • and electrification (Whifflet line); • Stirling to Dunblane and Alloa electrification; and • electrification.

4

REC/S5/16/4/3

2.15. Network Rail completed the Rutherglen and Coatbridge project in 2014, with electric services now running on the line. The two remaining projects are currently progressing through the design development and preliminary work stages.

2.16. Although broadly on schedule, the estimating for the Stirling – Dunblane – Alloa and Shotts projects has not been robust with electrification‐compliance scope again driving up costs. This scope is important as it affects the ability to run a safe and sustainable railway. Network Rail is currently reviewing all available options to deliver this project within the timescales and affordability criteria.

2.17. In 2014 we determined an efficient price for the Rolling Programme based upon Network Rail’s submission. Last year Network Rail presented an estimate that had increased on our determination by around 50%. As with EGIP, the bulk of this was due to late identification of additional scope required to ensure compliance with legal obligations. Network Rail also suggested that its original submission was premature and the scope of works it had identified inadequate to achieving compliance.

2.18. We consider that the significant changes to the programme’s cost and scope, together with Network Rail’s view that the submission was premature, necessitate a further efficiency review. We will examine the most recent estimated costs and make an assessment of whether the additional scope can be justified in terms of delivering the project outputs and whether the new cost estimates represent efficient expenditure. This review is expected to commence in January 2017, when Network Rail has received an estimate from the main contractor for the works, meaning Network Rail’s project estimate will be more robust.

3. Links to Transport Scotland review

3.1. All of our analysis will be available to Transport Scotland for its own review work.

4. Network Rail’s Train Service Performance in Scotland

4.1. Performance was 90.6% at the end of 2015‐16 on the standard PPM measure. This was short of the year end regulatory target of 92.0%. Following engagement with the Alliance we considered that there was a good understanding of the factors impacting performance and robust plans were in place to meet the targets in 201617. We therefore decided not to launch a formal investigation; however we committed to enhanced monitoring of performance in Scotland during 2016‐17.

4.2. PPM data to the end of period 5 (up to 20 August 2016) shows that overall performance in Scotland, is 89.7% (on a moving annual average basis) which is 2.3% lower than the regulatory target of 92%.

4.3. Although Network Rail is measured against the PPM target, in interpreting whether the company is doing all that is reasonably practicable to meet the target we look at what is driving changes in performance. This includes looking at the

5

REC/S5/16/4/3

extent of Network Rail’s control over different factors affecting performance. For example, when the PPM data is adjusted for the impact of train operator failures (such as train crew or fleet, which Network Rail does not control) beyond targeted levels, the ‘adjusted’ PPM is 90.4%, which is 1.6% lower than the year‐end target but in line with Network Rail’s profiled performance strategy target for period 5. Other factors affecting performance include:

4.4. Infrastructure issues – Whilst we are aware of some infrastructure issues including traction power failures, vegetation management and signalling failures, the general trend for delay causing infrastructure failures in Scotland is stable. However we are seeing a rise in delay minutes which is driven by an increase in delays per incident.

4.5. Delays per incident – Delays per incident are increasing (this includes the time taken to fix the issue and recover the service both of trains directly and indirectly impacted by the incident).

4.6. Network Rail has said that there are plans in place and investment has been allocated to address specific infrastructure problems. Network Rail has confirmed that it will ring‐fence £8 million per year for this year and next to deliver performance led renewals (this will include axle counter renewals, renewing and refurbishing switches and crossings in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Motherwell routes). This work aims to address the areas that are having the biggest impact on performance. To help address vegetation issues, Network Rail has brought forward £0.5m from later years in the control period to help accelerate removal of trees.

4.7. We will continue to hold Network Rail to account to ensure that its plans are targeted at increasing resilience and improved service recovery as well as underlying asset reliability.

4.8. Fatalities and trespass – Network Rail has reported that it is experiencing a 21% rise in fatality and trespass PPM failures in Scotland. This represents 456 more PPM failures when compared to last year.

4.9. Network Rail has said it continues to work with British Transport Police to help address the rise in external issues. Network Rail also has a programme of fencing underway to identify sites that require fencing to be added (such as Princess St Gardens in Edinburgh).

4.10. Another factor which is likely to impact on performance is the reopening of Glasgow Queen St Station. The closure of the high level station led to an increase in reactionary delay over the summer. The station reopened on 7 August and there is now a new timetable in place and some trains have been removed between Bathgate and Airdrie to try to avoid reactionary delays. Network Rail believes that the reopening of Queen Street Station will increase resilience.

4.11. Taking all this into account, Network Rail expects performance to improve, particularly following the reopening of Glasgow Queen Street high level station 6

REC/S5/16/4/3

and potential resolution of industrial relations issues. However Network Rail has said that it is unlikely it will achieve 92% at the end of 2016‐17.

4.12. We will continue to meet with the ScotRail Alliance with a view to obtaining assurance that its plans are being delivered. We will also continue to attend the Alliance Performance Strategy meeting to monitor progress. ORR’s Board will meet in the Autumn to discuss performance in Scotland and whether Network Rail is doing everything reasonably practicable to deliver its regulated target for 2016‐17.

7