Railways
We come now to the ministerial statement from Sarah Boyack. The minister will take questions at the end of the statement. There should, therefore, be no interventions during it.
With permission, Sir David, I will make a statement about the devolution of executive functions for railways to the Scottish ministers, for which provision has been made in the UK Railways Bill.
Before I turn to the main purpose of my statement, I wish to register my own shock and horror regarding the appalling events outside Paddington on Tuesday. Yesterday, as a Parliament, we passed on our condolences to the families and friends of the people who were killed or injured in that terrible accident. As transport minister, I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate that the safety of everyone who travels on public transport is a primary concern of the Scottish Executive.
Rail safety is an issue on which we need consistent standards across the whole UK. The Scottish Executive is, therefore, in regular contact with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Health and Safety Executive, Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, the Rail Regulator and the British Transport Police on matters relating to rail safety in Scotland.
Earlier today, Gus Macdonald gave me clear assurances that any lessons learned from the public inquiry into Tuesday's accident will be applied in Scotland as uniformly as they will be throughout the rest of Britain. The rail industry in Scotland has already committed itself to investing in improved safety across the network, aimed at further reducing the chances of accidents. Although Scotland's recent rail safety record has been comparatively good, that should in no way be grounds for complacency. We will work with the industry in Scotland and UK transport safety agencies to ensure that rail safety standards continue to improve and passenger confidence in rail travel is restored.
On 7 July, I wrote to all members of the Scottish Parliament outlining arrangements for transferring a number of executive functions to Scottish ministers through provisions made in the Railways Bill introduced at Westminster the same day. When the bill was introduced, the Scottish Parliament was in recess, so I made a commitment to make a statement on these matters to members once they reconvened this
autumn. Today, I am honouring that commitment.
Members will recall that on 31 March last year— during the passage of the Scotland Bill—Henry McLeish announced in the House of Commons that a significant and extensive range of legislative competence and executive functions dealing with railways would be transferred to the Scottish Parliament and Executive.
At the time, there was considerable debate about the future of the railways across Britain. The UK Government had already committed itself to reforming the structures that regulated and managed the privatised rail industry. It had stated that legislation would be introduced to give statutory weight to its commitment to secure a better deal for rail passengers.
Our priorities are to ensure that the railways are operated safely, securely, efficiently and in the public interest. We believe that core standards need to be common in all parts of the UK. I also believe that a number of key functions that affect the type of service that is delivered to rail passengers in Scotland should be held by the Scottish ministers.
Provision for those functions has been made in the UK Railways Bill. The bill is intended to deliver the devolution of executive powers over the issuing of directions and guidance to the strategic rail authority in relation to passenger rail services that start and end in Scotland and are provided under a franchise agreement; and over the issuing of directions and guidance to the SRA in relation to passenger rail sleeper services that start or end in Scotland and are provided under a franchise agreement by an operator who also provides passenger rail services that start and end in Scotland.
Those functions are to be exercised within a Great Britain strategic policy framework for the railways. That will ensure that standards of performance management, operation, safety and security are applied consistently across the rail industry.
In addition to directions and guidance to the SRA, the bill also reaffirms the authority of the Scottish ministers to make freight facilities grants and track access grants in Scotland within the new statutory arrangements and overall GB policy.
In my letter to MSPs on 7 July, I explained why it had been decided to transfer those functions by making provision for them in the UK Railways Bill. Usually, the transfer of executive functions would be achieved through the use of orders under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998. Such orders require the approval of both Parliaments. Indeed, a number of railway functions have already been transferred to the Scottish ministers in that way.
However, in the case of the executive functions dealing with directions and guidance and freight grants, Scottish ministers agreed with the UK Government that, in this instance, it would be more straightforward and transparent to provide in the bill for the transfer to the Scottish ministers. The normal route for transferring functions to the Scottish ministers remains orders under the Scotland Act 1998, over which this Parliament will have control.
The transfer of executive functions that is provided for in the UK Railways Bill is one part of the agreed devolution package for railways. It may be helpful to members if I indicate the current position on the other components of the package.
The Scotland Act 1998 already provides for the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to give certain grants for passenger rail services. Further legislative competence for the rail responsibilities of Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive, and for the authorisation of proposals for the construction of new railways in Scotland, will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament by order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998, again subject to the approval of this Parliament.
The executive devolution order made under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998, which was approved by both Parliaments in June, devolved executive responsibility for the administration of rail freight grants. That order, with an order under section 89 of the Scotland Act 1998, which has also been approved by this Parliament, also transferred to the Scottish ministers the responsibility for appointing the chair of the Rail Users Consultative Committee for Scotland. The order also requires the Office of the Rail Regulator to consult the Scottish ministers on the appointment of new members to that committee.
Furthermore, the order requires the Scottish ministers to lay the reports of the Rail Users Consultative Committee for Scotland, the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee, the franchising director and the Rail Regulator before the Scottish Parliament.
Arrangements are also being put in place to transfer to the Scottish Executive the finances to pay for the passenger rail services that are currently provided by ScotRail under the terms of its franchise.
The implementation of the first components of this package is already reaping dividends for Scotland's railways. The ministerial authority to make freight grants has enabled the Scottish Executive to make three major awards totalling more than £6.5 million since 1 July. Those awards have already made a major contribution to the "Partnership for Scotland" commitment, which was
reaffirmed in "Making it Work Together", to transfer freight from road to rail.
Other challenges are emerging in the rail industry. The Scottish Executive will play a full part in a range of matters that directly impact on the quality of service that is delivered to rail passengers in Scotland. The transfer of executive functions and legislative competence to the Scottish Parliament and Executive will give us the means to do that.
In the meantime, I have established solid working relationships with the shadow strategic rail authority and the Office of the Rail Regulator in advance of formal powers being conferred to the Scottish ministers. Both Sir Alastair Morton, chairman of the shadow authority, and Tom Winsor, the Rail Regulator, have stated publicly that they will take a very close interest in the development of railways in Scotland.
Railways are a vital part of an integrated transport policy for Scotland. This year alone, more than £200 million of public money is being spent on Scottish rail passenger services. Without that level of support, the rail industry would be unable to invest in new trains, track and signalling. The recent introduction of the 15-minute interval Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street service is the latest example of how public money helps to generate improved services.
The rail network can, and does, reduce road congestion, help to reduce the negative environmental impact of cars and lorries, and provides fast, increasingly comfortable, punctual and reliable links between most of the country's principal cities and towns.
I know that there is much to be done. The measures in the Railways Bill give the Scottish Executive the powers to ensure that the rail industry works in partnership with Government to help to deliver a better deal for passengers.
The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I remind members who want to speak to press their request buttons.
I concur with the minister's statement regarding the tragic accident in London.
Does the minister agree that the bill transfers responsibility to the Scottish Parliament but not control of the budgetary allocation? We will have responsibility without revenue and control of the trains but not the track. Will the minister confirm that apart from any revenue gain on a franchise agreement, the only way in which the Parliament can expand the rail network within the block grant allocation is to cut jobs and services in some other area, such as health or housing?
I have to disagree with Mr MacAskill on his last point. The Scottish Parliament will have the opportunity to promote and improve rail services in Scotland. Providing passenger revenue subsidy is one method of doing that. The efficient operation of the ScotRail franchise should offer us—as it has in the last month—the opportunity to provide a new raft of services throughout the whole of Scotland.
There will be other ways to invest in the railways network. We are already using money from the public transport fund to invest in the network. One of the ways in which I am keen to ensure that we maximise investment is through the investment that Railtrack makes. I have already spoken with Tom Winsor about that.
I, too, welcome the minister's comments about this week's events near Paddington and her assurances that the lessons that are learned will be applied in Scotland.
In terms of the statement, what appreciable differences in service delivery does the minister hope to bring about using the executive power to issue directions and guidance? Will Scottish Executive directions and guidance to the strategic rail authority be covered by a concordat with the UK Government? If so, when will it be issued?
Will the minister undertake to consider, with an open mind, proposals from Fife Council and Scottish Enterprise for financial support for a freight marshalling yard at Rosyth, notwithstanding the very negative reaction given in yesterday's papers by her spokesman?
I believe that we will be able to make appreciable improvements to the railways network in Scotland. There have already been improvements in the Glasgow to Edinburgh service as a result of the ScotRail 2000 exercise. That will improve the quality of service across the central belt. Improvements have also been made between Glasgow and Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and between Glasgow and Edinburgh and the Fife network. There will be new investment in stock and increased provision of railway facilities throughout Scotland.
I hope that the Scottish Parliament will be able to focus attention on the priorities for future railways investment. The Scottish public transport fund—we have already made the first allocation, the second is due shortly—presents the opportunity to consider the priorities suggested by local authorities. A good example of that is the £8 million we gave to Edinburgh for the cross-rail project.
The freight facilities grant presents another welcome opportunity. When I have visited local authorities over the past few months, I have encouraged them to consider what schemes they and the rail companies might suggest to the Scottish Executive so that we can work together to improve the transfer of freight from road to rail and invest in new facilities. We recognise that that transfer often involves substantial capital investment for the companies involved. That is the purpose of the freight facilities grant.
The Transport Development Group Nexus development in Grangemouth, for example, will enable the development of sidings. At first, they will be used primarily by TDG Nexus, but other firms will be able to use them in future. I was glad that TDG Nexus was able to confirm that on the day we announced the award.
I ask the Deputy Presiding Officer to note a previously declared interest in the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association.
As somebody who has worked in the rail industry for many years and who has links with certain of the rail unions, I wish to associate myself with the comments of concern and sympathy that the minister and other members have made today, and that Annabel Goldie made yesterday, about the tragic accident at Paddington.
Will the minister expand on how she believes the transfer of executive functions will impact on safety in the rail industry in Scotland? How does she intend to take that matter forward with Railtrack and the various other organisations that are responsible for safety?
I am happy to report to Mr Muldoon that during the summer I met the zonal director of Railtrack Scotland, Janette Anderson, and the managing director of ScotRail, Alistair MacPherson. One of the issues that we discussed in those separate meetings was rail safety. A large number of accidents on the railway network of Great Britain are caused by vandalism, but in Scotland the proportion of accidents caused by vandalism is significantly higher than in the rest of the country. That is an important issue for us to focus on in Scotland. We need to take it seriously, and I hope to follow it up when I meet the British Transport Police next month.
Safety is one of the key issues that is addressed in the ScotRail franchise. We need to consider safety in broad terms, not just in terms of track investment and the quality of investment by Railtrack, but in terms of the management of rail services. We also need to consider safety at individual stations. Strathclyde Passenger
Transport Executive and ScotRail have installed closed-circuit television in many stations in the west of Scotland. CCTV gives passengers at unstaffed stations the reassurance that somebody is watching. On a recent visit to Paisley, it was interesting to watch how it works in practice and to see the level of scrutiny in stations with CCTV. I hope that that such measures can be expanded throughout Scotland.
As the minister is aware, there are no railways in the Borders. Will she join me in giving support for the Campaign for Borders Rail, which is campaigning for the Waverley line, as it is commonly known? That line is considered a necessity by Scottish Borders Enterprise for the economic recovery of the Borders. Will she tell me where, in her statement, I am told how it will be constructed and—crucially—how she will fund it?
The Borders railway line survey is currently being carried out. We are part way through that process. A number of organisations have contributed to that study, including Midlothian Council, Scottish Borders Council and Railtrack. The survey is considering the various options and possibly reopening part of the Borders railway line—the Waverley line. I am keen to consider the recommendations when the report is concluded towards the end of November. I will take on board the issues raised in the report and see what is possible.
As the MSP for that area, I welcome that statement from the minister. I hope that when she considers the report, she will remember the kind of economic, social and environmental benefits that could follow in the Scottish Borders and areas like it. Today's announcements give the minister the opportunity to plan a strategic transport policy for the whole of Scotland. I seek her assurance that road and rail networks in rural areas will feature heavily in her thinking. The road and rail networks in the Borders need upgrading.
I congratulate Mr Jenkins on effectively expanding the focus of the discussion from rail to road.
I entirely take Mr Jenkins's point. As we have a dense rail network across the most urban parts of Scotland, one of our challenges is to find out how we can improve the quality of services in rural areas. We have an opportunity to increase the frequency of rural rail services on, for example, commuter services into Aberdeen or Inverness. Trains might have to stop at an extra station. Although that would have an impact on the times of trains and the speed of service, it might bring benefits to areas where trains have rushed through without stopping.
Mr Jenkins is right to say that a strategic approach is required. I hope that we will be able to focus on those issues through the work of Scottish ministers and in discussions with the Transport and the Environment Committee to bring benefits to rural areas. We might, for example, be able to provide high-quality park-and-ride facilities in more remote areas where it would be extremely expensive to add track. That might encourage people to drive to those areas to access the main railway network.
Further to Murray Tosh's point, is the minister aware that we have been waiting a long, long time for the electrification of the railway line between Edinburgh and Glasgow via Falkirk High? When is that going to happen? Will the minister make appropriate representations to Railtrack to make this matter a top priority?
I understand that a Railtrack study completed in 1993 estimated the cost of electrification of the Edinburgh to Glasgow route via Falkirk High at £45 million, which is quite a hefty price tag. The new every-15-minute train service between Glasgow and Edinburgh will, I hope, provide a dramatically improved service for constituents in Mr Canavan's area and I will be happy to talk to him about how that service will make an appreciable difference.
We need to cut the travel time.
Improving travel times between Glasgow and Edinburgh is an important issue. However, the accessibility of the new service in places such as Falkirk High will markedly improve the railway network and transform people's perceptions of the accessibility of the railway network.
Will the minister consider taking action to improve passenger comfort on trains? If so, will she comment on the part of the ScotRail charter which says that the company will not offer refunds to passengers who complain about a lack of comfort on the service?
I thank Ms McNeill for her comments. She has raised the matter with me several times since the summer. Concerns have centred on overcrowding on certain trains, particularly between Glasgow and Edinburgh. I hope that a train every 15 minutes between those cities will make an appreciable difference to that service by spreading the load.
As for passenger comfort, the number of people travelling on the railways in Scotland has increased by about 20 per cent over the past couple of years. The rail industry is growing, which requires a response from the rail companies as well as from Government. I take on board Ms McNeill's point that passenger comfort is absolutely crucial for people to make the shift from road to rail. If people are going to use the railway network, the network has to be of a high quality. I am happy to raise those points in my discussions with ScotRail and the other train companies.
On 9 September, my colleague Kenny MacAskill asked the minister:
"Does the minister support the Larkhall rail extension to the Haughhead junction, when will she authorise its construction and how will it be funded?"—[Official Report, 9 September 1999; Vol 2, c 335.]
The minister said that she would provide him with a written answer. Now that a month has elapsed, can she answer those questions?
As discussions are still taking place between Scottish Executive officials and the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive, I have no news to give Mr Campbell at this time.
I join the minister in sending my condolences to the people who have been involved in the tragedy at Paddington.
I congratulate the minister on her commitment to the rail industry—a commitment that I share—but I also want to be critical of the rail industry's attitude to Fife, where rail service provision is among the worst in Scotland.
Although I understand Dennis Canavan's point about rail electrification, I am more concerned about access for disabled people. I am not convinced that the rail industry has properly provided for disabled access. What does the minister plan to do about that?
Increasing the number of stations that are accessible to people with physical disabilities is a major challenge. I have discussed that with ScotRail in the past. The requirements that have come from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee provide some useful targets for the rail industry to work towards. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is improving standards across the transport industry, and I would be happy to take forward with Helen Eadie our future discussion on the subject.
Performance indicators in the existing rail franchises tend to focus on journey times. Does the minister agree that, when negotiating the next round of franchises, more attention ought to be paid to attracting passengers and boosting passenger numbers? Following comments about overcrowding, I would say that concerns about comfort and convenience should also be taken into account.
I would not like to make any comments about the next set of passenger rail franchises. We will deal with them later. I agree with Nora: attracting more passengers on to the rail network has to be one of our key priorities.
The Executive needs to take forward the issues of safety, reliability, accessibility and ticketing as part of our overall approach to improving the quality of the railway network in Scotland.
I was encouraged by the minister's statements about examining rural transport. I have personal experience of the improvements in the Glasgow to Edinburgh service. That is great, but many parts of the country are not able even to tap into that service. I refer in particular to my constituency, in Dumfries and Galloway, where it is not possible to commute to Edinburgh in time to come to Parliament, for example, using the rail service.
I ask the minister to examine ways in which the service to that part of the world can be improved. Only an increase in the number of trains that stop at Lockerbie would be needed to put that right. Can the Executive exert any influence on railway service providers to improve the service for people in the south-west of Scotland?
I am sure that we will be able to take that on board as we examine the priorities for the whole of Scotland. The agenda is challenging and a significant amount of money is involved in improving the rail network. We must get better value from existing services.
The rail network is expanding. We had decades of under-investment in the rail network and the industry was declining. I think that it is exciting and significant that we are now talking about our future priorities for expansion of the railway network in urban and rural parts of Scotland. It is not an agenda to be delivered overnight, but the Parliament should take this challenging objective forward.
I wish to expand on what impact the minister's statement will have on the governance of cross- border services. As I have pointed out to the minister previously, although people are getting on trains in Lockerbie—as Dr Murray mentioned— and travelling to another location in Scotland, such services are technically cross-border, because they start in Carlisle, Berwick or elsewhere. Given what she has said today, can the minister say how those services will be governed until the strategic rail authority is operational?
I think that the minister will accept that there is a legitimate concern that Borders stations might be left in a no-man's-land. People will assume that because they are going to and from Scottish destinations, the services are being dealt with solely by this Parliament, when in fact they are not.
I can reassure David Mundell that, in advance of the strategic rail authority being set up, the Scottish Executive is in discussions with the shadow strategic rail authority about a number of issues on the future of railways in Scotland. I take on board his representations on this subject, which he has made to me before.