Official Report 236KB pdf
Agenda item 4 is the rail inquiry. I welcome the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, Iain Gray, who is here to give evidence. Kenneth Hogg, Jonathan Moore, James How, Karen Watson and Alan Clark are here to support the minister.
I do not have a great deal to say at the outset, except that I am pleased to be here to give the committee advance sight of the directions and guidance for the next Scottish passenger rail franchise. We intend to give the directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority in July. I am pleased to involve the committee and the Parliament in an important decision-making process.
I thank the minister. As you are aware, minister, the committee intends to comment on the directions and guidance and to make recommendations to you. In doing so, we will comply with the time scales that have been intimated to us.
In evidence on the draft directions and guidance for the replacement ScotRail franchise, we heard concerns that the target for refranchising by April 2004 might not be met. How confident are you about the timetable for the franchising process?
We are reasonably confident that we can achieve the targets in the timetable, which will allow us to roll out the franchise from April 2004. Perhaps more significant is that the SRA also believes that the timetable is achievable. It is responsible for running the franchise process all over the UK and has experience of the process, so we can set considerable store by its views.
The issue of investment in rolling stock in the period before the franchise is agreed has also been raised.
Our aim of refranchising at the end of the existing franchise in April 2004, and to do so on the basis of a longer franchise period—the committee will know that we hope that it will be 15 years—is in order to achieve maximum stability and improvement in the rail service in Scotland. We are always interested in possibilities for improving the existing service. If there was a possibility that new rolling stock could come into the services, we would consider that.
I have a supplementary question on that. You will be aware that the acting managing director of ScotRail referred to those proposals in his evidence to the committee last week. It seems to me that a danger in the rail franchising process is that there is a hiatus in investment towards the end of the franchise. Is the Executive pursuing the proposals with the NEG to assess whether the Executive could become involved in the proposed project?
My officials discussed the suggestion further with the NEG earlier this week. The agreement is that we need a detailed and more formal proposal before we consider whether we can make progress. I am hopeful that such a proposal will be forthcoming.
My other supplementary question relates to John Scott's first question, which was on the franchise process. Several industry figures have expressed scepticism about the SRA achieving the time scales. Is the Executive pursuing that with the SRA to seek reassurance that the SRA can deliver on the time scale?
The process of developing the franchise involves constant joint work between the Executive and the SRA. We are responsible for the directions, guidance and service specification for the franchise. We will also be responsible for paying for the franchise. However, the SRA will be responsible for running the franchise process. Therefore, I expect there to be constant contact and dialogue. As I said already in answer to Mr Scott, the SRA assures us that the timetable can be achieved. In our contact with the SRA throughout the process, we will ensure that we reach all the critical points in order to meet the timetable.
I want to ask about funding. Does the Executive need to indicate minimum amounts of SRA and Executive funding for infrastructure enhancement over the next five years and, indeed, the five years beyond that?
The question is about infrastructure.
Yes.
We indicated in the transport delivery report our key priorities for infrastructure projects. We undertook in the report to roll that forward into a plan. We aim to do that by the end of the year. Within that plan, we have to indicate how we will fund the projects and what time scale we want. The time scale and the nature of the funding package depend on several factors. Examples of such factors are—in the case of several of the project priorities—work that has been undertaken to identify what is required and, in a couple of cases, feasibility studies that were done even earlier in the process. The resources that we will make available will also depend on the outcome of the spending review process. We will develop the project priorities and build the way in which they will be financed and their timetables on a case-by-case basis. However, I expect to be able to give significantly more detail on that by the end of the year.
Can you give us a commitment to funding beyond the current five-year proposal?
If the question is whether I expect to see investment in infrastructure in the 10, 15 or 20-year period beyond our discussions, the answer is yes. The franchise that we decide on, which is a very important aspect of the process, will take account of that possibility and that desire. The franchise is about the services that are delivered on the infrastructure; infrastructural procurement will be entirely separate from that. However, the approach that we are taking is to create an enhanceable franchise in the expectation that we will see improvements and new infrastructure over the period of the franchise. The arrangements must ensure that the franchise holder can be asked to run services on the new infrastructure.
I am concerned that nothing in the draft directions and guidance refers to innovation and that we will end up with a conservative reaction from those who are bidding. Do not we need some greater clarity about funding regimes, to ensure that the bids are neither conservative nor difficult to compare with one another, as was the case with the east coast main line? I appreciate the difficulties that are involved in phasing together the spending review and the franchise process. However, there must be greater clarity so that we can get both innovation and comparability in the system. Could anything be done to ensure that?
I do not accept that the approach that we have taken, through the directions and guidance, does not allow for innovation. It starts with the current service as its baseline, then sets out about 17 priorities for improvement of the service by the franchise. Those include improved reliability, shorter journey times, better integration and greater reliability of transport services. Those are the top four priorities.
In considering procurement generally, we are trying to establish clear output specifications so that the contractor or bidder is clear about what the purchaser wants as part of the process. Do you think that a list of 17 outputs or priorities is adequately clear? Last week we heard evidence from ScotRail representatives, who said that they would prefer a framework that worked along the lines of three or four key priorities that they could build around, which might allow innovation. Having as many as 17 priorities creates some confusion about what weighting is given to different priorities in the framework.
If you look at paragraph 3.8 of the draft directions and guidance, which lists the 17 priorities, the first five are probably the key priorities in that they are the ones that emerged most strongly from the consultation process that preceded the preparation of the directions and guidance. If the question is whether the directions and guidance give enough indication of the level of service that we expect in order to invite bids, the answer is no. That is why the directions and guidance develop to the service specification, which will include some of the performance measures that we would expect the franchise bidders to be able to meet. I will ask Kenneth Hogg to add to that, because he has been involved in the preparation of the franchise process for longer than I have.
On leaving scope for innovation and creativity, bidders will be asked to give a range of prices. They will be asked to give a price for the current level of service and they will be asked to be creative and to say what else they could give us, either at no extra cost or at extra cost. At that point, they will be referred back to the list of priorities that we have compiled. We are encouraging bidders to be innovative and creative in the process.
You say that by the end of the year you will have a clearer idea of the funding for infrastructure. Are you conscious about how that dovetails into the franchise process? Surely if people want to make bids, they must have a firmer idea of the timetable for funding infrastructure. Will information on infrastructure funding dovetail into the franchise timetable?
We have taken a different approach to the one that Nora Radcliffe describes. Our approach is that the franchise will invite bids for the existing timetable as the base service, plus the improvements in reliability and so on that we have discussed. We are also working to identify which new services that would require new infrastructure can be included in the service requirement. There will be some such services.
I want to ask about enhancements. Would the agreement be flexible to the extent that if the franchise holder came up with a cost to run a service that the Executive felt was unreasonable, the Executive would be able to look to other providers to provide that service? For example, if the operator of an airport link came up with an unreasonable price, could another operator operate the route?
Yes.
I want to return to the idea that you should negotiate on investment in rolling stock on the understanding that that rolling stock will transfer if the franchise moves on to another operator. Does that idea open up the possibility of having shorter, five-year franchises to ensure that you do not have to renegotiate when additional services are needed?
We have the ability to go for shorter franchises if we want. We are going for a longer franchise because we believe that that will ensure stability for longer and that it will make the franchise a long-term investment for the franchise holder, which should ensure that the franchise holder tries harder to deliver the quality of service that we want than they would if they had a shorter franchise. Of course, some consideration has to be given to the problems that would arise if the franchise holder failed to deliver on the agreement. The 15-year franchise that we have in mind would have review breaks, which I think would occur every five years. If, at those reviews, it were established that the service was not being delivered, there would be a procedure for negotiating the improvements that would have to be made to reach the specified level of service. In the ultimate circumstance—if we believed that the franchise was never going to be delivered as agreed—the rail regulator would be able to remove the franchise from the franchise holder, although that would be a serious and draconian step.
Some of our witnesses have suggested that the 17 priorities do not amount to a strong enough commitment to safety, because safety is listed at number 10. You have said that your key objectives were the first five priorities. Are you happy that there is enough commitment to safety written into the directions and guidance?
It is clear that safety is our first priority. When we talk about infrastructure improvements, safety is always the starting point. However, key to the matter is the assessment procedure that we use to assess the bids, which will be the Scottish transport appraisal guidance procedure. Those bids will not be judged solely on the basis of price but on the basis of improvements, including improvements in safety, sustainable development and environmental considerations.
We have heard evidence that suggests that the level of operational support for rail services could be clarified and that a short cut could be made through the money-go-round by having track access charges being paid directly by the Scottish Executive to Railtrack's successor. Do you have a view on that?
The committee pressed quite strongly the issue of the transparency of track access charges. From my reading of the Official Report, I understand that you intend to pursue that issue further. I will be interested in what the committee's deliberations uncover. Transparency is important in relation to the subject that we are discussing.
Another issue that came through was that, apart from a reference to through-ticketing, the directions and guidance say nothing about fares. Some witnesses have suggested that a maximum standard fare should not usually be higher than the average cost of running a car over the same distance and that further concessions could be added for family travel, pensioners and other groups. Do you have a view on the suggestion that such a specification of fares should appear in the directions and guidance?
There will be something in the service specification about fares. As we know, in the Strathclyde Passenger Transport area there is more rigorous regulation of fares. I expect that there will be protection for fares that are charged to particularly vulnerable groups. I have a relatively open mind on whether there should be more specification of fares in the directions and guidance and I am more than willing to listen to the views of the committee. The key point that should be borne in mind is that it is a swings and roundabouts question, because a service specification that puts caps on fares or insists on a comparison of fares with other modes of transport might lead to a reduction in the improvement in other aspects of the service that are offered in a bid. I am willing to listen to the committee's views on the balance between those things.
Do you agree that, if we go down that route, it is important to consider the real costs of motoring, rather than the perceived costs?
The short answer is yes. If the service specification attempted to control fares, we would be setting a difficult and complex task in trying to link that to the costs of alternative forms of transport. The link would need to be robust enough to stand up to the scrutiny that it would certainly receive. However, there would be considerable debate and that difficulty might be another factor that the committee might wish to consider in deciding whether it is a route that it wants to pursue.
I appreciate that there was a consultation process, but there were problems because some of the key people were not consulted as fully as they might have been. If we want to move people from road to rail, the key people are those who are currently driving, rather than those who are currently rail passengers. If we focus on those people, issues such as access to rail, affordability of fares and journey times are crucial. We should not accept what came out of the consultation process as the be-all and end-all.
The stakeholder board is quite an interesting idea, but I note that at least one of the pieces of evidence that the committee took earlier indicated that, in a sense, that almost happened in Scotland in any case. Such a board was almost in operation, because the relationship between the different stakeholders was good, both in the industry and between the industry and the passenger consultative committee and other bodies. I would have no objection to considering the development of the idea, but I would ask what more it would add to the good relationships and discussions that have taken place.
The stakeholder board concept has now begun in Scotland—the term that is used is "virtual board". The board comprises representatives of the Executive, Railtrack, the SRA, all the operators, the rail regulator, the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive and others. To an extent, that concept has got under way. The board has met once and will meet again next month.
I would probably want the board to be constituted slightly differently. What you have described is very operator heavy. I am more interested in getting a bigger voice for rail users and the employees who are involved.
The consultation was quite extensive. There were some 240 responses and I have just been refreshing my memory about who responded. There was a response from the Automobile Association—there may also have been a response from the Royal Automobile Club, although I cannot see it at the moment—so one of the motoring organisations certainly contributed. There were also responses from a wide spectrum of members of the public, from local authorities, as one would expect, and from transport user groups. The consultation was pretty wide ranging and we received responses from a good spectrum of people.
You ran through a list of those who are involved in the virtual boards, but I did not hear you mention passenger representation. Are passenger interests represented on the virtual boards?
I do not know. I would have to check.
My point was that the stakeholder group or virtual board was, in essence, in operation in Scotland. However, if the committee has views on the make-up or operation of the board, we are open to suggestions.
The strength of virtual boards is that they are ad hoc and informal, so they can be put together to meet different circumstances much more flexibly than if we tried to formalise the system. However, passengers are major stakeholders and that should not be forgotten.
No.
Would there be merit in having a concordat between the Scottish Executive, the SRA and SPTE to address issues relating to rail priorities for Scotland and rail delivery in the period before the new franchise is agreed?
I think that I am right in saying that we have a memorandum of understanding, which provides a framework to proceed with discussions. I have made it clear, in the context of potential orders for new rolling stock, that the fact that we are looking to the franchise from April 2004 does not mean that we do not expect the current franchise to be delivered, nor do we expect to wait until after 2004 for any improvement. Indeed, we have taken forward and opened Edinburgh crossrail in the meantime. We will continue to work and put in place new services as and when we can. We certainly will not wait until after 2004 if we do not have to.
The central Scotland study is coming out later today. How do we fit anything that comes out of that study into the process that we are undertaking? My understanding is that a number of different studies that do not necessarily relate to one another have been undertaken, so I anticipate that what comes out will require a considerable amount of further study to identify priorities. If priority developments arise from the central Scotland study, how can they be plugged in, first into the rail franchise process, and secondly into the public finance bids process that might be required to proceed?
Neither of us knows all that is contained in the central Scotland corridor studies. I will not know until later today. I expect that we will be able to make the studies public tomorrow; I do not wish to delay.
The committee will support you strongly in that respect. If something comes out of the central Scotland study that you feel is a high priority, and it is feasible to proceed with it, could it be added to the 10 transport priorities that are identified in the transport delivery report?
The corridor studies are one of the 10 priorities, so in a sense if something comes out of the studies it will, de facto, be included in the list of priorities. The question is, can it be included in the priorities, even if it requires infrastructure investment in the franchise?
I want to follow up on some practical matters. When you spoke about the enhanceability of the franchise, you mentioned the possibility that franchisees might not come up to scratch. What checks will the Scottish Executive and the SRA introduce to assess the deliverability of bids? After all, I understand that not many people in the transport division of the Scottish Executive are involved in the railway side of things. Can you help us with that matter?
I have some figures for that. Two divisions within development department two—I get confused between divisions and departments—deal with rail in one way or the other. I am aware of the committee's past concerns that the Scottish Executive appears to have more significant capacity on the road side than on the rail side. As far as the numbers of officials are concerned, it would be disingenuous to pretend that that was not the case. That said, the position with roads is quite different, because we are directly responsible for the trunk road network. However, over recent months and years, significant changes have been made to ensure that we have the capacity to deal with the rail franchise and negotiations for rail infrastructure improvements.
Will you consult Railtrack or its successor organisation on the deliverability of franchise bids?
We will. Indeed, the draft directions and guidance encourage such consultation. Of course, having the preferred bidder work up a preferred bid will be a crucial stage in the franchise process.
Why do the draft directions and guidance not mention either the proposed length of the franchise or the length of possible extensions to it?
We have directed the SRA to put the franchise in place and are tapping into its expertise on the length of franchise that the market will best support. We believe, as does the SRA, that that period is 15 years. However, we have not written that into the draft directions and guidance because, if something changes dramatically in the interim, the SRA might then be obliged to introduce a franchise model that was inappropriate for the market conditions at that time.
Has not the time come to mention that 15-year period in the guidance? Will anything much change in the timetable that you have outlined?
The 15-year period will certainly be set out in the specification, which is the next stage of the process.
So people will operate on the assumption that the franchise will run for 15 years, even though that figure is not mentioned in the draft directions and guidance.
Yes.
Before we move on to Adam Ingram's questions about the structure of the industry and where responsibility lies, I have a question about franchises. The minister will be aware that the trade unions will give evidence after him today. The unions have expressed a preference for a publicly owned network or even a company limited by guarantee similar to the one that is proposed for Railtrack, which, although not the preferred option, is suggested in the written submission from the RMT. What, if any, consideration has the Executive given to such models as alternatives to the wholly private sector model?
We operate the franchise by competitive bid. That is the structure that we have developed and pursued to try to get the best deal financially and for service delivery.
Has there been no major investigation of other models to date?
Not to my knowledge. We have pursued with the Strategic Rail Authority the franchise process and how we can get the best out of it for passengers in Scotland.
I will move away from the franchise and on to rail structure and delivery. What measures are you considering to improve rail delivery?
The key elements of what we are doing to improve rail delivery are, for the service delivered, the franchise process, which we have just discussed, and for infrastructure improvement, those priorities that are outlined in the transport delivery report.
What are your views on the relative importance of funding and structural reforms? You are probably aware that there has been substantial debate on that.
If the question is whether the delivery of the service would be more effective if there were a Scottish equivalent of Railtrack, the priority at this time must be to get Railtrack out of administration. Further disruption or disintegration of the rail network would not be helpful. I am not convinced that having a Scottish Railtrack would allow us to deliver a better service for passengers in Scotland.
A number of members want to come in, but I will allow Adam Ingram one supplementary question.
The Executive has a complete range of powers with regards to the road network—we have mentioned that before. It can be argued that there is not a level playing field because the same range of powers does not exist across the rail network. Why is it okay for the Executive to have a full range of powers over the road network but not over the rail network? The arguments that you have said apply to the road network also apply to the rail network.
I am not sure that they do. The rail infrastructure is significantly more complex than the road network, in terms of engineering and management.
Does the possibility of Railtrack coming out of administration offer an opportunity to put in place annual reporting and accounting that would make the Railtrack operation more transparent on a regional basis?
I understand that the UK Government plans, by July, to bring Railtrack out of administration and set it up on a different basis as a company limited by guarantee. A number of opportunities to improve the way in which the rail infrastructure is delivered could result from that, two of which are better transparency and accountability. The simple answer to the question is yes.
Would it be useful to replicate the SPTE arrangements in other parts of the Scottish network? There is some discussion that it would be useful do so.
I am not sure what the advantages would be and I am conscious that such a move would change significantly the responsibilities of local authorities throughout Scotland. Local authorities would lose their direct responsibility for transport, as happened to the authorities in the SPT area. Such a step could not be taken lightly. The cities review report will have some things to say and questions to ask about how city regions can co-operate more effectively to integrate transport throughout and within their regions. I expect that debate to continue
I have two questions on transparency and accountability. Would not it be more transparent for the Scottish Executive to pay track access charges directly to Railtrack or its successor? That would let us see how much support was being given to ensure that infrastructure met development priorities.
Fiona McLeod's second question presupposes that the SRA will not allow us to achieve our transport priorities. I do not accept that premise. I intend to work with the SRA to deliver our infrastructure priorities. If the premise were true, my answer might be different, but I do not accept the premise.
That is not the evidence that we have received from the rail operators.
Janette Anderson of Railtrack Scotland said that there was a deficit. The main operator, ScotRail, said that it was not in a position to comment, because it was not privy to Railtrack's accounts, so I do not think that we have received contradictory evidence.
More transparency would help to resolve ScotRail's feeling.
I have agreed about that. I made it clear that those figures came from Railtrack. I do not disagree that transparency is good. That is being pursued.
We have heard evidence that Railtrack's prime function is to act as an engineering company and to deal with track maintenance, but that it is also responsible for managing track use and scheduling trains.
Consistency of safety is an issue. Des McNulty asked whether there is any capacity for re-examining that relationship. It would be wrong to say that the relationship could never be changed, but a key issue is that such changes are reserved matters and therefore not within our power to make. Our efforts are focused on our absolute priority, which is to deliver the best franchise that we can get and to deliver our infrastructure priorities. We do that in the context of regular and frequent discussions with our colleagues in Westminster. If a different arrangement was being considered that could be of any benefit in Scotland, we would discuss it, but I am not aware of any intention to make the sort of change that has been described.
I have one further question, but it is on a different tack. The committee has heard much about the STAG mechanism for assessing investment. Although the identification of the STAG criteria is clear, we have found it difficult to discover what weighting is given to the different factors in the assessment process. Obviously, the way in which projects are assessed is crucial in discriminating for investment between individual projects and between rail projects and other types of transport projects. Will that assessment process be made more transparent so that, as we said in our budget report, we can see for ourselves the technical basis on which the Executive makes political judgments between the advantages of this or that project?
The core of the question concerns the transparency of the assessment process or, rather, the information that will be available about the progress of that process. I will ask Kenneth Hogg to answer that question.
As in the 23 other UK franchises, that process will be run and managed by the SRA. We will be involved in that process to ensure that the evaluation criteria that are used deliver what we want for Scotland. We would generally want to introduce more transparency but there are constraints because of the confidentiality of the bidding process. I am not an expert on that, but I think that there are rules about what commercial details can be made clear at any point in time.
It is important to remember that the key part of the franchise is what we have already got. Determining how much it will cost us to get what we have got will be fairly straightforward. STAG is mostly about proposed enhancements. At least at first, we will look at short-term enhancements, such as the enhanced frequency or reduced overcrowding that bidders can deliver in the first few years. Because the SRA has already set values for the social benefits of reduced overcrowding and reduced journey times and waits, it should be relatively easy to assess such improvements by putting numbers on them. Difficulties come in when one starts talking about issues such as social impacts. Enhanced frequency should be less of an issue. The STAG assessment process should be relatively easy.
I asked Kenneth Hogg to answer that because I was fairly sure that there were issues of commercial confidentiality involved, and I wanted to be a little careful. I thought that he was an expert in the matter—there you go.
There have clearly been problems with the delivery of new rail projects. You mentioned the Larkhall to Milngavie route, for example, which has been subject to many delays. We have received evidence to suggest that the current performance regime of the railways is acting as a disincentive to bringing forward new projects, because that has an adverse impact on existing services. Penalties kick in and, essentially, companies are getting fined for moving forward with new developments. Is there any prospect of your introducing a structural reform in that regard prior to the franchise for that line coming through?
That is a serious issue, which concerns not just the Larkhall to Milngavie line but the provision of a new railway station at Edinburgh Park, for example. We have to fix that. Clearly, that seems like a perverse incentive—although there may be different views from different parts of the industry. That performance regime is part of the performance measure set by the Office of the Rail Regulator. It is a UK issue. I intend to raise it with Whitehall colleagues over the next few days in order to pursue any possibility that exists of resolving it.
That is another good argument for bringing some powers back to Scotland. On that subject, have the powers to move ahead with such projects been transferred from Westminster?
I will check the timing of this with colleagues, but my understanding is that the order that allows us to start new projects has already been lodged.
I believe that the committee considered such a statutory instrument several weeks ago.
Yes—the order has come before the committee. It is the one that gives us the power under the McLeish settlement to construct rail lines that start and finish in Scotland.
I return to the transport delivery report. One of the key priorities of that was to try to shift freight from road to rail—and indeed, as far as timber movements are concerned, to water. What further targets are being considered, and how are you going to encourage the momentum to be maintained? As I understand it, we are using up the funding for freight facilities grants. It seems to be taking longer and longer for such grants to be awarded.
To some extent, the freight facilities grant is a victim of its own success. If it has taken longer to process applications, that is partly because there are so many of them and they must be rigorously assessed. The grant's success is demonstrable. We have overachieved in respect of the transfer target. By March 2002, we had already transferred 18 million lorry miles per annum off road—I think that the target was 15 million. We aim to transfer a further 3 million lorry miles per annum by March 2003 and I am confident that we are on target to do so. Beyond that, much will depend on the outcome of the spending review and the resources that are available for the freight facilities grant or any alternative mechanism.
You have outlined a largely incremental process for improvement in respect of the franchise, but there is another dimension to transport policy, which might be called the big picture. That is dominated by issues such as tackling congestion and broader economic development and social inclusion issues. In the west of Scotland, Glasgow is a terminus and we lack through services beyond Glasgow to Paisley, Clydebank and other places, which is a barrier to economic development there. Is there a way in which we can bring together the incremental process of development and big-picture thinking? I know that you think with your transport hat and your economic development hat, but can we move significantly towards a bigger vision for transport in Scotland?
There are priorities and vision in the transport delivery report. The 10 priorities have been made priorities because we believe that they can have most impact on congestion in our cities and between our cities. That is the key priority. The priorities break down into a number of discrete projects, but by and large, that is how transport works. It is important that we focus on projects that will make the most difference.
That concludes our questions. We have a range of detailed questions that we will submit to you in writing—I hope that you will receive them in the next few days. It would be helpful if you would respond to them to assist our inquiry.
Thank you.
I welcome the next group of witnesses, who are representatives of the rail trade unions and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. They are Tracey White, who is the assistant secretary of the STUC, Kevin Lindsay, who is the district secretary of ASLEF, and Phil McGarry, who is the divisional organiser of the RMT. We have received written submissions on the rail inquiry from the RMT and ASLEF. I understand that Tracey White intends to say some introductory words on behalf of the delegation.
I appreciate that we are tight for time because of the power cut, so I will keep my remarks brief.
Thank you for those introductory remarks.
The RMT favours a return to a nationalised approach to both Railtrack and operations applying to Britain as a whole. How would such an approach be compatible with the devolution of rail powers to Scotland? Does the STUC support full public ownership and operation of the internal rail network in Scotland, as is the case in Northern Ireland?
We support the position of both the RMT and ASLEF, which advocate a publicly owned, publicly accountable rail service. However, as I indicated in my introductory remarks, we need to consider how such a system would operate in a UK context. In Scotland we do not operate in isolation, and no one would argue that we should. How we fit into the UK context is important. The Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament have some powers to deal with rail services, but those powers are not universal. The relationship with the UK Government remains important.
I support what Tracey White has said. The question of public ownership of railways is a reserved matter. The decision to bring the railways into public ownership is a political one, to be taken if such a step is deemed necessary.
Assuming that the option of returning Railtrack and operations to public ownership is rejected, has the STUC other preferences for structural change to the railways in Scotland? Does it favour making the SRA an agent of the Scottish Executive for both infrastructure planning and franchising, extending the SPT-type approach to the whole of Scotland, or the creation of PTEs for those parts of Scotland that are not covered by SPT? We want to hear your ideas.
We do not favour adjusting the constitutional settlement and the powers that the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament have regarding transport matters. However, we favour greater co-operation between the agencies that have an interest in transport matters—local authorities, economic development agencies and the like—to ensure that local and regional transport services are provided so as to meet objectives such as economic development, social inclusion and sustainability. We are not arguing for a change in the devolution settlement, but we think that changes could be made to the way in which services are provided in Scotland. We have submitted information on such changes in consultation exercises that have taken place over some time.
You are not arguing for a change in the constitutional settlement with regard to railways. Does that mean that the STUC and the rail unions are not in favour of splitting the proposed company limited by guarantee that will replace Railtrack into separate models for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom?
We are not in favour of that proposal at all.
It is obviously important that the SRA should take on board specific Scottish requirements. It is important that services that start and finish in Scotland should be prioritised for future investment, but we do not feel that that would require a separate company for Scotland.
Is that because, from a staff perspective, you want consistency and integrity in safety systems and equipment throughout the UK network?
That would certainly be a factor.
We do not want any further fragmentation of the railways. Privatisation of the railways has been the biggest disaster of all the privatisations—not that we favoured many of them. I do not think that anyone could say that privatisation of the railway system has been a success, so to fragment it further would be a further disaster.
I will follow on from Bristow Muldoon's impressive leading of the witnesses. This may be an opportunity for everyone to contradict me, but I think that we would all, if asked to design a national railway system, say that we should not start from here. We would all have done things differently.
I will ask my colleagues to comment in a moment but, as far as we are aware, there is no worker representation on the virtual board. If we are not aware of any such involvement, you can take it as read that there is none. One way of ensuring that the experience and expertise of the work force is fed in would be to address that point quickly. Phil McGarry and Kevin Lindsay will tell you about the skills deficits.
I will comment briefly on the stakeholder board. I was interested in what the minister said, but the hairs on the back of my neck stood up because no reference was made to trade union input.
If a proposal were put forward to establish a stakeholder board—Phil McGarry has made a case for reconsidering the model that operated in Strathclyde—would you be interested in being directly involved in that board and playing a role on it?
As you will be aware, ASLEF represents train drivers and the RMT represents a wider range of employees. ScotRail has been mentioned quite a lot this morning in discussion of the refranchising. Prior to privatisation, ScotRail employed more than 850 drivers. At present, the figure is around 730. The company has given a commitment to take on 85 more drivers this year, which is fine, but it will be another 15 months before those people are out driving. That will be near enough the end of the franchise and there will still be a shortfall in the number of train drivers. Nonetheless, we welcome the fact that ScotRail is committed to training more drivers. We have been crying out for that for a long time.
I will pick up on a couple of points that Kevin Lindsay raised. The training schedule and the recruitment and retention of staff are problems for the employer. I do not want to sound provocative in any way, shape or form, but I suspect that, although employers say that they are endeavouring to recruit people into the industry, they secretly reject otherwise successful applicants because that is more cost-effective.
I was going to ask three questions, but as we have covered some of the ground that I was going to ask about, I will skip parts of them. Which is more important in the rail industry in Scotland, funding or structural change? Are both equally important or is there a mixture?
We would probably all agree that the rail infrastructure in Scotland—as in the rest of the UK, for that matter—requires significant investment. Funding for infrastructure is clearly important. Similarly, adequate funding is crucial to ensure the delivery of some of the service priorities that are contained in the new guidance to the SRA that the minister talked about.
As Kevin Lindsay said, further fragmentation, which some people have suggested, would only make matters worse. I believe that the funding regime is vital. I am intrigued by paragraph 3.8 in the minister's directions and guidance, which outlines the 17 priorities for the Scottish franchise that the Scottish ministers will ask the SRA to develop. The directions and guidance say that those priorities are subject to affordability. We cannot afford not to progress such matters. If the financial restrictions are to be the guiding principle, we will have to knock on the door of the Minister for Finance and Public Services to ensure that adequate finance is available.
Some people are better placed to twist arms than others, but I understand your point. I was going to ask whether you have any views on the draft directions and guidance, but you have pre-empted me by giving one. Do you have any others?
Phil McGarry and I have both alluded to our main concern. Obviously, public services have to be provided in such a way as to provide value for money for the public—we have no problem with that. However, as we have said, we cannot afford not to take seriously a number of issues that are touched on in the 17 priorities in paragraph 3.8 of the draft directions and guidance. The first issue is the requirement to provide
The minister made it clear this morning that the first five requirements were the priorities. However, safety is not mentioned until the 10th requirement. I am surprised and disappointed that safety does not feature in the top five priorities of a new franchise. I would expect safety to be paramount in the awarding of any franchise.
I understand that the document is only a draft, but I support what Tracey White and Kevin Lindsay have said. The list of requirements needs to be reconfigured to ensure that safety is viewed as one of the core issues.
I hear what you say about unmanned stations—you do not believe that CCTV is an adequate alternative to staffed stations. There are many hundreds of unmanned stations in Scotland. Are you proposing that every station should become manned, or is there any role for remote or rural stations, say, being supervised from a remote location using CCTV?
My preference would be for every station to be manned with a railway worker. That is always preferable, depending on such factors as the route, the line of traffic and the opening hours. Whether in urban areas or way up on the north-west Highland line, the role of railway workers is not just to provide a service to the general public. The workers who staff stations are well used during the peak periods and the tourist time in the summer and they act as a hub for the community, for example by keeping the gardens. As the convener is well aware, people lived in the area round a station and it served as a hub for the community. The station workers did everything and were expected to do everything, from keeping the station clean to having the best garden of the year in the railway station garden.
Being at an unmanned station late at night can be extremely intimidating—I have experienced that situation often. Do you have any figures for attacks on passengers at unstaffed stations?
I do not have figures with me, but they can be provided, if necessary. At our safety forums in the regular meetings that we have with employers, statistics on staff assaults and passenger assaults are produced. We could provide you with the figures.
There is another side to the discussion on staffed stations. Phil McGarry has spoken in detail about the safety implications, which apply to train staff as well as to passengers. The guidance makes points about improving customer service. There are also issues to do with tourists in rural areas. When tourists get off a train at a station, they want to know where to go next. The obvious person to ask would be the person staffing the station, but if there is no one there, we might be missing an opportunity to maximise the impact of public transport services on economic development in a particular area.
That is a good point. When the tourist information office in Aberdeen was looking for new premises, the station seemed to me to be the obvious place, but that went by the by.
Virtually every service that is run by the SPT, although there are one or two that run out of Glasgow central.
The diesels that run from East Kilbride and Barrhead, for example, are not driver-only trains. The trains in the SPT area are electric trains.
Yes—in the north and south Clyde areas.
What do you mean by driver-only trains?
There is no conductor.
Or ticket collector?
The ticket collector does not have a safety role, but the conductor does.
I see.
When you talk about a driver-only train, do you mean that there is a ticket collector on board but no conductor?
Let me clarify what it means from an operational point of view. Driver-only operation is the mode of operation that the industry in Scotland employs. The driver is responsible for the safety of the passengers. In the event of a delay or—heaven forbid—a derailment, or if the train is stopped at a signal or because of a breakdown, the driver is responsible for the safety and protection of his passengers. No other person on the train has that expertise, knowledge or training. There might be a second person on the train, but solely for revenue collection. The revenue that we depend and rely on is down to that person, but not every train has a second person on it. We therefore have what we call driver-only operation of trains, and those drivers have sole responsibility.
I would like one further point of clarification. Does that mean that some of the revenue collectors are not qualified guards or are all of them also qualified guards?
We have two separate and distinct grades. We have conductors, who are fully trained in operational protection duties as well as revenue collection, and ticket examiners. As their title suggests, that is what they do—they do not have an operational role or function on driver-only operated services. In other words, in the event of a failure, they do not have the expertise to protect the train. That is down to the driver. If—heaven forbid—the driver should be incapacitated, there would be real problems. However, there is communication, in the form of ship-to-shore radio, with the signal box.
I asked the minister whether the results of the central Scotland study might influence investment. Do you have a view on the Glasgow crossrail scheme and the whole issue of whether there could be direct services from north Clyde and south Clyde to the west of Glasgow, through to Edinburgh and perhaps also to other Scottish cities? Currently there is a disjunction, as someone can arrive in Glasgow at one station and have to move to another to swap lines. Much has been done at King's Cross and St Pancras to deal with engineering difficulties. Is resolving that problem in Glasgow to permit such crossrail services the key priority for the opening out of the rail service in Scotland?
I joined the railway on 18 June 1978 and I supported the crossrail project then. Nothing has changed that view. That should be an urgent priority. I experienced the problems this morning. I intend to travel to London this afternoon for two nights. I had to walk for 10 minutes with my saddlebag over my briefcase and my laptop over my shoulder. Perhaps I must give up smoking—I barely caught the 9 o'clock service to Edinburgh in time for this meeting. Having to walk from one station to another is ridiculous. The crossrail project is vital, just as the airport links and the Dornoch rail link are vital and the extension of the Scottish rail network is vital for the country's economic growth. We welcome any proposed projects.
My views are similar. The performance that is needed to reach Glasgow airport from Edinburgh is incredible. A train must be taken to Queen Street station, where a bus must be taken. If we are talking about having a modern, integrated transport system, we must have ways of providing airport links that do not involve people who want to take a train to Paisley in crossing cities and taking a bus back to Paisley. Reaching an airport in Scotland is a performance.
The mention of the south suburban line made the member for Edinburgh South happy.
I suspected that it would.
In effect, Scotland has two railways—the Strathclyde system and the rest. The Strathclyde system and the intercity system could be linked better. In some ways, that would achieve a bigger bang for your buck than anything else. I take the point that a vast range of priorities exists, but linking the Strathclyde system and the intercity system is central to taking the rail industry ahead. Given that a concrete commitment has not been made to that, would that be your priority? If you were pinned to a wall and told that you could have one big investment, would that be it?
We are in the fortunate position of not having to make such decisions—you guys have to. Des McNulty made the case well for integrating the services in Strathclyde with the rest of the country. Crossrail would be a huge and significant step towards that.
As we must conduct other business, I will ask the last question, on freight services, which Tracey White talked about in her opening statement. We have taken evidence from freight companies and people who are interested in promoting the transport of freight by rail or on water. The committee is interested in that as part of the development of the rail industry in Scotland. What are the key freight issues for the unions? What are the blockages to increasing the proportion of freight that is carried by rail? What structural investment is required?
Freight in Scotland is facing massive problems on the railways. Access, never mind access charges, is a problem. There is difficulty in getting access, full stop. I am led to believe that the channel tunnel has cost EWS between eight and 14 trains a week. That freight automatically goes back on to road. The minister said this morning that the freight facilities grant has been a great success, but that success has caused a backlog. I have evidence that Grant Gordon of Girvan has been waiting for two and a half years for an application to take grain by rail to be dealt with. We must speed up the process.
It is no secret that the channel tunnel causes problems for freight operators such as the English, Welsh and Scottish Freightliners. In addition, EWS, the main freight operator, is having great difficulties regarding movement and that is having an adverse effect on the Scottish economy.
I think that that brings us to the end of our questions. We could have gone on for a while longer, but constraints of time and the electricity problems that we had earlier have been a bit of a problem. I thank Tracey White, Phil McGarry and Kevin Lindsay very much.
Meeting continued in private until 13:53.
Previous
Petitions