Hansard

I welcome the debate, and I see positive things to celebrate about the state of our railways, which is why the Green and independent amendment does not seek to delete the whole of the Government’s motion. However, we part company with the Government on the issue of franchising. Although there may be benefits to the collaborative approach with the industry that the Government’s motion sets out, we see the possibility of greater benefits from another approach.

There is a need for the travelling public to be much more fully involved in future decisions about franchising. Current train operating companies may be private sector profit-seeking businesses, but Scotland’s railways are public services, and the public should be centrally involved in setting the priorities.

I want all the options to be open for Scotland in restoring a public service ethos to our rail business. We on the Green side of the chamber hope that Scotland will soon take on the powers to change UK legislation and open up new possibilities, which would include Labour’s option of a mutual or not-for-profit franchisee. Such a bid could be made at the moment, but realistically it will not materialise out of thin air. That option needs Government support, which would at present be inhibited. Private sector bidders would be able to oppose such Government support for a not-for-profit operator, but we could in future remove that barrier.

We could go further and look again at the whole concept of franchising or at least permit publicly owned bodies to bid against other competitors. Against a public subsidy of just over £300 million in 2011-12, more than £20 million was taken out as profit in the ScotRail franchise. As Alex Johnstone said, the Scottish Government is then beholden to a haggling process to see whether any of that money can be put back into reinvestment. That is a substantial proportion of the public subsidy that we are paying.

The ideological obsession with privatisation reveals itself in relation to the east coast franchise. We have seen two private sector failures, and we have seen public sector rescue followed by broadly successful public sector management. Punctuality levels are up, and customer satisfaction on the line is at its highest ever level. More than £800 million has been returned to the taxpayer. The state-run east coast rail service requires less public subsidy than any of the 15 privately run rail franchises in Britain. That is according to the rail regulator. In April this year, it reported that the net subsidy for the east coast line was 1 per cent of its income compared with an average of 32 per cent.

As far as we understand, the UK Government has invited bids without reference to the Scottish Government or the interests of the travelling public in Scotland. That is a damning indictment of the ideological obsession with what should be a public service being run for private profit.

I very much welcome the briefing paper from Transform Scotland and I welcome the Liberal Democrat amendment, which refers to it. If we want rail to continue to grow not as part of a more-of-everything approach but to reduce car use—which the minister’s motion claims as a priority—there is a real need to ensure that rail services are not only reliable and affordable in absolute terms but competitive with road journeys on cost and journey time.

The Transform Scotland proposals are of direct relevance to that issue. For example, Transform Scotland’s proposals on the Highland main line cite the Edinburgh to Aberdeen comparison alongside the Edinburgh to Newcastle comparison. Those train journeys are of roughly the same distance—124 miles and 130 miles—and yet the one from Edinburgh to Aberdeen is 50 minutes slower than the one to Newcastle.

Transform Scotland said that it might have been a wee bit too conservative in the figures on the Perth to Inverness journey times in its briefing. The figures that it used, which are based on the AA’s figures, suggest that the leg from Perth to Inverness should take two hours and 33 minutes by car, but Transport Scotland’s figures suggest that the journey is typically 90 minutes to 110 minutes by car. That compares very poorly with the train service.

We need to prioritise the relatively modest investment that would be required to improve the Highland main line and make those services competitive for the future. Transform Scotland has also made proposals for the Edinburgh to Perth direct line. Reinstating that would not only give the chance for shorter intercity journeys within Scotland but free up capacity for improved local services in Fife.

Notwithstanding Tavish Scott’s assertions about the early days of devolution, for years we have seen a heavy emphasis on road investment. We need only to follow the money. Successive Scottish Administrations have prioritised road spending. The M74 was extended while Glasgow crossrail plans gathered dust on the shelf. The Aberdeen western peripheral route was pushed through on spurious cost projections while the Aberdeen crossrail suffers the same fate as its Glasgow comparator.

Current spending on the A9 and the additional Forth road bridge not only represent resources being diverted to road when they could have improved our rail infrastructure but could lead to a threat to the long-term competitiveness of rail services in the future.

I urge the Scottish Government to acknowledge not only what is good but what needs to be much better.

I move amendment S4M-06766.4, to leave out from first “acknowledges” to end and insert:

“recognises the constraints under which the ScotRail franchise must operate as a result of UK legislation, but considers that the Scottish Government could ensure greater transparency in its franchise decisions; believes that, when Scotland is able to remove the constraints of UK legislation, renationalisation of the railways or the use of a non-profit franchise holder would deliver better value for the public investment in Scotland’s railways; condemns the UK Government’s plans to reprivatise the profitable East Coast line, a decision that it understands was announced without reference to the Scottish Government; expresses concern that the Scottish Government’s road-building priorities risk making rail uncompetitive on price and journey times for routes north of the central belt, and believes that the public money currently committed to upgrading the A9 would be better spent on rail infrastructure, including the comparatively modest upgrades required to improve the Highland main line.”

15:13