Hansard

The debate is already getting lively—I am quite enjoying it. I will get straight to the point, as I have only a few minutes. The Conservatives will not be supporting Labour’s motion today, and I will explain why—if Labour members will chirp down for just a second and listen, please.

No member in the chamber can say that the current franchise is working perfectly for everyone in every part of Scotland, nor do I think that there is any long-term strategy for our country’s railways. However, let us look objectively at why pulling the rug from under the feet of the current operator would do more harm than good. First, we must consider the message that it would send. It would send the message that, if a company signs up to and invests billions of pounds in a franchise, the political wind can change and the contract can be terminated early. Anybody who knows anything about how rail franchises work knows that it is in the last crucial few years when you start to see the fruit of your investment.

Members should understand that this debate is not about early termination. As we have heard, the mask has dropped today. The debate is about calling for nationalisation, but the motion pretends that it is not. We know that it is about nationalisation because that is the media headline that Labour has been putting out, and because there are unions demonstrating outside the Parliament. I understand and respect that Labour want to make a political point, but nationalisation is an unfunded ideology that members on the Conservative side of the chamber are not willing to sign up to.

Let us look at what Labour is asking for. We must ensure that our terminology is accurate. The debate is not about unduly extending a franchise, nor is it about rewarding poor performance. Labour is calling for early termination of a 10-year agreement. Under the existing franchise, the taxpayer is paying 20 per cent less than under the previous franchise, but there has been a 30 per cent increase in the number of carriages, a 10 per cent increase in the number of weekday services and a 13 per cent increase in the number of railway jobs in Scotland. I would have thought that Labour members would have been grateful for that.

I am not saying that the current franchise is perfect—we would be the first to stand up and hold Michael Matheson to account when it fails. I am simply saying that we should not spend the next two years wasting time and money—up to £10 million—on a public sector bid when we should be focusing on delivering on the infrastructure that we have. ScotRail is currently under two very serious remedial notices; those are legal contractual agreements between the Government and the operator. The deadline for meeting those requirements comes after the date by which the early termination decision has to be made. To call for it now and pre-empt future performance would be short-sighted. Let us give ScotRail a go to succeed.

Some members will know—others might not—that one of the largest ever reviews of rail infrastructure in this country is going on right now: the Williams review. If it is published any time soon, we will find out whether the current franchise model will exist in the rail landscape of the future. The Scottish Government’s amendment alludes to that and contains sensible language in that regard.

However, the Scottish Government also contractually reserves the right to issue a default notice if it deems it appropriate. [Interruption.] Will Labour members stop arguing among themselves and listen? Let us be clear that an immediate termination would require the Government to step in as the operator of last resort, but the Government is not ready to do that, in my view.

Labour wants to strip ScotRail of the franchise for no other reason than to grab a headline, but that is all about nationalisation and nothing to do with delivering Scotland’s railway. We have not heard a single word in the debate, and nor will we, about how much it would cost to nationalise our railway.

We will hold Abellio and the SNP to account, but we will do that in a measured and sensible way. I want to hear the Government’s vision—a vision that meets its objectives on delivering a railway that is fit for purpose. That is the challenge that we should be discussing today. I hope that the Government will rise to that challenge.

I move amendment S5M-19190.1, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:

“notes that the Scottish Government has issued two remedial notices to ScotRail with a delivery deadline of 30 May 2020; understands that a no-rebasing notice to early terminate the franchise would have to be issued by the end of the calendar year; believes that the operator should be given the contractual ability to fulfil its obligations in the remedial plan; notes that the Williams Rail Review is due to report by the end of 2019; recognises that the Scottish Government reserves the right to issue a default notice and termination of the franchise at any point, and calls on the Scottish Government to propose a long-term, sustainable vision for the future of Scotland’s railways that looks beyond 2025.”