Plenary, 26 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Official Report 453KB pdf

---

Railways Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2244, in the name of Nicol Stephen, on the Railways Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.

The motion is very significant; it concerns the most extensive devolution of new responsibilities to Scottish ministers since the Parliament's creation in 1999.

I thank the Local Government and Transport Committee for the hours of detailed scrutiny that were given to the Sewel motion in a short space of time. I welcome the time and effort that the committee gave to its consideration and the detailed work that was done into the evening last Tuesday and right through lunch time into Wednesday afternoon. I also thank all the officials and advisers, both those who gave advice to the committee and the advisers and officials in the Scottish Executive who put in a huge amount of effort to secure what I believe is a very good deal for Scotland. I believe that because, on many occasions since 1999, members of the Parliament have argued that we should have more powers over the rail network in Scotland.

Scottish ministers already have an important role in specifying rail services in Scotland, but the proposals in the bill go a lot further and are much wider than that. They will give Scottish ministers powers over not only the rail franchise, but the rail network—the track, the stations and all the other infrastructure.

Once the changes have been implemented, Scottish ministers will have responsibility for planning, specifying, managing and financing rail passenger franchises in Scotland. Scottish ministers will become the signatory to the ScotRail franchise, which now operates 95 per cent of rail services in Scotland. We will have the Strategic Rail Authority's powers to secure the provision, improvement and development of railway services in Scotland. We will be better able to plan the secure services in the future and to target future investment.

Scottish ministers will also have the responsibility for the specification and financing of rail infrastructure in Scotland. We will determine the priorities and the specification for the network in Scotland to best meet Scottish needs. The new powers will be good for the rail network in Scotland, for passengers and for the rail freight industry. The overall aim is to ensure that decisions on improving services are made by those who are best placed to determine local and Scottish priorities. That is what this new devolution of powers will deliver.

The proposed legislation will change rail industry structures. The additional powers will allow us to create a simpler, more direct and more effective structure in Scotland. With the new responsibilities will come new relationships, especially with the Office of Rail Regulation and Network Rail, which will be vital to the delivery of the major improvements to the rail network in Scotland that we all want. I am confident that we can develop a better, more direct, less complex approach and that we can deliver better for the rail network in Scotland.

We have a unique opportunity that cannot be missed. We must move now, quickly, to introduce changes. The time is right. We have an opportunity to attract industry professionals to Scotland and to the headquarters of the proposed new national transport agency in Glasgow. It is important that we seek to secure staff from the SRA, who will have the expertise that we require in Scotland.

In contrast with what is happening elsewhere, exciting new developments are taking place throughout the rail network in Scotland and there is record spending on transport. I mentioned the new transport agency. The Transport (Scotland) Bill, which proposes a new and important regional transport structure, is progressing through the Parliament. New rail lines and stations are due to open and there is investment in the rail industry on a scale that has not been seen for decades. A new franchise agreement is in operation.

The key element that was rightly of the greatest concern to the Local Government and Transport Committee was the need to ensure a fair and reasonable financial settlement to back up the new powers. We have achieved that. We agreed a funding transfer of around £325 million, to support the transfer of responsibilities. It would be wrong to go into all the detail of the funding transfer today, but a great deal of detailed scrutiny has taken place and I will summarise the position.

You have one minute left.

Thank you. I will be brief.

The settlement includes: £7.5 million per annum to accompany the transfer to Scotland of the majority of the SRA's functions; around £302 million per annum to fund Network Rail's operations, maintenance and renewals activities in Scotland to deliver the network outputs in Scotland that we will specify—although more work needs to be done on the matter with the Office of Rail Regulation; and £17 million per annum, plus a share of future Great Britain spending, to fund enhancements to the rail network in Scotland.

A large amount of work went into the detailed scrutiny of the financial settlement, but the simple message is that there would have been no sense in taking on additional powers unless we were to have the right resources. Although further work by the Office of Rail Regulation will be needed, it is important to emphasise that we have achieved a fair and reasonable settlement, which includes funding for us to assume responsibility for new enhancements to the rail network. That has enabled us to get on with the funding and delivery of phase 1 of the Waverley station redevelopment project, which is very important for Scotland.

Three questions can be asked. First, do we want the additional powers for Scotland? I think that all members will answer in the affirmative. Secondly, have we achieved a fair and reasonable settlement for Scotland? I believe that we have. Finally, are we prepared to proceed, given the risks and responsibilities that the transfer of powers will involve? My answer to all three questions is yes and it is now, quite properly, for the Parliament to decide on the issue. I believe firmly that the proposals are good for passengers, good for the rail freight industry and good for the future of rail in Scotland. If we have the powers, we can get on with supporting and delivering the rail network that we all want in Scotland with far greater confidence.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that those provisions that confer executive powers and functions on the Scottish Ministers in the Railways Bill and those that relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament.

The Scottish National Party exists to transfer power over our affairs to the Scottish Parliament, so it will come as no surprise to members who have followed the debate closely that we have long argued that rail policy should be devolved to this institution. The motion is necessary for that to occur, so we will support it later this afternoon.

I am pleased that Bristow Muldoon, the convener of the Local Government and Transport Committee, has altered his view. He argued the contrary case in Holyrood magazine. On the question whether rail policy should be devolved to the Parliament, Kenny MacAskill said yes and Bristow Muldoon said no.

Will the member give way?

I am delighted to give way to Bristow Muldoon on the basis that he has seen the light.

Does the member acknowledge that, in the article in which Kenny MacAskill and I debated those points, I argued for the importance of maintaining a United Kingdom-wide Network Rail organisation to secure Scotland's economic interests in cross-border services? Is that not precisely what has been achieved?

No, I disagree with that. Bristow Muldoon defended the SRA, which brings me to my second point. Powers are being transferred to our Parliament not because the Executive sat down with Her Majesty's Government and said, "We believe that these powers should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament." Powers are being transferred because the UK Government decided that the SRA should be abolished. The devolution of powers is welcome, but it is certainly an unintended consequence of the policy move of scrapping a quango.

I turn to parliamentary scrutiny. I and other members of the Local Government and Transport Committee took part in the 13-hour, quadruple marathon session last week. However, just as the delayed train at platform 8 was unfortunate, it was extremely unfortunate for this Parliament that the huge volume of information that I now have in my hand was not presented to Parliament until after the interval at the end of the meeting last Tuesday. That may not have mattered for our own contributions, but—and this is a serious point of principle—it prevented rail industry experts from Scotland and elsewhere from making their input to the committee's deliberations. That was a lacuna, especially because on 2 November I raised all the issues on the criteria that would be used to determine Scotland's share.

The key question is whether, after we have the powers, resources will follow. It is too early to reach a final conclusion on that question—not least because the deal that has been struck, as the minister has stated, is an interim deal. Once the work that is described in the rail review has been undertaken, will the minister bring the final deal before Parliament? What role will Parliament play in that? What is the basis of the calculation of the figure for enhancements of around £17 million? No explanation has been given.

On cross-border services, I understand that the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in the UK has already ventured the opinion that there is a risk that an undue proportion of the costs of maintenance of Scottish track that is used by southern freight services will be borne from our share of the financial cake. I ask the minister about that. There may be nothing to criticise, but we do not yet have the answer to the question.

A serious deficiency is that Network Rail will not be devolved. We will therefore have no direct route of accountability for Network Rail, which, according to the ORR's statement, is 31 per cent inefficient. There will be no rail passengers council for Scotland—or, if there is, it will have no statutory power to require Network Rail to provide information.

The SNP is happy to support Sewel motions when they transfer more power to this institution. That is why we will support the motion this afternoon.

My final comment is this. If it is possible to find a way of achieving responsibility for financing the rail industry and the rail network in Scotland, another hoary chestnut against independence will be gone. That will show that the process of Scotland's becoming independent will not be impeded by the financial and technical tasks of allocating responsibility for the railways.

I have previously set out my reservations about Sewel motions. Indeed, Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament and at UK level believe in the need for an independent review of the relationship between this Parliament and the UK Parliament, because the relationship has not developed.

However, I do not wish to use the short time that is available to go on at length about that issue. We will support the motion because, as we have made clear many times, we are of the view that devolution is a process, not an event. When it is sensible for powers to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament, we will support that. In the case of the powers that we are discussing, which relate to the rail industry, it is sensible that they be transferred. That said, our party has serious reservations about other aspects of the Railways Bill, which will be expressed at Westminster.

It is clear that the scrutiny process—which, by any standards, was extensive but, as Fergus Ewing indicated, not always satisfactory—probed many of the issues surrounding the funding issue that is at the core of this afternoon's debate. As I said to the Local Government and Transport Committee, on the basis of what we were able to establish during our scrutiny, I am satisfied with the financial settlement. However, I repeat the caveat that was made by Ernst & Young in one of the many documents that it produced for the committee, which was that it was not fully aware of every circumstance and that the accounting regime of the railway industry was difficult to fathom. If further additional information or concerns should emerge, all members of the committee and, indeed, the Parliament, have a right and a duty to re-examine the financial settlement.

I hope that the committee will revisit the serious issues that came to light in relation to Network Rail—although it would be preferable if we did not do so in marathon sessions lasting seven hours 40 minutes. The performance of its representatives at the committee's meeting was not impressive. The fact that other people had to produce some of the figures, such as that for the number of employees that Network Rail has, does not augur well for the organisation's structure. It emerged in the committee's discussion that it is important that Network Rail should be organised in such a way as to enable it to work with the Executive, which will take on new responsibilities from the SRA. If Network Rail does not have the correct structure to enter partnership mode, many of the aspirations may not be realised.

My final point—again, I raised it in the committee—concerns Strathclyde Passenger Transport. I would like the minister to give a firmer answer than the one that he gave to the committee. The minister will be aware that Labour members of Parliament tabled amendments to the Railways Bill on SPT, which, as regards the rail franchise, will not be in the same position as passenger transport executives in the rest of the UK. I realise that some of those issues are to do with the fact that those arrangements overlap with the arrangements that the Transport (Scotland) Bill proposes, but it would be both helpful and reassuring if the minister could set out clearly the role that he envisages that SPT will have in relation to the rail franchise.

I do not know whether the debate is giving me a sense of déjà vu or the surreal feeling that we are joining Alice in Wonderland. I have decided that it is not déjà vu that I am experiencing, as the Scottish National Party is not opposing the motion, even though we are having a debate on a Sewel motion. That was not the case when the Local Government and Transport Committee considered the Sewel motion on the Gambling Bill.

I must conclude that we are in Wonderland, especially if we take into account the comments that Fergus Ewing made during the committee's consideration of the Railways Bill last week. He said:

"Obviously, the Scottish National Party welcomes the transfer of more powers to the Scottish Parliament."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 19 January 2005; c 1957.]

However, only a few weeks earlier, the SNP opposed the Sewel motion on the Gambling Bill and attempted to stop the transfer of powers to the Executive that it proposed. Far be it from me to help the Opposition to increase its vote in any way, but I advise the SNP that it may find it easier to convince the electorate that it means what it says if it does not change its position from one debate to the next.

I will come to Fergus Ewing in a moment.

Inconsistency may have been part and parcel of life in Wonderland for Alice, but Fergus in Wonderland does not have the same ring to it, although he might be able to help us with that. I see that he does not want to now, although I gave him the opportunity. The Tories were little better; they appear to have left Neverland to get to where they are today. David Mundell is now sitting on his own, so he must know who the lost boys are.

We should concentrate on the Sewel motion, which is a good one. After a marathon meeting of the Local Government and Transport Committee, we achieved consensus on the motion. Post privatisation, the British railway system was in a mess, but the Labour Government at Westminster is seeking to address that chaos. We in Scotland will be given enhanced powers over the rail network as a result of the Government's proposals. The Scottish Executive ministers will be given a role that is equivalent to that of the Secretary of State for Transport, which means that we will be in a win-win situation that will enable better planning of services and more accurate targeting of future investment in Scotland.

The most important beneficiaries of the new powers will be not the Scottish Executive ministers and their officials, nor the MSPs who can hold them to account over what they do with the new powers and resources, but Scotland's rail passengers, the number of whom will, I hope, grow in the future. They have the most to gain from the new arrangement. We need greater efficiency and more co-ordination between train operators and track providers. If that can be achieved, we will have a more reliable service for travellers. When we can ensure that decisions on service improvement are made by those who are best placed to determine local priorities, the Executive's welcome investment in the ScotRail franchise—which has already resulted in 29 new trains and the provision of several longer station platforms—will be developed further. We will also be better placed to reduce overcrowding, improve customer information and integrate ticket arrangements, which are much-needed improvements. The changes that will be brought about if we agree to the Sewel motion will result in better planning and a greater ability to meet our and the country's aspirations on rail transport.

To return to Wonderland, it is worth noting that, if Tricia Marwick had achieved her proposed moratorium on Sewel motions, we would not have obtained the powers that we will receive as a result of the Railways Bill and the Gambling Bill. The Local Government and Transport Committee took a long time to consider the Sewel motion, which was appropriate. The Opposition parties may have travelled via Wonderland and Neverland, but we have arrived at a good destination for railways in Scotland. At the very least, we should be happy with that and support the Sewel motion accordingly.

I am afraid that there is time for only one speaker in the open debate. I call Helen Eadie.

You have taken me by surprise, Presiding Officer, but I rise to support the Sewel motion. I share the view of the Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen, that a number of exciting and progressive transport developments are taking place in Scotland. I warmly welcome those developments and I congratulate the minister and his team on delivering them.

Like the minister, I commend the Local Government and Transport Committee for its work. Word went round the Scottish Parliament like wildfire the day after the marathon meeting of the Local Government and Transport Committee. The committee has set a high standard of scrutiny. Other committees might like to have the reputation of carrying out good scrutiny, but I am not sure that they would like to have marathon meetings such as the one that the Local Government and Transport Committee had.

I welcome the Sewel motion. The power that will be given to the Scottish Executive to develop a new strategy will be of particular benefit to the people of Scotland. As I understand it from reading the Official Report of the debate in the Local Government and Transport Committee, that is one of the key changes that will arise. In the past, we have not had the ability to set our own strategy in Scotland.

Does Helen Eadie accept that UK Labour policy is for an integrated publicly owned rail network? Given that, in Scotland, the new powers may give us the power to have an integrated publicly owned rail network, does Helen Eadie agree that we should use that power?

I like to think that we could work towards having those powers. I have always believed that public accountability is the key to safety and high standards in the railway network. Whether we should have public ownership in that way is something that there is a big debate about. I would support that, but I am not sure that everyone would be convinced about the need for that.

I warmly welcome the move to have the Strategic Rail Authority wound up. There has been too much complexity in the rail industry, and something that will simplify the situation is bound to be welcomed. In particular, I commend the fact that we are moving away from the federal structure that has been in place, which has made rail passengers so unhappy under the past franchisee, ScotRail. I am pleased that we are moving away from that towards a single structure that will enable rail passengers to have an input.

I hope that, in the future, when the minister is developing his plans, he will consider what more can be done to help disabled transport users throughout Scotland. That is a still a mammoth challenge. The minister has the right to establish a code of practice, and I hope that he sets the standard that, in the 20 years ahead, every railway station in Scotland must be accessible to disabled transport users and parents with pushchairs. If he does that, he will achieve something singularly important.

I support the motion in the name of the minister.

Unsurprisingly, given the position that the Local Government and Transport Committee established last week, I support the passing of the Sewel motion. It is important to note, as Michael McMahon recognised, that the Sewel motion transfers powers to the Scottish Parliament. Given the recognition by both the First Minister and the Minister for Transport of the scale of the devolution from the UK Government to the Scottish Executive, it is disappointing that there has been so little media coverage of it over the past week. It is disappointing that the Scottish media ignore Sewel motions when there is agreement on them, in spite of the fact that they can have a positive effect on the ability of the Parliament to deliver for the people of Scotland. It is a sad indictment of the way in which our media operate that so little coverage has been given to the issue.

I will respond to the comments of Fergus Ewing and David Mundell before I address the issue in more general terms. Fergus Ewing's speech was pretty disappointing, given the fact that he supports the devolution of these powers. He demonstrated his ability to continue to be negative about an issue even when he supports it. It is ironic that he is concerned about cross-border services. I imagine that, in an independent Scotland, he would put an end to such services in case any English medical graduates tried to sneak across the border.

David Mundell gave a far more measured speech. He made the important point that the internal structures of Network Rail must be sufficient to enable it to engage with the Scottish Executive to deliver on the Executive's priorities.

I know that Bristow Muldoon's time is limited, so I thank him for giving way. First, on the new structure, does the member think that, as well as maintenance being brought in-house in Scotland, track renewals should be brought in-house? Secondly, what would he say to the minister about concessionary travel? Should we remove the two-tier scheme that currently exists and have a unified concessionary travel scheme for the workers?

I will address concessionary travel when we debate the Transport (Scotland) Bill. We are short of time just now.

If Network Rail believes that there is a good case for bringing services in-house, to benefit the efficiency of the operation, of course I will support its doing that. However, the managers of Network Rail are probably best placed to decide that.

On Tommy Sheridan's earlier intervention, I note that it was the trade union of which I am a member that moved the motion to support a move towards public ownership of the railways—something that was never achieved in the days when the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers was still affiliated to the Labour party.

The questions that need to be asked are whether appropriate powers are being transferred to the Scottish Executive, whether those powers will enable the Scottish Executive to improve the operation of railways in Scotland and whether the financial resources are sufficient to enable the aspirations to be fulfilled. The answer to each of those is yes, as the minister has indicated.

The issue on which the committee concentrated was finance. On that, the committee ultimately reached the conclusion that the deal is, in the words that the minister used, a "fair and reasonable" settlement. We reached that conclusion because we believe that the £302 million, which is the majority of the funding, is sufficient to bridge the gap between Network Rail's other income and the Scottish railway network's priorities—the major renewal and maintenance programmes that have been embarked upon in recent years to meet fully the network's needs. We reached that conclusion after speaking to many of the main bodies and experts in the industry.

I am convinced that the powers are positive for the Scottish Parliament and will enable the Executive to deliver and have greater control over major infrastructure projects. Who knows? We might even reach unanimous agreement on a Sewel motion.

I encourage members to support the motion.

I will make two brief points. The first is, surprisingly, that I agree strongly with what Bristow Muldoon said about the significance of the event. The transfer of powers is highly significant, which is why, although it was, at times, uncomfortable, I do not object to having spent seven hours and 40 minutes of the committee's time examining it. It is now for the minister and the Executive to deliver on the basis of their new powers and it will be for the Opposition groups to continue to hold the Executive to account for not delivering if it does not do so.

On the wider issue of Sewel motions, which was raised in the debate, there is clearly a misunderstanding among many members on the constitutional status of the Sewel motion. The Westminster Parliament is able to transfer the powers regardless of whether a Sewel motion is agreed to in this Parliament. The fundamental misunderstanding about that among many members is one of the reasons why we need a review of the working arrangements between this Parliament and the Westminster Parliament.

I concur with Bristow Muldoon and David Mundell that the transfer of powers is significant. It is going through rather unheralded and without fanfare, but it should be welcomed, which is why the Scottish National Party has no hesitation in supporting it, notwithstanding the fact that it comes by way of a Sewel motion.

The minister, the committee and its convener are to be congratulated on their forbearance. It was always our position that the powers should be transferred, but the minister was correct to ensure that adequate funding was consequent thereto. Had we obtained the powers without the funding, significant difficulty would have followed, but the transfer of powers and the repatriation of funding to the Parliament will add to the Parliament and improve the lot of the weary traveller in Scotland.

We have a long route to travel and we can and must do better. We must address unreliability, overcrowding and other issues that are simply unacceptable. Major infrastructure projects are welcome, and we want them to be rolled out in due course—sooner rather than later. However, the initial priority for all users must be a service that arrives on time, in safety and in comfort.

The transfer at least allows us to address our priorities and take it from there. We must examine the fine print and ensure that our financial interests are addressed. Some issues still have to be considered, such as the asset base that remains. The value of the new, enhanced Waterloo station does not appear to have been brought into the equation, although we have paid for it. It is clear that we are expected to fund the direct rail links to the airports at Edinburgh and Glasgow, which the SNP supports, but, although all taxpayers and every commuter in Scotland paid for the channel tunnel, we do not have access to that direct link. Presumably, we need to keep on fighting Scotland's corner to ensure that we can get it.

We do not want to be too churlish, but a number of points should be made. It is appropriate to remind Labour members in particular that they were the ones who opposed the measures that are now contained in the bill. I do not want to quote extensively, but we heard warnings from previous ministers about how the railways would almost grind to a halt, how we would be on a siding to nowhere and how the changes would be impossible to achieve but, lo and behold, here we have a significant transfer of powers. We have always pointed out that trains can travel not just across Europe, or indeed from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, but from Europe into Asia—across Eurasia on the trans-Siberian express—with no difficulty, yet we have been told that it would be impossible to do the same across the border here.

The convener of the Local Government and Transport Committee, Bristow Muldoon, deserves to be applauded for his forbearance with regard to the bill and the committee's mammoth evidence-taking session, but it would be remiss of me not to comment on the article from 6 October 2003—which is not that long ago, as my colleague, Fergus Ewing pointed out—in which he and I were involved. The question that was the subject of the debate in the article was, "Should rail policy be devolved to the Parliament?" "No", said Bristow.

I do not want to be too hard. Bristow was only carrying out the instructions of those who were bidding him to contribute to the article. I think that his private view was always different. However, he did write:

"Whilst it is possible to have trains operating between different jurisdictions, as with the Channel Tunnel services, it is not clear to me what the benefits would be of the increased fragmentation which you advocate … Let's not become distracted by unnecessary organisational change at this point."

As I said, I am only too grateful for the committee's work and the forbearance that Bristow Muldoon has shown, and I am glad that he has now come round to our point of view. To his credit, I think that Bristow always agreed with that view.

There is a long way to go, but this is a significant moment in the history of the Parliament. The bill will allow us to integrate services far more easily and extensively than before. In the end, this is not about a change in the motif on trains, as we have seen in the transition from one ScotRail franchise to another, nor is it simply about a constitutional change—for the commuter, it does not matter whether Westminster or the Scottish Parliament has the relevant powers; what matters is the service that is delivered.

Having taken over the responsibility, we have a duty to improve the service and raise our game. We must address not just the major infrastructure projects in which we seek to engage, but we must improve the lot of the weary Scottish commuter—never mind the freight sector, which has paid too high a price for too poor a service for too long.

It would be churlish to do otherwise, so we fully support the bill and we are grateful for the actions of the Minister for Transport and of the Local Government and Transport Committee and its convener.

This is a very important day for the development of the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The bill is important, as the new powers that it transfers to the Parliament are substantial. The debate has been positive, and I am pleased that there is all-party support for this important Sewel motion.

Fergus Ewing was doing uncharacteristically well in his speech, until he turned to independence. That goes to the heart of the problem for the SNP. This sort of debate shows why we do not need independence, and how we can sensibly deliver more powers to Scotland within the current structures of the United Kingdom and devolution. That gave Fergus Ewing a dilemma. However, I am pleased that, throughout the detailed committee scrutiny and most of his speech today, Fergus Ewing focused on the facts and put some sensible questions to me. I hope that I can respond to them.

We will, of course, bring back the final financial deal to the Local Government and Transport Committee if it wants to see it and if it wants to scrutinise the output of the work that is to be done by the Office of Rail Regulation. It was important that we agreed with the UK Government that the final deal in relation to the regulatory asset base would be close to a 10 per cent share. That allowed us to limit the uncertainty and to give as much clarity as possible to the Local Government and Transport Committee on Tuesday and Wednesday of last week and to the Parliament today.

Will the minister confirm to the Parliament what he confirmed to the Local Government and Transport Committee that, of the £519 million of annual expenditure, £53 million comes from fares, with the other £466 million coming from the public purse? If we are paying for the rail network in Scotland, why do we not own it?

A significant amount of the investment in the rail network comes from the public purse. That is why we should strive to ensure that passengers receive the best possible service and that the network continues to grow and develop. That is what we will concentrate on, rather than the arguments of yesterday. That is the opportunity that these new powers give us. It is an opportunity that is given to us also by the £17 million a year that is available for additional enhancements. That will help to generate around £170 million of new capital investment in our rail network. I say to Fergus Ewing that we worked hard to negotiate that figure with the UK Government and that, in addition, we will get the Barnett formula consequentials of any UK investment in enhancements of the rail network.

I am in agreement with much of what the minister says, but I would like to ask him a question. If the London crossrail investment, which some people say might be as much as £10 billion, or any similar massive investment in the infrastructure of London and the south-east of England is off balance sheet—which is to say, it has nothing to do with Network Rail—is it not the case that no Barnettised share will come to Scotland as a result?

If there is such an increase in UK expenditure, money will come from the Treasury in the fair way that I described. However, at the moment, enhancements across the UK network have been small. That is why it was important for us to negotiate the additional sum of £17 million a year, which has allowed us to announce the full funding for the extremely important phase 1 of Waverley station's redevelopment.

I confirm that the Scottish Executive wants a rail passengers committee to be set up. We also intend to participate in the UK committee.

I am pleased that David Mundell supports the new powers. Of course, that contrasts starkly with the views of his colleague, Lord Forsyth, who still appears to be hell-bent on getting rid of the powers of this Parliament completely. David Mundell questions me on delivery, but he should ask himself what sort of rail network Scotland would be looking forward to if his party were still in power. Given his party's plans to cut public expenditure in Scotland still further, we should think about what we could expect from it in future.

We are doing a lot. Members should contrast the Tory record with ours, which includes the Airdrie to Bathgate line; the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line; the Borders rail link; the Larkhall to Milngavie line; the Glasgow airport rail link; the redevelopment of Waverley station; Glasgow crossrail; the Edinburgh airport rail link; and Aberdeen crossrail. All of those projects are happening under this Executive. We are also going to push forward the Partick interchange proposal; the Gourock interchange; the north-east rail freight gauge enhancement; the Inverness service; and the reopening of Laurencekirk station. That is an ambitious set of proposals for Scotland.

In the past, some projects have taken too long and have been too complex and too expensive. In that regard I mention Edinburgh Park station; Lockerbie station, with its still unbuilt footbridge; and the fact that work on the Larkhall to Milngavie line started in the final month before its tenure consent expired, which was nine years 11 months after the consent was granted. All of that must change and the new structure that we are discussing gives us the best chance of delivering such change.