Rural Rail Services
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-89, in the name of Jamie Stone, on rural rail services. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
My screen shows that a considerable number of members wish to speak in the debate. The standing orders make it clear that members' business debates should last no more than 45 minutes. However, the Presiding Officers have discussed the matter and have decided that members' business debates should be concluded no later than 6 o'clock. That means that the minister will be called at approximately 5.50. We will work on that assumption, so members may need to be prepared to give very short speeches.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that the contract to operate Scotland's internal rail services over the next seven years is shortly to be awarded; recognises that the provision of affordable, reliable and regular rail services across all of the Scottish network is important to the social and economic well-being of communities, and believes that, in considering the tender proposals offered by the competing train operators, the vital needs of communities served by rural lines should not be forgotten.
It is a great pleasure to speak in the first Liberal Democrat members' business debate of the new session of Parliament.
I was brought up beside a railway line. If one could apply the telescope of history and use it to look back at the years in question, one would see me as a small boy in the fields on the north side of Tain waving at passing engine drivers. Over the years, I have continued to take a considerable interest in our railways in Scotland and I remain a member of Friends of the Far North Line. In my days as a councillor, I was a member of the Highland rail partnership, which involved the local authority, rail companies and other interested parties in promoting the use and development of railways in the Highlands. Mr Frank Roach of the Highland rail partnership is sitting in the gallery. He has contributed a great deal to all that has been achieved in the Highlands.
One of those achievements has been an increase in the movement of freight by rail on the far north line. The fact that Safeway takes its goods up as far as Georgemas Junction means that heavy traffic is taken off the road system in the far north. Additional commuter services have also been introduced—for example, there is now a morning commuter service from my home town of Tain to Inverness. That service, which came into being as a result of the work of the Highland rail partnership, has proved to be a huge success. The reopening of Beauly station in John Farquhar Munro's constituency is another achievement. However, we still need to do more.
Mr Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
I am grateful that the member has given way so early in his speech. He will share the concerns that I felt when I visited the Scottish Borders Tourist Board last week and was told that its call centre receives many calls from people who have been discouraged from visiting the Borders because there are no rail services there. Jamie Stone said that much more needs to be done. Will he confirm that a railway to the Borders is part of the work that needs to be done?
Our new member has already learned the parliamentary arts. I back his call—he is correct.
We need to get still more freight off our road system and on to rail. There are opportunities in the Highlands and, I am sure, in other rural areas for the movement of perishable goods by rail. In my constituency, I can think of Mrs Angela Mackay of Kyle of Tongue Oysters. It would be very good news if we could help such people to get their fresh products down to the market where the money is—London. We can make further moves on that front.
Some of our stations in the Highlands lie unused. It gives me pleasure to inform members that Jim Cornell of Network Rail is also in the gallery. There are plans to examine the use of Tain station and Brora station in my constituency, which are lying empty. Those buildings could be used for craftwork or for a coffee shop or restaurant, for example.
Of course, I must mention in passing the fact that many of my constituents support the concept of a Dornoch rail crossing. However, there are the caveats that money must first be found for the crossing and that, if it were to be built, the Lairg loop, which supplies much of the interior of Sutherland, should not be closed.
I turn from the good news to the not-so-good news. My colleague John Farquhar Munro will talk about his experience later in the debate. I am afraid that everything is not particularly great on the railway front. I had a particularly bad experience when I was travelling north one night after a meeting of the Parliament. The 19:40 train from Edinburgh to Inverness was dirty, the lavatory doors were locked, there was no trolley and the train was late in arriving.
Last week in First Minister's questions, I referred to the time when the Justice 2 Committee was travelling from Edinburgh to Inverness and shortly after the train left Edinburgh, the lavatory doors locked themselves, because the computer had gone on the blink. There was no opportunity to use a station toilet, because there was no stop long enough until the train got to Aviemore. Although that might be a humorous point, it was a pretty unpleasant experience for all the people travelling on that journey.
One of my constituents, Mr Ian Robertson of Thurso, wrote to me recently outlining a truly horrific calendar of incidents, which I will share. On 23 December 2002, on the 06:57 Thurso to Inverness train—a two-car, class 158 unit train—one toilet flooded and the other was locked out of use. The air conditioning broke down, the windows were so dirty that it was impossible to see out and a trolley service was provided only as far as Lairg, where it was withdrawn without notice. On the 10:40 Inverness to Edinburgh train—a four-car train with two class 158 units—the toilets were in a poor state. In one toilet the seat was no longer fixed to the bowl and it leaked and the other had no paper or hand-drying facilities.
I could go on and on, but my time is limited, so I will refer to only two of the incidents that are outlined in the letter from Ian Robertson. On Thursday 6 February 2003, on the 06:57 Thurso to Inverness train, passengers were turfed out at Ardgay to wade through slush and slither over ice up to the road as the rest of the journey was decreed to be by bus. Two people fell on the uncleared, ungritted surface. One was a child and the other was a lady who was white and shaken and had to be helped on to the bus. In the letter there are references to breakdowns, blocked toilets and a lack of trolley services.
In fairness to the present incumbent, I should say that the nature of the original franchise was probably unhelpful. In the days when it was introduced it was driven by cost alone. My appeal to the minister is that when the Executive considers the new franchise, it should put quality of service at the top of the agenda.
Will the member give way?
No, I am sorry. I have only seven minutes and I think that I am in my last one.
The ScotRail staff do their best, but I fear that they might be hampered by the nature of the contract and that they might be in an impossible situation. However, we cannot tolerate the next franchise-holder offering a quality of service that is anywhere as low as the quality of the service that we have now. There must be a considerable improvement, because the general public deserve it. The sort of service on our trains that I have outlined is unacceptable if we are to encourage visitors to the Highlands and to all parts of Scotland.
We can hardly say the words "rural" and "trains" without talking about the Borders railway line again. It is almost three years to the day since the Parliament voted unanimously in Glasgow for reinstatement of the Borders railway line from Edinburgh to Carlisle, which I thought was excellent on the part of the Parliament. Some 20,000 people had signed a petition, which passed via the Public Petitions Committee to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, the Transport and the Environment Committee, the Rural Development Committee and the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee. As Jeremy Purvis rightly said, it is not just enterprise and tourism that are affected, as people in the Borders are socially excluded because they do not have a railway line on their terrain.
I welcome the debate, which has allowed me to piggyback, as it were, and bring back to the chamber the issue of the Borders railway line. There are concerns. Yesterday, at a meeting of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on Borders rail, when we had a presentation by the non-Executive bills unit, it became apparent that a bill on the Borders railway will not be introduced before September. That is not the fault of any member, as the matter is for the bill's promoters. The bill will be kicked into touch until September. The group was also advised that it will be about June next year when—if members will forgive the pun—the proposed train hits the buffers. Then, the minister will have to come clean and tell us what funding the Scottish Executive will contribute. The Executive has been like a bagful of eels in dealing with the matter over the years. We still do not have a commitment on the £130 million. If hardly anything is provided by the so-called partners, we want to know that the Executive will fill the gap, whatever it is. I leave a space in my speech in the hope that the minister will fill it.
I acknowledge the passion with which Christine Grahame speaks. However, will she explain why the Borders rail link was not in the SNP's election manifesto?
I am glad that Jamie Stone read the SNP's manifesto, which did not refer to specific lines. What we have said about the Borders railway line is that we will need the money from the Strategic Rail Authority, which Michael Moore, the MP for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, has acknowledged. He is most concerned that the SRA does not have the funding and has not made a commitment to provide funding, which is why the line must go all the way from Edinburgh to Carlisle. [Interruption.] I will give Liberal Democrat members Michael Moore's press release.
I cannot take an intervention as I have little time.
The member is in her last minute.
The line is proposed to be single track. That is a serious issue, because having a single-track line with only passing loops pretty well excludes the possibility of freight, Mr Rumbles, or express lines, which are required.
The member referred to me. Will she take an intervention?
The member is winding up.
Going cheapskate at this stage will mean expense later. I would like the minister to consider the additional cost of sophisticated signalling if the line is single track.
The Parliament must be aware of a range of issues. Although three years have elapsed, the matter is not resolved. A single track is not good, and we do not have a funding pledge.
Many members wish to speak in the debate—
What about the SNP pledge?
Your—
Excuse me. Many members wish to speak, so I will keep speeches strictly to three minutes.
I congratulate Jamie Stone on instigating the debate, which is on a subject in which I take a close interest. All my Mallaig cousins worked on the railway and ran the west Highland line for a good many years.
In the previous parliamentary session, I spent a considerable amount of time encouraging individuals and groups in the west Highlands to submit to the Executive suggestions for the improvements that they would like in Highland rail services, so that those improvements might be included in the new franchise. As I was encouraged by the then minister with responsibility for transport to do that, I hope that rail services in the Highlands will be enhanced when the new franchise is announced.
Several parts of the service need to be improved, and some improvements are easier to achieve than others. I hope that the easy improvements are included in the new franchise, but we should not lose sight of the need for considerable long-term investment in Highland railways.
I had hoped that, by now, we could look forward to a much-improved sleeper service to the west Highlands. That service has tremendous tourism and business potential, but has suffered from the aftermath of the Hatfield tragedy, as the prolonged engineering works further south have made the service unreliable and unattractive. I hope that we can retain our long-term aspirations for the sleeper service—including more powerful locomotives and increased capacity at Euston—so that it can better serve the west Highlands, which have no airport to deliver travellers from London on business or pleasure.
I would like the proposal to link the west Highland sleeper with a commuter service from Crianlarich to Oban to come to fruition. Children are taken to Oban High School by that service, which is how country pupils went to the school when I attended it. Road transport was used, but I am pleased that the journey is once again being undertaken by rail.
I am pleased that the Executive is committed to including the sleeper service in the franchise, but I would also like it to consider commuter services to Fort William from Mallaig. The Mallaig to Glasgow train leaves too early to make it an option for commuters. Can we not aspire to a Lochabernet to complement the Invernet?
Commuter services around Inverness are steadily developing, particularly from Tain southwards. I am disappointed that the SRA's withdrawal of funding has meant that the commuter services to the north from Kingussie cannot as yet be developed. However, I am encouraged to hope that that project will be included in the rail franchise.
As John Farquhar Munro will talk about the Kyle line, I will not mention it except to say that it now has a Sunday train, as does the line to the far north. That means that students can travel home from university for the weekend. We need more trains on the far north line. When Bristow Muldoon, the former convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, was on a golfing weekend in Dornoch, he was appalled to discover how few trains could take him south to Inverness. He was also appalled to find that there was no railway station in Dornoch. I will not go into the missed opportunity of the Dornoch firth crossing other than to say that the crossing would have made a considerable difference to travelling times.
People in the Highlands travel by car because rail travel is neither a convenient nor a faster option. We must change that. I believe that the Highland railways have an enormous social, environmental and economic development potential. I hope to see that potential realised.
As this debate is my first opportunity to speak in the new session, I congratulate the Deputy Presiding Officer on her new office.
The minister is not in the chamber. I hope that he will return within my three minutes. If he does not, he will have to read my speech in the Official Report, although I see that Euan Robson is indicating that he is writing down my remarks. Christine Grahame mentioned the Borders rail link, which Euan Robson knows well. Perhaps he will convey to the minister the concern that was felt by many people when the First Minister read out the programme for government and said that the Executive's commitment to transport stretched from Airdrie to Aberdeen.
Last week, the minister gave a less than enthusiastic response to Mr Purvis's question about funding for the Borders rail link. The issues around the rail link will have to be resolved. I do not agree with Christine Grahame on many things, but I agree with her that, sooner or later, the Executive will have to decide whether it will fund the Borders rail link.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I cannot. I have very little time and no minister.
I will concentrate on Lockerbie station, which is on a main line—many rural communities are served from main lines. I want to express my disappointment about the reduction in services from Lockerbie station. Last year, there was a great hoo-hah when Virgin announced a range of new services between Lockerbie, Glasgow and Edinburgh only for us to discover a few weeks later that we were going to have reduced services.
The matter was raised with the SRA and, after due time, we received a response. However, one is not filled with confidence in the SRA when a letter opens with the sentence
"I am sorry for the delay."
That sentence is just a little bit too close to the organisation's performance.
It is not acceptable for the SRA to say that it is all right to reduce services from a station such as Lockerbie because it is addressing the larger issue of Virgin's timing and punctuality. Lockerbie is a railhead for the south of Scotland. If people in the south of Scotland are to have access to Glasgow and Edinburgh, we need to increase services from Lockerbie station, particularly the early morning services, which have been promised repeatedly but never delivered.
I am also concerned about a letter that I received from the minister's predecessor, who advised that a proposed service from Edinburgh or Glasgow to Carlisle, which was part of the ScotRail franchise, would be the subject of "a rigorous business case". I see that Nicol Stephen is now back in the chamber, so I can say to him that I find it difficult to understand why, every time a rural service—such as those to Lockerbie or the Borders rail link—is mentioned, it has to be the subject of "a rigorous business case". The new Edinburgh tram link is not to be the subject of a business case, so let us have some consistency.
I apologise for having to leave early, but I have a train to catch. I will read the minister's comments with great interest in the Official Report.
The fact that I have to leave early is part of the problem that we are addressing in the debate. In the South of Scotland region, an area of roughly 150 by 50 square miles has no railway station. My nearest station is more than 30 miles away from where I live and it has only two bus connections a day. It has no shop and no phone; there are no taxis and it is out of mobile phone range, so I have to catch my train.
Last year, a Spanish academic who was looking at international book towns throughout the world came to visit us in Wigtown. He travelled all the way from a small village in Spain to Barrhill station to discover, having arrived there, that he had to hitch a lift from a fellow passenger to complete his journey.
Part of the problem is the lack of rail services and, in particular, the lack of integrated rail services. The integration of rail and bus must be part of the SRA's specifications. The SRA states that, when re-letting franchises, one of its objectives is
"To deliver a safe, more reliable service of consistently high quality for rail passengers."
That does not instil me with any confidence, as the SRA stated, in announcing the cuts last month, that improving rail services is the same as reducing rail services.
Another of the SRA's objectives in re-letting franchises is
"To deliver a value for money service for passengers and taxpayers."
I regard that as a commitment to cheapness rather than to high quality.
Another objective is
"To secure accountable, viable operators who are passionate about delivering for their customers."
That is fine, but it is not enough. The issue is not only about delivering for customers of the rail companies; it is about attracting new customers and new passengers to solve road congestion.
We must determine what the Executive's financial commitment to rail services is. In the Executive's costing of its programme, all the road schemes are costed in detail every year up to 2007. For example, the expenditure on the Aberdeen western peripheral road is thoroughly costed year by year up to 2007, despite the fact that the project has not yet received planning permission. However, the rail costs are not even known. That worries me. No financial commitment has yet been given for the Borders rail link.
We also look for a commitment for a station at Stow for the residents of the Borders; for a new rail link at Lanark to allow the residents of Lanark to come into Edinburgh; for new services from Stranraer to the new port of Cairnryan; and for other rail services. We need the Executive's commitment.
I congratulate Jamie Stone on securing the debate. A couple of years ago, we enjoyed a congenial hour or so on the Great North Eastern Railway rail service from Edinburgh to Inverness. The service is very good, but it could be improved. I would like a much faster link between Inverness and central Scotland.
Many people in my constituency of Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber do not have a car; for them, as Jamie Stone suggests in the motion, the rail service provides a vital link. Not everyone can afford a car and not everyone wants to have a car. In the Highlands, it is difficult to travel without a car. Unlike the Greens, I am not anti-road. I think that, over the next four years, there will be a forensic destruction of the Greens' traffic policy, which will show their proposals to be utterly hopeless for the Highlands, where the car, if not a necessity for everyone, is certainly a necessity for many people to go about their business, pick up their kids, get to work and generally have a life of any quality.
Will Fergus Ewing take an intervention?
No, I am sorry. I will in another debate when there is more time.
This week, I received a letter from the Friends of the West Highland Line. I was appalled to note that a meeting that John Chamney had arranged with the Executive's team leader to discuss the future of the west Highland line was cancelled and that no alternative date has been set. The tender is to be agreed shortly and the specification is vital. As Maureen Macmillan said, if we do not have in that specification protection of the west Highland line—never mind an expansion to more than two sleeper cars, without which the service is barely viable economically—what future is there for the line, which is so important to the west Highlands and a magnificent tourism attraction?
I hope that that will be put right. Perhaps in his closing remarks, the minister will confirm that Mr Chamney, Fraser McDonald and others at Friends of the West Highland Line will have an opportunity to make an input. They know a great deal about how the service can be improved and how savings can perhaps be made. It is essential that that happens before Porterbrook, the owner of the remaining 12 cars, has sold or scrapped those cars, which would remove the possibility of extending from the two existing cars.
I had the pleasure of meeting the minister's family in Aberdeen. I suggest that it might be enjoyable for him and his family to experience the delights of the Strathspey steam train in my constituency. If he would like to do that, I would be delighted to accompany him and persuade him, perhaps in one of the local hotels after the journey, of the need to extend that line to Grantown-on-Spey.
Even with three-minute speeches, we will not meet the requirements of standing orders. I am therefore minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the meeting by 10 minutes. Is it agreed that a motion without notice be moved?
Members indicated agreement.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by 10 minutes.—[Mike Rumbles.]
Motion agreed to.
I, too, congratulate my friend and colleague Jamie Stone on securing this important debate. The contract to operate Scotland's internal rail services over the next seven years will soon be awarded, and I could not agree more with the terms of the motion, which states that
"the vital needs of communities served by rural lines should not be forgotten."
I make no excuses for raising a specific constituency issue during the debate. I know that the minister is well aware of the importance to the people of the Mearns of the reopening of Laurencekirk railway station. I raised that issue with the previous transport minister during the first session, and the Executive has been supportive. Indeed, a few weeks ago, I took the Deputy First Minister to Laurencekirk station to emphasise to him the importance that my constituents attach to the issue. I know that the Minister for Transport would be sympathetic to action being taken over Laurencekirk station, because it would fit neatly into the Executive's declared transport policy of getting people off the roads and into our trains—although the trains will have to stop at some stations.
I am well aware that, in the first instance, it is up to Aberdeenshire Council to support the reopening of the station. The council has commissioned a feasibility study, and I know that the preliminary report was positive and acknowledged the merit of further work being done. I hope, therefore, that the minister will take this opportunity not only to indicate that the rail contract will ensure that we have affordable, reliable and regular rail services, but to confirm the Executive's willingness to support the vital needs of our rural communities by emphasising their importance in the contracting process. One way of doing that, specifically for my constituents, would be for the minister to confirm the Executive's willingness to support in principle the reopening of Laurencekirk station.
It is often with some nostalgia that politicians and the public look back at the golden age of steam and the role that railways played in rural community life. Nostalgia is important, because it reflects those aspects that we value from the past, but at the same time we must be wary of allowing nostalgia to blind us to developing a fresh vision of the future. Railways were hubs of the rural community in all senses, providing not only transportation but a centre for social and economic activity. It is those valuable aspects of the past that need to be built into the future of our rural railway network. We should not forget that urban as well as rural communities are served by rural lines, and that those lines constitute a tangible and physical link between rural and urban areas and their inhabitants. To put it another way, enhancing rural rail services can benefit us all.
We need a fresh approach to establishing stations and rural lines as viable entities that also serve the wider needs of our communities. Community rail partnerships and the micro-franchising of certain rail services are delivering viable futures for many lines in England and in the Highlands.
In particular, the Huddersfield to Sheffield rail partnership's work is geared towards the simple aim of getting more people using the line, focusing on the least well-used services. The partnership even originated the idea of live music on scheduled trains and it still runs monthly jazz trains and other special events. It is at the forefront of community development initiatives on the railways and works with local schools on educational projects and local community groups such as women's institutes on station garden projects. The partnership has also been successful in working with passenger transport executives to build the case for integrated bus links to outlying areas. Its work has been a great success—I am sure that the Highland rail partnership has been a great success, too. Rail traffic growth on the line is well in excess of the national average and there is the highest level of service that has ever been seen on the line. Additional evening and Sunday services have been introduced over the past three years.
Many small communities and towns in the region that I represent would benefit economically and socially from railway stations and services being placed at the heart of their communities. Some places, such as Blackford and Greenloaning, need reopened stations, whereas others, such as Dunkeld, need better utilisation of existing station facilities. Towns such as St Andrews and Leven need new routes to link them up to the network. Such improvements and reopenings will need a bold Executive to make them happen and real participation from communities to make them a success. I urge the Executive to consider how it can foster a new golden age for rail in Scotland and work with communities from the bottom up to deliver really joined-up thinking.
Mr Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
I, too, congratulate Jamie Stone on securing this debate. He will forgive me if I talk about a proposed railway rather than an existing railway service.
It will be a proud day when I begin to commute by rail from my home in Galashiels to the Parliament in 2008 after the next election—I fully expect to have a seat. I will join many people from Galashiels and—I hope—from Stow, who will join the railway there through Midlothian to go to Edinburgh. The Borders railway will be for the people of Midlothian, the Borders, Edinburgh and Scotland.
I trust that the minister will be constructive in using the clearly stated funding proposals for rail services over the next session and that the Borders railway will be complete by 2008. I was delighted to hear that David Mundell was in the Parliament for the First Minister's statement. He would also have been in the Parliament for the Deputy First Minister's speech in the debate on the programme for government, in which the Executive's commitment to the Borders railway was clearly stated.
It is interesting that the SNP's principal speaker this afternoon has changed the party's policy from that of 1999. Then, the line would be paid for by a not-for-profit trust. In 2001, she said that Scotland was swimming in enough cash to pay for the line outright in one go. Today, the party will review the proposal for the railway—
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—my time is extremely limited.
The SNP will review the proposal for the railway. If it is satisfied with that review, it will ask the UK SRA whether it wishes to separate itself from the rest of the UK to pay for it. I am glad that the prospective rail passengers and commuters who will join me in 2008 do not have to rely on an SNP Administration.
Mr Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
Rural rail service issues would be best dealt with by a Scottish Government that controlled the track and every other aspect in question—there cannot otherwise be an integrated service. I would be very happy if a Scottish rail service could implement Christine Grahame's proposals. Any petty point scoring about how that should be done should be laid aside and we should tackle specific points that could be dealt with by the franchise. I wish to speak about one or two of those points.
I would like to know what the minister has to say about the major issue of disabled access to platforms and trains. There are specific examples from the far north line of difficulties of accessing platforms and trains in many stations. In the franchise process, we must find out whether that will be taken into account.
The small units that are used in the north have room for only two bicycles, which is a bigger hindrance to people coming to tour in the north than the hindrances related to airports. Many of the people who come via the railways spend a lot of time travelling and spending money in small places. We should address both the issue of people who regularly travel with a bicycle and the issue of those who turn up and hope to get the use of one.
Many stations could be opened for commuter services. For example, Evanton—the village in which I live—and Conon Bridge could be added to the existing Tain service. In order not to be seen as selfish, I point out the need for us to consider the best way in which to provide quicker services for longer journeys. I underline that, although the Friends of the Far North Line might not wish to discuss the matter, it is essential that the Executive should give a time at which the Dornoch rail bridge will figure in plans for the north of Scotland's rail service.
If we are to stop the depopulation of Caithness and increase the population in the north, we must have a quicker rail service. We can turn the north line into a far quicker service, although we must protect central Sutherland. The north line is at the end of an extremely long line; it is not a branch line, but part of the main spine of Scotland, which goes all the way from Thurso and Wick to the Borders. I ask the minister to take that on board and to say what he intends to do about the Dornoch rail bridge.
I welcome the new Minister for Transport to the debate. I am delighted that he is here and I hope that his influence and aspirations travel west to my constituency. I will not say why, only that I have great hopes that he will do something spectacular in my area.
I congratulate Jamie Stone on raising the issue of Scottish rural rail services and on securing a slot in the parliamentary timetable to debate a complex issue. As Jamie Stone mentioned, he and I have had several not very pleasant experiences of the service from Edinburgh to Inverness. My experience as a passenger on the service has been disappointing to say the least. The trains are regularly cold and draughty. On one train, the automatic toilet doors could not be closed, the toilets were filthy and had overflowed and no water was available in the taps or the toilet. It was obvious that the train had not been cleaned for days, because when I checked out the several newspapers on the luggage rack, some of them were five days old. The train had not been looked at in five days, which is not good enough. I wrote to ScotRail about the matter, but I received the usual reply: "Sorry. We regret the incident and are addressing the situation." I wonder how much effort ScotRail is putting into addressing the situation.
When the new train contracts are put out to tender, it is vital that, as well as stipulating train times, frequency and fare structure, a minimum level of cleanliness and hygiene should be specified. We have penalties for late trains, but I would like penalties to be introduced for dirty trains. That might sound harsh, but given our aims for tourism, it is vital for Scotland that we portray the right image to tourists, who will remember late trains and dirty toilets and recount that to their friends at home.
I understand that, relatively soon, more than 20 new 170 Turbostars are to be introduced into the Scottish network. The net result of that will be that the current 158 Sprinters will be pushed north to operate from Inverness. Although that is welcome, it will cause a problem for the Highlands as the 158s have a history of reliability problems. Will the minister ensure that those trains will be given overhauls when they are handed over to whomever wins the new rail contract? It is important that their reliability is improved, as, unlike in the central belt, in the Highlands people are usually many miles away from the nearest train station and many hours away from the next scheduled service.
How much time have I got?
You have run out of time. I would be obliged if you would sum up.
In conclusion, I urge the minister, in assessing the new bid, to consider interconnecting rail services at the rail terminuses. Linking services to other services, either by bus or ferry, is vital for rural and island communities. Integrated transport now seems an impossible concept.
I was going to say something about concessionary travel for pensioners—
But you are not.
Such travel is currently available on the buses. Why do we not introduce it on the railways as well?
I would willingly have let John Farquhar Munro have one of my minutes, as I agree with what he was saying.
I welcome the debate that Jamie Stone has initiated. The attendance in the chamber has not been terrific, and it is pity that more members have not been here to hear a good and constructive debate. However, it is interesting to note that six of the members who are here come from the Highlands and Islands region. That shows that this is a crucial issue for us.
I agree with a lot of what has been said about service standards, reliability and, in particular, integrated transport. The principle of accessible transport for all is dear to the heart of green policy. I say to Fergus Ewing that we are not anti-car; we are simply anti-traffic. One of the things that we should have—which we used to have but do not any longer—is a motorail service from Inverness. Frank Roach, who is in the public gallery, will remember that a group of us staged a demonstration whereby we attempted to board a train, each of us with a bit of car under our arm, to explain that that was the only way in which people could get a car on a train now that the motorail service had stopped. The motorail concept seems eminently sensible. It should be reintroduced and actively promoted, for use by tourists and locals.
Someone mentioned the proposed Borders rail link being a single-track rail. We have put up with that for most of the track north and beyond Inverness but it is, frankly, not good enough. A motion has been lodged to upgrade the A9 to make it a dual carriageway all the way to Inverness, and I believe that Jamie Stone has lodged an amendment to continue that dualling further north. I respectfully suggest that he might wish to withdraw that amendment and propose that the money be spent on upgrading the rail line. That would be a much better use of public money. The road at least has two lanes; the railway does not.
The proposal to transfer freight to rail is also a good one. That is a safer way of transporting freight, although a lot of people are not using rail in that way. In the course of my work, I have travelled frequently to and from Caithness and Sutherland by car on the A9. Despite the skill and courtesy of the lorry drivers, who are very good, that is a difficult road on which to drive. The answer is not to upgrade the road. The topography of the place means that it will always be difficult to drive on the A9. The freight should be transported by rail. The only way in which life will be improved for road users is by getting the heavy traffic off the roads.
That is all that I want to say. I could have let John Farquhar Munro have an extra minute.
I welcome the debate and hope that people will take rail seriously. People on the continent would not for a minute put up with our level of investment in rail and the standards that we accept as normal. That is really sad. We need to raise our eyes a bit. I hope that members from the Highlands will encourage members from the rest of Scotland to do just that.
In any discussion about railways, I start by saying that the east coast main line ends at Aberdeen. I have had assurances in Parliament about that from the SRA. However, it does no harm to remind the SRA and everybody else, from time to time, that that is the case. I hope that the SRA will honour the assurances that it has given to me that that is the case.
Happily for me, the Aberdeen to Inverness line runs right through my constituency, with stations at Inverurie, Insch, Huntly and Keith. I hope that there will soon be a station at Kintore, when the Aberdeen cross-rail project finally comes to fruition after many years of having been on the go. It is moving forward. I am told that the level 4 costing process is almost complete—I do not understand entirely what that means, but it sounds like another milestone met and passed and I am all for it.
My local council has been supportive of rail travel. It has used public transport funds to install closed-circuit television in stations at Inverurie and Stonehaven and a car park extension at Inverurie and there are longer-term proposals for a transport interchange there, to add to the cycle lockers that are there already, which are a minor improvement but represent a start.
In passing, I say that it would be good if a lot more were done to implement the proposals for a better transport interchange in Aberdeen. Although that city benefits from having the train station and the bus station right next to each other, they are situated in a post-industrial wilderness that does nothing for people arriving in Aberdeen.
It is important to get freight off roads and on to rail, as one of the main benefits arising from a railway system relates to freight. Bulk pulp that arrives in Aberdeen harbour for the Inverurie paper mill gets transported to the paper mill by train, I am happy to say, but sadly the finished paper is not transported by train. That is because the railway industry could not meet the requirements of reliability and just-in-time delivery that the paper industry requires. There is a lot more to be done to sharpen up the rail industry's game if it is to get the business that is there to be had.
Rail is important for tourism. Railways take people into the heart of our main cities and are therefore the obvious form of transport for tourists to use. Foreign visitors arriving by air expect to be able to use public transport and I cringe when I am on the Aberdeen to Edinburgh line and I see stations that are deserted in the evenings and have no catering or luggage facilities. People who have paid handsome sums of money to travel by train expect good service and the situation makes me quite ashamed. It is not good enough. In that regard, I agree with the point that was made earlier about the lack of facilities for cycles.
In closing, I want to say that our internal rail system should be such that no one should be flying from a Scottish city to London. Our rail service should make that an irrelevant option.
As nostalgia has been mentioned—by Mark Ruskell, I think—before responding to the points that have been made perhaps I might be allowed to recall the days back in the 1980s, when a young Liberal candidate in a constituency called Kincardine and Deeside launched the campaign for the reopening of Laurencekirk station. Of course, I cannot announce anything in that regard tonight, but I can say that that former young candidate would be extremely proud if the Scottish Executive were able to play a part in the reopening of that station.
The fact that Jamie Stone and many other members, not all of whom represent rural areas, have spoken tonight shows the importance of this topic. The Scottish Executive is committed to keeping the Scottish Parliament well informed of progress relating to the Scottish passenger rail franchise and today's debate provides an early opportunity for me to brief everyone on the latest developments.
Clearly, letting the new ScotRail is one of the big priorities for the Scottish Executive in the coming year. I have listened to what everyone has said today about the problems that are faced by passengers on our network and I am determined to deliver a better deal for passengers in the next franchise. The quality and reliability of the service must be paramount.
Today's debate has focused on the importance of public transport to rural communities. There is no doubt that, to improve social and economic inclusion in rural areas, it is vital that we make appropriate public transport provision for the varied needs of rural communities. That will require new investment. We firmly believe that rail has an important part to play in building up our public transport network. A significant element of rail investment, including the Borders rail link, can be paid for from the £3 billion of new investment that the Scottish Executive is committed to over the next 10 years.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will in a second but, to allow the member to respond further, I will add that it seemed to be an astonishing admission on the part of the SNP that its policy is not to fund the Borders rail link from Scottish Executive funds, but instead to rely on the United Kingdom Government to fund it through the SRA. That makes the SNP policy clear: no Scottish Executive transport division funding and no Borders rail link.
I would like to clarify this important point. I have in front of me a press release from Michael Moore, the Liberal Democrat MP for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. He is one of the vice-chairs of the all-party group on rail in the House of Commons. He showed great concern that the Strategic Rail Authority is not committed to funding the whole line. Michael Moore said:
"We cannot let this happen as the full route is crucial to the future of the Borders."
Michael Moore and Archy Kirkwood were most anxious about the fact that there is no commitment to the line on the part of the SRA.
Will the minister confirm whether any money at all is coming from the Strategic Rail Authority to fund the total length of the Borders rail line?
Christine Grahame has not changed the position that she outlined earlier. She and the SNP expect the SRA to fund the line, but the commitment of the Executive and the transport division is clear. In due course, provided there is the right partnership, we expect funding to flow from the Scottish Executive for what is a very important project. Under devolution, Scottish ministers have the power to issue the Strategic Rail Authority with directions and guidance for the Scottish franchise. In return, ministers have the honour of being responsible for funding the franchise.
We know what passengers want from their railways—and we believe that that is the right basis on which to go about funding the franchise. Passengers want high-quality, safe, reliable, regular and clean services. They also want a high-quality service from staff.
I appreciate the feelings that have been expressed in the chamber this evening, and it is clear that things are not always good enough at present. As a result of our understanding of the priorities of the public and the Parliament, one of the things that we are addressing in the next franchise is the quality of service that rail travellers can expect. We announced funding for 28 new trains, which will lead to substantial improvements to the fleet and will improve the quality of passengers' journeys. The old class 158 trains on the Highland main line, for example, will largely be eliminated by 2004, and will be replaced by new Turbostars. Those trains will provide more seats and will significantly contribute towards our commitment to reduce overcrowding.
Generally speaking, the next franchise will be more prescriptive than the last, in that the public sector—the Executive and the SRA—will closely specify what the private sector delivers. There will be a system of incentives for good performance and penalties for poor performance. That is known as a performance regime. Performance regimes will set out in substantial depth what we require. That means, for example, that toilets will be clean and lockable—and unlockable; trains will be tidy and clean; graffiti will be removed quickly from trains and stations; and if there is supposed to be a trolley service on a given service, a trolley service is provided. There will be regular and rigorous monitoring of those standards and we will take steps if the franchisee is failing to meet its obligations. If they are not met, there will be penalties.
I have tried to focus on the quality-of-service issues that were clearly the main concern in the debate. I have much further detail on the franchise bid, but I will not have time to cover it all, as I appear to have just seven seconds left in which to speak.
In conclusion, as members know and as John Farquhar Munro indicated, we have a shortlist of four bidders for the franchise, and the SRA is presently developing the specification to issue to those bidders. We are working closely with the authority in that regard. Once the documents are issued, which is expected within the next month or so, the bidders will have three months in which to prepare and submit their bids. We will then evaluate the bids and identify a preferred bidder.
I expect to be in a position to identify a preferred bidder in spring next year. That means that a short extension beyond the current expiry date of 31 March 2004 is very likely.
The franchise will be let on the basis that broadly the same network of services will be provided as at present. However, we are also building on that network. For example, the franchise will incorporate the new trains that I have mentioned. We are also taking steps to run services on new rail lines, as has been said tonight. No one would be happier than I if I am the Minister for Transport when we announce our support for services on the new Larkhall to Milngavie route, the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine route, the Airdrie to Bathgate route and the Borders rail line. Services will be run on all new rail lines as soon as they are reopened.
I hope that that is good news for the future. For the first time in decades, we are considering new investment in our railways in a real and substantial way. Everyone in the Parliament will support that.
Meeting closed at 18:01.