Official Report 900KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18763, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on 20 years of Scotland’s railway providing a strong platform for the future.
15:09
Scotland’s public transport system provides a cleaner and greener alternative to the private car. It is a key enabler of growth and opportunity, and it provides vital links for people to live, learn, earn and socialise.
Scotland’s railway is at the forefront of that. The railway supports vital connections between our cities, communities and businesses, and it showcases much of what Scotland has to offer. The railway is an integral part of our nation’s economy and wellbeing, and I pay tribute to all the people who work on it.
This year marks 20 years since rail powers were devolved at executive level to the Scottish Government. That was a significant step in devolution and a key milestone that helped us to deliver the success that is Scotland’s railway. As the United Kingdom Minister for Rail, Lord Hendy, has said, Scotland’s integrated approach, which is underpinned by the alliance between ScotRail and Network Rail, has delivered a more cohesive railway system—one that has been delivered through greater integration of the management of track and train, with the whole system working together.
Today is an important moment to reflect on the achievements that Scotland’s railway has delivered on behalf of the people of Scotland. Our focus remains on delivering further improvements to encourage more people to switch from their car and to choose more sustainable journeys. By making rail services more affordable, accessible and inclusive, we are delivering on the core principles of our national transport strategy.
While the cabinet secretary is talking about improvements, will she give an update on when she plans to give some positive news about the new rail development and railway station at Newburgh? She had a very good visit to Newburgh some months ago, and she was supposed to be receiving advice towards the end of May. We are very keen to hear positive news about the next steps.
I did, indeed, have a very good visit to Newburgh, where I heard the passion of the community. I have made it clear to my officials that I would like their advice as soon as possible. I understand that the work, which has been supported by Government funding to get it to this stage, is on-going, but I expect to receive the advice fairly soon.
Since 2007, the Government has invested more than £12 billion in rail infrastructure. Our consistent policy of maintaining a rolling programme of electrification has delivered 574km of electrified track, which has enabled greener and more efficient journeys. Over the past 20 years, first the Scottish Executive and now the Scottish Government have funded the construction of 25 new stations and reopened four previously disused lines in order to reconnect communities across Scotland. Those projects improve not just infrastructure but people’s lives.
Going back 20 years, I recognise that previous Administrations initiated a number of valued improvements to our railway that we inherited in 2007 and successfully delivered.
The line between Airdrie and Bathgate and the one between Stirling, Dunblane and Alloa have connected communities across the central belt. The Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme has delivered not only modern electric trains but the impressive transformation of Haymarket and Glasgow Queen Street stations on that flagship route.
You have mentioned lines from east to west, but will you comment on the need for the Almond chord in order to revitalise and bring back to life the lemon of a station that is Edinburgh Gateway, which is largely unused?
Always speak through the chair.
We recognise the previous work on the EGIP and the recommendations on the Almond chord. Electrification is taking place, particularly between Haymarket and Dalmeny. I saw that in person last Friday when I travelled to Fife to announce electrification in the Fife area.
This week, we celebrate 10 years since the reopening of the Borders railway line, which had been closed for nearly 50 years. The reopening has transformed the economy and attractiveness of the local area and improved lives.
Last year, we opened the Levenmouth rail link, with Leven, Cameron Bridge and their active travel network finally reconnected to Scotland’s rail network through direct services to Edinburgh via Kirkcaldy. In May, ScotRail introduced a second train each hour via Dunfermline and the wider Fife network in order to provide additional journey opportunities.
I know that, during the debate, we will hear ambitious calls for more stations—as we already have done—and for more lines. I doubt that I will be able to address them all in my closing speech, but I will try.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I want to move on just now.
It has now been three years since the Scottish Government took the decision to end the Abellio ScotRail franchise, and it has been two years since the Serco Caledonian Sleeper franchise ended. Both operators are now in public ownership and under the direction of Scottish Rail Holdings.
We have seen continued improvements as a result of public ownership. ScotRail has added more than 200 additional services each weekday in the past year, offering 7 per cent more seats. ScotRail has a proven track record in boosting patronage, with journeys in the financial year 2024-25 at 84.7 million, up from 63.7 million in 2022-23 and 81.1 million in 2023-24. That is a huge increase of 33 per cent over two years, and a healthy increase of 4 per cent between 2023-24 and 2024-25.
On average, ScotRail remains one of the highest-scoring operators for overall passenger satisfaction. It employs 900 more people than it did prior to public ownership and, for the fifth year in a row, it has been awarded top employer status. I congratulate all ScotRail staff on their hard work and dedication.
Under public ownership, Caledonian sleeper performance has improved. Right-time arrivals are at almost 88 per cent, which is well above the average for the rest of the UK. Sleeper passenger numbers continue to grow year on year—it is one of the strongest post-pandemic recoveries of all Great Britain operators.
The UK Government is preparing to legislate on rail reform. The Scottish Government believes that a fully devolved and integrated railway that is publicly controlled, operated in the service of the public and truly accountable to the public will deliver better and more efficient services for our people, our communities and our visitors. In the absence of full devolution, I have made it clear to the UK Government that Scotland must benefit from rail reform to the same extent as England and Wales. I have welcomed assurances on that from the UK Minister for Rail, Lord Hendy, but I have yet to see whether and how that will be secured in law.
If the cabinet secretary has time, I will briefly intervene and say that, with devolution comes fiscal responsibility. The cost of upgrading the tracks and of Network Rail’s operations is huge. Where will the Government find the money if it wants to take over that responsibility?
We already fund Network Rail’s responsibilities with £1.5 billion as part of control period 7. That is already part of our budget. The issue with rail reform is that we have to ensure that we have control not only of the funding but of the decision making. My concern about the rail reform that is being discussed at the UK level is that that vertical integration might preclude the governance arrangements that we already have. I have therefore made it clear in meetings with the UK Government that Scottish ministers will not accept any diminution of our existing devolved powers over rail, and that strong governance, accountability and assurance measures must be in place for the areas in which we set strategy and that we fund and specify. That is why a collective stance from the Parliament stating that is important at this time.
I move on to the economy. We know that rail benefits business and that growth through rail freight and the transport of goods by rail is a key lever in driving down transport emissions. The Government’s role is to put policies in place that facilitate modal shift, and we have shown genuine leadership with a tangible focus in that area through our first-of-a-kind freight growth targets, which incentivise Network Rail to collaborate with the industry to grow rail freight. However, freight works on a commercial basis, so there is a key role for the industry to play.
In these times of constrained budgets, I am proud of our investment in projects that support rail freight and pleased to have secured a rail freight grant in this year’s budget. As we work with the rail industry to plan the next suite of investment projects, we will continue to ensure that the benefit for freight is maximised.
Does the cabinet secretary also recognise the importance of rail and rolling stock maintenance in Scotland? In particular, does she welcome the reopening by Gibson’s engineering of the Caley railway works in Springburn after a six-year hiatus, in the hope that it will succeed in getting more contracts after the recent award of the Transport for London contract?
I welcome that. Part of rail’s role in the economy is to help the supply chain, and it is important that the jobs and the welcome, continued investment from the Scottish Government help to support that supply chain.
Despite our well-known financial challenges, this year the Scottish Government will invest more than £1.5 billion in ScotRail and sleeper services and in operating, maintaining and renewing the rail network. Although transport is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, Scotland’s railway is a success story: whether diesel or electric traction, it is already a low-carbon form of transport for passengers and freight. Scotland’s railway will make a significant contribution to the Scottish Government’s wider net zero commitments, which we will set out in the draft climate change plan that we put before Parliament.
Looking forward, we continue to invest to modernise Scotland’s railway. More than 75 per cent of passenger journeys are already made on electric traction. Building on our record of delivery of electrification, from last year, railway passengers enjoyed new electric services on the Glasgow to Barrhead line, which was completed in December 2023.
This year, we are delivering works to electrify the railway line between Dalmeny and Haymarket, and we are completing the £144 million East Kilbride enhancement project. Just last week, funding was announced to electrify key routes on the Fife and Borders lines, delivering modern, reliable trains. Those infrastructure enhancements are enabling works that will allow a new zero-emission fleet to be introduced. In the autumn, we will publish our refresh of the rail decarbonisation action plan, which will set out a credible plan to deliver decarbonisation in a proportionate way that achieves best value.
Scotland’s railway must capitalise on its existing skills and identify and create opportunities to upskill the current workforce, retraining individuals from other sectors and investing time in the future workforce, thus future proofing Scotland’s railway. The rail cluster builder is a specific example of the Scottish Government’s support of the rail industry. Funded by Scottish Enterprise, Transport Scotland and Skills Development Scotland, the rail cluster is a three-year project connecting more Scottish small and medium-sized enterprises with rail sector organisations, strengthening and deepening relationships with key stakeholders across the sector and helping to create innovative green solutions that will support our net zero targets.
ScotRail has an ageing fleet of trains that must be replaced over the coming decade. A procurement exercise to replace ScotRail’s intercity high-speed train fleet is already under way. Last month, we formally started market engagement with train manufacturers on the suburban train fleet. Those trains will enable level boarding, they will be more energy efficient, helping to reduce emissions and operating costs, and they will better meet modern passenger expectations.
We want more people to choose to travel by public transport for work, study and leisure, and that is why ScotRail peak fares have gone for good, which will help people with on-going household bills and costs. Existing rail passengers will save money, and the measure will encourage potential new passengers on to the train, leaving the car at home. Permanently removing ScotRail peak fares makes public transport a more affordable option for many. It also makes ticketing simpler and more straightforward, supporting our ambitions to simplify ticketing across our transport network.
I have made clear the importance of Scotland’s railway to our economy and society. I have made clear the commitment that the Scottish Government has made over many years to deliver a wide range of achievements that make a real difference to people’s lives. Moving forward, our commitment to rail remains as strong. As we mark 20 years of devolution in Scotland’s railway, I commend the motion to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that it is now 20 years since the devolution of executive powers over rail funding, specification and strategy for Scotland’s railway; celebrates the 15th anniversary of the completion of the Airdrie-Bathgate route, instigated by the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition and completed under the Scottish National Party, the 10th anniversary of the reopening of the Borders Railway and the first anniversary of the reopening of the Levenmouth route; recognises the many significant achievements over those 20 years, including electrification of over 570 kilometres of track, the opening of 30 new stations, and an increase of a fifth in ScotRail passenger numbers; welcomes the consistent delivery of operational performance and passenger satisfaction under public ownership and control, which are among the best levels in Britain; notes the need to continue to improve those performance levels; welcomes the investment of £13 billion over this period to sustain and grow the network through value-for-money projects, including the complete renewal of the Caledonian Sleeper fleet and operation; notes the cross-party support for the removal, for good, of ScotRail peak fares, first piloted while Scottish Green Party ministers were part of the Scottish Government; looks forward to the benefits from developments such as the completion of the electrification of the East Kilbride route, and the progression of procurement of new train fleets and further electrification, including the recently announced Fife and Borders routes; recognises that the UK Government’s current proposals for rail reform draw heavily on the widely recognised success of the devolved approach to rail in Scotland; notes the Scottish Government’s position that full devolution of rail is the optimal position but, in the absence of full devolution, Scotland’s railway must benefit at least as much from those reforms as is promised for England and Wales, and agrees that any reforms that would diminish the Scottish Ministers’ powers and the role of the Scottish Parliament already constrained by current UK legislation would be unacceptable to the Scottish Parliament, given the success the delivery model in Scotland has produced over the last two decades.
15:22
I think that we can all agree on the importance of rail to the Scottish economy and Scottish business, such as in the transportation of whisky and fresh produce, as well as on the importance of rail to the future decarbonisation of transport. Rail also plays a key role in Scotland’s social development. Our railways have long been a backbone of our communities, linking people to work, education and leisure while offering a critical environmental alternative to car travel.
Rather than simply celebrating past achievements, however, the Scottish Conservative amendment calls for a forward-looking strategy that will ensure that the needs of the public and the wider economy are met.
It is vital that the Scottish Government ensures that value for money and passenger satisfaction remain at the forefront of railway delivery in Scotland. The Scottish National Party promised an improved ScotRail when it nationalised the rail service more than three years ago, yet, under the SNP, public transport has become unreliable and far too expensive. Ticket prices and the number of complaints have soared, while the number of services and the number of passengers have plummeted. Indeed, there is not a single mention in the Scottish Government motion of the stark fact that our rail services have never quite got back to offering anything like the same level of service that they offered pre-Covid.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
That fact is one of the reasons why so many people are reluctant to get back to office working, and that decision has a direct correlation with the recovery of town and city centre economies.
The SNP’s decision to reintroduce peak fares across ScotRail trains last year was a disastrous decision, which served to punish hard-working Scots, especially those businesses and employees who were just considering returning to work to kick-start their business performance and increase productivity. We campaigned against that. Despite being defeated on a Scottish Conservative motion on the issue last year—a year ago almost to the day—the SNP refused to budge. Its members claimed at the time that abolishing peak fares permanently was unaffordable.
Perhaps I am far too cynical, but the timing of the U-turn did not really come as a surprise to me. The Government was desperate for a good news story and desperate to take full credit—we have seen that modus operandi before from the SNP. However, I am thrilled with the SNP’s latest U-turn, which is long overdue. The Scottish Conservatives have always said that we would permanently scrap peak rail fares to ease the burden on hard-working Scots.
Today’s debate is also about improving rail connections throughout Scotland. That is not just about the regional benefits—it is a national priority. We need to enhance the infrastructure to not only foster local community cohesion but bolster the entire country’s transport network. Passengers have been let down by SNP mismanagement. It is common sense to link new railway developments to future centres of population growth, and the SNP Government must outline how it plans to link the railway with growing towns and villages across the country.
I note the terms of the Conservative amendment. Does Sue Webber recognise that, if what her amendment sets out had been the policy in the past, it would have prevented the Borders railway, which, in fact, was introduced because of a declining population? Indeed, the terms of her amendment might undermine those people who are campaigning for the extension of the Borders railway.
This is part and parcel of today’s debate. The motion that the SNP has lodged looks back. I want to look forward to the future.
Winchburgh is a perfect example of a place that would benefit from a train station; I have been pushing for that in this Parliament for some years now. Winchburgh is a vibrant and growing community in West Lothian, and it desperately needs to be connected to the rail network. The establishment of a new railway station would enhance connectivity, ease traffic congestion in West Lothian and the west of Edinburgh, and support our ambitions to provide sustainable transport solutions. There will be 4,000 new families living there, and they will need that connection.
A new station in Winchburgh is essential. It is not only a necessity to alleviate mounting congestion but critical for the Scottish Government to meet its failing net zero ambitions. That is also true of investment in the Almond chord line, because, if investment was made there, it would make Edinburgh Gateway station, in which £41 million was invested, look like less of a white elephant. The Almond chord line would connect services from Fife to the west of Scotland and, with all the new houses that are being built in west Edinburgh, I know that commuters are crying out for that to be considered.
However, there is no future plan today. In the debate, we are celebrating stations that have come into service, but there is no detail on what stations will come in the future. The Blindwells development in East Lothian will result in 10,000 new homes, but, despite the east coast main line running through that stretch of what is an ever-expanding commuter area, there is only one train per hour. The homes are being touted as commutable to Edinburgh, but it seems that going by car will be far more preferable to taking the train. Residents are buying homes there because they are in easy reach of Edinburgh for social and leisure activities, but they will have to drive. We need to help those people to make the decision to use public transport.
The Scottish Government motion makes no mention at all of new rail building for those vital new communities and homes. Instead, there are dire warnings about threats to the Scottish ministers’ powers. When she closes the debate, perhaps the cabinet secretary might outline what will be done to accelerate badly needed investment in our rail infrastructure, instead of displaying the customary foot dragging that slows up so many practical and cost-effective schemes such as Winchburgh and the Almond chord.
We need investment in the train fleet, which is ageing, and our assets, which are in need of renewal. The future development of our railway is currently hindered by its ageing 19th century infrastructure—we cannot hide from that; it is a fact—and the ageing ScotRail fleet. Joanne Maguire, the director of ScotRail, has said:
“We have got another challenge with ageing—that’s our fleet. We have one of the oldest fleets in Britain.”
On key intercity routes, the reliability of the InterCity 125 fleet has been a persistent disappointment and has led to overcrowding and service disruptions. Rural lines face equally significant challenges. Iconic routes such as the west Highland and far north lines remain plagued by outdated infrastructure and limited amenities, despite our scenic railways holding immense untapped potential.
The Scottish Government is committed to spending in excess of £6 billion on new road capacity on corridors from Perth and Aberdeen to Inverness, yet no similar ambition exists for parallel rail routes. The Highland main line has been left with infrastructure that the Victorians would recognise, while an Aberdeen city deal promise that £200 million would be spent on faster line speeds north of Dundee has been reneged on.
It is vital that the SNP outlines how it plans to future proof the rail network. We have heard about the importance of the supply chain from organisations that are concerned about boom and bust in the investment cycles. The sector faces real uncertainty due to the boom and bust that is part of the cyclical nature of rail infrastructure spending. Businesses want to see a consistent long-term plan so that they can invest in this country, but, as I said, instability hinders long-term planning and discourages new talent from entering the industry.
I have also heard that skills shortages are an issue and that workforce retention is challenging. A notable portion of the rail workforce—9.4 per cent in the past year alone, especially from supplier firms—has exited the industry, and that is causing a critical loss of expertise. Without a steady pipeline of projects, companies struggle to invest in the staff recruitment and training that are needed.
In her opening remarks, the cabinet secretary mentioned the crucial nature of growth in rail freight. That is a strategic priority, but rail faces challenges with cost competitiveness when compared with road transport, especially following the abolition of a key freight support grant for 2024-25. Capacity constraints on critical cross-border and internal routes are hampering growth in rail freight.
There are also challenges with asset renewal. In addition to the cost of the trains themselves, there is significant inflation to contend with, and the supply chain disruptions are challenging.
I have just clocked the time, so I will conclude. We must focus on putting passengers first, cutting waste in bloated quangos, tightening spending rules and focusing every penny on delivering a safe, reliable and modern railway that delivers value for money for taxpayers, commuters, businesses and our economy.
I move amendment S6M-18763.1, to leave out from first “welcomes” to end and insert:
“urges the Scottish Government to ensure that value-for-money and passenger satisfaction remain at the forefront of railway delivery in Scotland; notes that the cross-party support for the removal of peak rail fares was made possible thanks to a Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party motion that called on the Scottish Government to remove them; recognises the importance of rail to the Scottish economy and business, such as in the transportation of whisky and fresh produce, and agrees that rail is important to the future decarbonisation of transport; notes that new railway developments should be linked to future centres of population growth, such as at Winchburgh, and calls on the Scottish Government to outline how it plans to deliver upgraded rail links in existing towns and villages, and connect those that do not have a rail link; recognises that future development of the railway in Scotland is hindered by aging 19th century infrastructure; calls on the Scottish Government to outline how it plans to future-proof the rail network, and urges the Scottish and UK governments to outline how they will work together to deliver private investment in the rail network.”
15:31
I am pleased to open the debate for Scottish Labour as we mark 20 years since the devolution of rail powers and recognise the progress that has been made on Scotland’s railways.
The motion highlights some achievements during that time, including the reopening of the Levenmouth rail line, a cause that has been close to my own heart since 2008. That reopening was the result of the perseverance of a tenacious group of campaigners, alongside strong cross-party support, and is an example of what can be achieved when communities and campaigners work together.
However, we must also acknowledge that it should not take decades of pressure to deliver essential transport connections. Communities in other parts of Scotland are still waiting for investment and deserve clarity about when promised projects will actually be delivered.
As we reflect on progress, we must also be honest about the challenges that our rail network faces and the work that must still be done. Although we may accept that the coming together of the rail bodies involved in Scotland’s railway has been a success, the running of our railways by the Scottish Government has not maximised the potential that exists, so we must focus on improving that.
One of the most significant developments in recent years is the return of ScotRail to public ownership, a policy that Scottish Labour had long called for. Public ownership provides the opportunity to have greater accountability and a service that puts passengers and workers ahead of profit, but it must deliver better reliability, affordability and accessibility. It must mean that passengers see a difference in the quality of service and that staff feel supported and safe at work.
The motion refers to a one-fifth increase in ScotRail passenger numbers, but we know that passenger numbers are still 20 per cent lower than before the pandemic. One of the first actions after the Scottish Government took control of ScotRail was a cut to services, rather than an investment in stimulating demand that would have aligned with the aims of reducing car use and transport emissions. The motion also highlights
“operational performance and passenger satisfaction under public ownership and control”
but millions of pounds have been paid out in compensation under the delay repay scheme since nationalisation, and punctuality and reliability are the most common topics of complaint. Addressing those issues is core to improving the commuter experience.
Will the member give way?
I will, briefly.
Does the member acknowledge that Covid caused disruption for all rail operators, but that ScotRail is one of the fastest-growing operators with regard to passenger numbers and satisfaction rates, which went up to 90 per cent in the latest survey? Some cancellations are caused by network issues, but those affect a tiny percentage of the overall number of journeys. There are more improvements to be made, but does the member recognise the improvements of the past few years?
I started my speech by saying that I recognise the successes, that I believe that taking ScotRail into public ownership was the right thing to do and that it has been a success. However, more could be done. From speaking to constituents in my region, I know that those figures do not reflect their experience of using the train. If I were to have a discussion with them about the Government’s very positive spin on what is happening, they would say that that is not their daily experience. The cabinet secretary is familiar with the Fife circle. What I am saying might be particular to Fife, but what has been said is not the daily experience of my constituents.
Scottish Labour welcomed the permanent removal of peak fares, but let us be clear that that happened only after significant pressure from trade unions and Opposition parties. Just last week, many of us spoke in the members’ business debate on the subject. I have to say that I enjoyed quoting some of the Scottish Government’s shifting reasons for ending the pilot. However, behind that, there are serious questions about the policy intention. Is the permanent removal of peak fares, as the First Minister said, about the cost of living and a policy that the Scottish Government is prepared to finance in the long term to deliver savings for passengers, or is it about achieving modal shift and increasing passenger numbers so that the policy will ultimately pay for itself? If it is the latter, how will the Government achieve that and within what timescales, given that that was its stated reason for the failure of the pilot?
We should also note that not all passengers will be better off. Those who relied on super off-peak tickets might now pay more, and, although flexipasses remain, the percentage savings have fallen. There is scope for a fairer, smarter approach to ticketing that reflects post-pandemic travel patterns and addresses regional price disparities that penalise some commuters. Alongside my colleagues, I have consistently pressed the Scottish Government to address unfair ticket prices and poor service reliability, both of which have discouraged people from choosing rail. If we are serious about tackling the climate emergency and reducing congestion on our roads, we need a rail network that people can afford to use and rely on. Encouraging more people to travel by train supports our local economies, reduces emissions and helps to create more vibrant town centres by making it easier for people to travel for work and leisure.
As I have already mentioned, the cabinet secretary is well aware of the persistent problems in relation to reliability and overcrowding for rail passengers in my region of Mid Scotland and Fife. A recurring problem is the short-forming of trains on peak-time services to plug gaps elsewhere, which leaves Fife travellers in packed carriages or unable to board at all. I welcome confirmation of electrification work on parts of the Fife and Borders routes, but there needs to be a degree of honesty about what that will mean for passengers. Many stations will see little change for years. Improvements in reliability and capacity cannot wait until the end of electrification projects. When it comes to short-forming in particular, I urge the Scottish Government to explore more consistent and public tracking of that in addition to the existing public performance measure statistics, as a basis for working swiftly to reduce short-forming as far as possible and to help to build passenger confidence.
The Labour amendment urges a focus on service improvement alongside passenger experience and worker safety. Across our public transport, we need to ensure that passengers and staff are safe in their work and travel and that they are protected from violence and abuse. Changes in ticket office hours have meant fewer visible staff around some stations, and we must ensure that that does not mean that people—particularly women and girls—feel less safe when travelling.
Finally, there have been assurances that the UK Government’s plan for rail reform will not affect Scottish powers, and we should take those assurances seriously. Improvements to cross-border services will benefit Scotland, and the Scottish Government’s focus should be on providing the best service for passengers.
As we mark 20 years of devolved rail powers, we should celebrate achievements, but we must not be complacent. The real test of Scotland’s railways is in the daily experience of passengers and workers. That is why we should focus on driving up punctuality and reliability; delivering modal shift by making rail affordable, reliable and accessible; protecting workers from violence and abuse; and ensuring that public ownership works for the public by delivering a service that people can trust.
I move amendment S6M-18763.3, to leave out from “that the UK Government’s” to end and insert:
“the benefits of public ownership and welcomes proposals from the UK Government for the rest of the UK, including cross-border travel into Scotland; notes the repeated assurances from the UK Government that its plans on rail reform would not affect Scottish Government powers; welcomes the permanent removal of peak fares but notes that it only came about after significant pressure on the Scottish Government; acknowledges that ScotRail passenger numbers are still nearly 20% lower than pre-COVID-19-pandemic levels; recognises that, with punctuality and reliability being the highest complaint topics to ScotRail, more must be done to improve the service, including addressing overcrowding and short-forming, in order to achieve modal shift and attract passengers back to the railways, and acknowledges the importance of protections against violence and abuse for ScotRail workers.”
Thank you, Ms Baker. I advise the chamber that we have exhausted all the time in hand that we had. I call Mark Ruskell.
15:38
I thank the Scottish Government for giving us the opportunity to acknowledge the progress that has been made in the devolution era to restore our railways and to run them in the public interest. It is a timely debate, coming just one week after peak fares were finally scrapped for good.
The debate is also an opportunity to look forward to the kind of railway that everybody in Scotland wants and can feel proud of: one that is genuinely affordable, safe and accessible, low carbon and pollution free; that provides a reliable service that is welcoming and comfortable; and that reaches many of the communities that were abandoned after the Beeching cuts and need to be connected once again.
There is much to be said about our railways, but I will start where we left off last week. The scrapping of peak fares is what people want. They do not want complex, overpriced ticketing whereby they have to sprint to the ticket barriers to get the last off-peak train.
The days of making rail exclusive and only for the few are coming to an end, but we need to go further. Research from the Scottish Greens shows that the vast majority of ScotRail’s first-class capacity goes unused. Last year, 98 per cent of first-class tickets were unsold.
Our railways should be for all of us. Every journey on a ScotRail service should be a first-class experience. It should not be determined by our ability to pay extra. We have all been in the situation of struggling to find seats or being forced to stand in cramped carriages while the first-class carriage is almost completely empty. Anyone who has got on a busy commuter train from Glasgow to Edinburgh during the festivals in August knows that that can be particularly uncomfortable in the heat and can lead to people feeling unwell. Rail companies across the UK are reducing their first-class services, and it is time for ScotRail to do the same. If we are to have a rail renaissance in Scotland, we need low-cost, reliable and accessible rail.
Is the member aware that ScotRail has already declassified its first-class carriages on most commuter routes? For example, services between Dunblane and Edinburgh Waverley, Alloa and Glasgow Queen Street, and Edinburgh Waverley and Glasgow Central via Shotts, and in Fife and the Borders, all operate with trains that have first-class seats but no first-class fares, meaning that any customer is free to sit there. Perhaps, as I have done in the past, the member would encourage people to use those empty seats.
I am very much aware of that, because I regularly sit in such seats when I travel from Stirling. However, the reality is that, on some of the busiest routes, we still have a nonsensical first class. It is time to look at that again.
An affordable, quality rail service is of use only if people have a station at which to board the train. Many stations that were abandoned in the Beeching era are gone and are not coming back; however, there are still other places within the reach of Scotland’s rail network that would benefit from being reconnected.
For example, in Newburgh, where I was very pleased to join the cabinet secretary on a recent cross-party visit, which I helped the community to host, people have for decades seen train after train go past on the way to Perth and Edinburgh. Children at the local school who dreamed of the railway coming back have now grown up. However, the town is set for major housing growth and the community has its sights set on exciting new opportunities, including the use of the railway and the River Tay together for new ecotourism business. There is a slot in the current railway timetable for a Newburgh rail halt with a low-cost modular station, and that outlay could be recouped easily through increased passenger numbers.
However, Newburgh is not alone, and the demand for more stations is growing. I have been pleased to support four rail campaigns in Fife over the years. One of those—Levenmouth—has now been built; Newburgh is, I hope, on the cusp of a positive decision; and the St Andrews and Dunfermline to Alloa project is waiting for the right moment to progress. Across Scotland, from the north-east to the Borders, communities are developing business cases for new stations. They are building the vision of Scotland’s railways from the bottom up, and they need our support.
Listening to the workers who run our railways is just as important as listening to the communities that they serve. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen’s most recent report into the financing of rolling stock reminds us that the job of nationalisation and delivery of a people’s railway is not yet complete. Around a quarter of the cost of every rail ticket goes to servicing rolling stock companies that pay dividends to private shareholders. By issuing Government bonds tied to the investment of proceeds back into rail services, Governments could create a virtuous cycle of investment and reinvestment in a public rail service that we all value and want to grow and develop. ASLEF believes that moving to a public financing model could make 40 per cent savings on rolling stock costs. That is the approach that most of the rest of the world uses to procure new trains.
It is clear that the privatised model has been disastrous. Levels of investment have been far lower than expected, and additional private financial initiatives have been needed to top up investment. Perverse incentives to scrap new electric trains while running older diesel fleets into the ground have been created across the UK. All the while, money is leaking out of the system to foreign owners, while we worry about whether the Scottish Government can justify the relatively small sums to help ScotRail to scrap peak rail fares.
We should be proud of ScotRail, but we should also be listening to passengers, communities and unions about their vision for the next 20 years: a people’s railway for everyone.
15:44
I was rather surprised when I saw that the Scottish Government had pencilled in a debate on railways in Government time. It is about time. Over the years, we have had many a debate about Scotland’s railway.
It is really good to see the Government actively promoting its own U-turns. When it comes to the removal of peak fares, a little bit of honesty would be much appreciated. The Government ended the pilot scheme by claiming that it was unaffordable. Just over a year ago, the cabinet secretary wrote that
“this level of subsidy cannot continue in the current financial climate”.
I get that. In fact, I distinctly remember the cabinet secretary appearing before the Public Audit Committee and defending the reinstatement of peak fares. At that time, she told us that,
“since the pilot ended, rail use has increased”—[Public Audit Committee, Official Report, 23 April 2025; c 10.],
as though that were some sort of rationale for the removal of what had been regarded as a subsidy. That was in April, just five months ago. The Government then said that it would consider removing peak fares
“should UK budget allocations improve in future years”.
Therefore, I am over the moon that the Scottish Government finds itself in an improved financial position and is able to remove peak fares. However, the problem is that they should never have been taken away in the first place—then brought back, and then taken away again.
The economics of the situation point to one reality. The price of train tickets has gone down, which is welcome, and I believe that there is cross-party support for that. However, the cost of operating those services presumably has not come down. Therefore, I must ask: where else in the transport budget has the money to reduce peak fares come from?
It seems counterintuitive that the Scottish Government had a target to reduce car usage by 20 per cent by 2030—a target that it has dropped, I should add—but at the same time made train tickets more expensive. That target was important to the Scottish Government, because it was important to its other goal of cutting our greenhouse gas emissions by three quarters by 2030. That has been dropped, too.
I mention those climate targets for one reason. The Scottish Government had a third target, which was the decarbonisation of all passenger trains by 2035. That has been pushed back by a decade as well. We are still waiting for the refreshed rail decarbonisation action plan, which was supposed to be published in the spring of this year. We are now in September, and we have still to see it—yet here we are, having a debate about the future of Scotland’s rail. I mention that because I think that a rail decarbonisation plan cannot sit in a silo; it must be part of a wider transport decarbonisation strategy and a wider energy strategy.
Why is that? If there is a central Government strategy, it will do two things. First, it will create economies of scale when it comes to infrastructure investment in new green technology. Secondly, it will unlock private investment.
We have heard a little bit about the role that the private sector plays in this new, so-called “publicly owned” rail service. However, the reality is that it is the private sector that manufactures the rolling stock; it is the private sector that supplies the financing and leasing funding arrangements to the Government for pretty much all of its rolling stock; it is the private sector that does the maintenance on the rolling stock and the mid-life overhauls. Therefore, if there is a strategy on things such as hydrogen or battery storage, part and parcel of that should be a strategy for the whole transport sector, which could unlock investment in those technologies.
I agree that we should be celebrating 20 years of devolution of powers on railways. I have no ideological opposition to the way in which the model currently works. We all know the issues that the last operator had. However, as other members have pointed out, there were 17,000 ScotRail cancellations last year. Passenger journey numbers are still lower than before the Covid pandemic and, indeed, they are lower than pre-nationalisation levels. According to the Office of Rail and Road, Scotland was one of only two train operators across the whole of the UK to operate fewer trains in 2024 than it did in 2023.
The cost of this nationalisation must also be talked about. It is not a negative to point out that, according to The Herald, that cost has been £1.47 billion, which represents a rise of 60 per cent from the two years when Abellio operated the franchise.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have much time, unfortunately.
Abellio posted a £65 million loss in the year just before the Covid pandemic, and we all know that Serco lost nearly £70 million over its seven years of operating the service. Is the publicly owned model any more profitable than when the franchise was in private hands? Is the Caledonian sleeper any more profitable than when the service was in private hands?
Would the member allow me to answer?
Will I get my time back, Presiding Officer? I am keen to hear an answer.
No.
Perhaps the cabinet secretary could write to me instead.
There is a lot of good will in the chamber, because we all want to see ScotRail succeed. However, I want to see the decarbonisation strategy being developed, and local anecdotal reliability and punctuality issues being addressed, because people are still not happy about certain aspects of the system. For those reasons, I will support the Government’s motion, but I will also support the Conservative Party and Labour Party amendments. We should all be proud of Scotland’s railway, but it needs to be fit for the future.
We now move to the open debate.
15:50
I welcome the chance to speak in support of the motion, which marks a significant milestone in Scotland’s transport history. Twenty years ago, the devolution of executive powers over rail funding, specification and strategy gave Scotland some of the tools to shape its own railway. Today, we celebrate not only that landmark decision but the tangible progress that has been made.
Over the past two decades, Scotland’s railway has undergone a transformation, some of which we have heard about today. We have seen the electrification of more than 570km of track, the opening of 30 new stations and a 20 per cent increase in ScotRail passenger numbers. Those achievements are not only technical or operational; they represent a commitment to connectivity, sustainability and public service. In my Greenock and Inverclyde constituency, the benefits of rail investment are clear and deeply felt. That is not to say that there are no challenges, because there clearly are, but there have been benefits over that 20-year period.
Inverclyde has the highest number of train stations per head of population of any local authority area in Scotland. It has 13 stations—14 if I count IBM Halt station, which is currently mothballed—which serve communities across the Gourock and Wemyss Bay lines. Those lines are vital arterial links for the constituency, as well as places outside Inverclyde. They support everything from daily commuting to tourism and leisure. Stations such as Wemyss Bay, which is regularly recognised as one of the UK’s finest, are not only functional but iconic. Gourock station, which has been redeveloped over the past 15 years, now offers a modern, welcoming gateway to the town. The development had been a long-running saga, but the SNP Government managed to unblock the logjam to make it happen.
The new pedestrian crossing and lift at Port Glasgow station, which make it fully accessible for disabled passengers, are a testament to inclusive infrastructure. I pay tribute to my late council colleague Councillor Jim MacLeod, who tirelessly drove the campaign and helped secure the investment. His legacy is one of determination and service to the community.
Over the past 20 years, we have also seen the class 314 trains replaced following the introduction of the class 385 trains.
The scrapping of peak rail fares is not only impactful but practical. It puts money back into my constituents’ pockets and makes rail travel more accessible and equitable. I will share some examples from Inverclyde: a journey from Wemyss Bay to Glasgow Central has dropped from £16.50 to £10.40, which is a saving of £6.10 or 37 per cent; from Gourock to Glasgow Central, the fare has dropped from £15.60 to £9.90, which is a saving of £5.70 or 36.5 per cent; a journey from Greenock Central to Glasgow now costs £9.10 instead of £14, which is a 35 per cent reduction; and from Port Glasgow, our busiest station, to Glasgow, the fare has gone down from £12.60 to £8.50, which is a saving of £4.10 or 32.5 per cent. For a daily commuter from Gourock, that could mean an annual saving of nearly £1,200, which is a substantial benefit, especially in a cost of living crisis, as part of the SNP Government’s cost of living guarantee.
However, having so many stations brings some challenges. The network’s open nature has led to antisocial behaviour issues, in the warmer months in particular, when youths travel to Inverclyde and Wemyss Bay to access the waterfront. I welcome the introduction of ScotRail’s travel safe teams on the Inverclyde lines, because their presence has helped to reduce incidents. However, it has not eliminated the incidents, and the teams need more assistance. I commend the British Transport Police for its continued efforts on the same issues. Its work is essential and deserves our full support, but it also needs more assistance.
Although ScotRail has made great strides, it faces many long-standing issues. That is why I believe that it is time for Network Rail’s responsibilities to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Having one organisation responsible for both infrastructure and operations would allow for better co-ordination, faster decision making and more accountability. It would remove unnecessary barriers and enable a truly integrated approach to rail delivery in Scotland.
We have already seen the benefits of devolution. Scotland’s railway has consistently delivered strong operational performance and high passenger satisfaction—among the best in these islands. The investment of £12 billion, to which the cabinet secretary referred earlier, over the past 20 years has sustained and grown the network through value-for-money projects including the complete renewal of the Caledonian sleeper fleet and the electrification of key routes.
I also welcome the progression of the new train fleet procurement, which will modernise the rolling stock and improve the passenger experience. The UK Government’s current proposals for rail reform draw heavily on the success of Scotland’s devolved model, which represents a recognition of what this Government has achieved.
Will the member give way on that point?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
However, I make it clear that any reforms that would diminish the powers of Scottish ministers or the role of this Parliament would be unacceptable. Scotland’s railway must benefit at least as much from those reforms as is promised for England and Wales.
In closing, I praise the Scottish Government for its bold and visionary decisions: taking the ScotRail franchise into public hands, investing in new rolling stock and removing peak fares. Those actions reflect the commitment to a railway that serves the people, not profit, and which is inclusive, sustainable and accountable. I want that journey to continue, and I want to ensure that Scotland’s railway remains a source of pride, progress and possibility for generations to come.
15:56
I must admit that I enjoy taking part in a rail debate—I feel that I am a bit of a rail geek. I love the whole nostalgia of the railway, the history and the engines. My earliest memory of being on a train is as a young lad of about seven or eight years old. We had special tickets to go on the brand-new InterCity 125, which was going from Aberdeen to Aviemore. It was a special day trip to mark those new trains coming into service, and we got tickets only because one of our neighbours was a train driver—I felt really lucky.
Little did I know, however, that nearly 50 years later, those trains would still be in service in places such as Mexico, Nigeria and Scotland. The SNP espouses the value of net zero, yet it shamefully allows the situation in which we rely on those gas-guzzling hand-me-downs to connect our cities.
I was on one of those 50-year-old trains recently, with Russell Findlay. The sockets did not work—we mentioned it to the person on board, and he said, “Well, most of them don’t.” I do not think that the catering section on those trains has ever been open; it just takes up space. The trolley service was still offering the same old tired selection and the wifi was unusable.
If the SNP Government thinks that it is operating a world-class rail service, it is completely deluded. We are miles behind other developed countries.
Would the member reflect on the fact that that has been a failure of the privatisation of the rolling-stock companies? They have kept trains running for far longer than they should have done—those trains should have been scrapped far earlier and replaced with a modern fleet.
Mark Ruskell needs to remember when those InterCity trains were taken back up to Scotland to run for ScotRail—it was only about six years ago. We are miles behind other developed countries when it comes to intercity services, but I guess I should be thankful that my train was actually running.
During recess, I attended a convention in Inverness that was organised by community groups that were angry at the impact of major energy infrastructure. I got on the 6 pm train to get me back to Aberdeen, only for it to be cancelled because the air conditioning was not working. Simply opening the windows was not a good enough solution, and we were all told to wait for three and a half hours for the next train. There was no bus replacement service and no option to get on the warm train—we were just told to wait.
Outwith the central belt, our rolling stock is an embarrassment—something that the Government’s motion fails to acknowledge. The motion attempts to paint a rosy picture of rail services in Scotland, while the reality is that, in many parts of our country, the service falls way short of what is expected in a modern country and, in some parts, it is simply non-existent.
It could be far better—even the SNP knows that. Back in 2016, a few months before the Scottish Parliament elections, the SNP committed to spending £200 million to reduce journey times between Aberdeen and the central belt by 20 minutes by 2026.
Travellers hoped one day to travel the 120-mile route in about two hours; it was hoped that the only section of single track between Aberdeen and continental Europe at Usan might finally be dualled and that sections of the line might be straightened to make it faster. Nine years later, with approximately 5 per cent of the committed money spent, the people of the north-east can finally see what that announcement was—a pre-election gimmick by this rotten devolved Government.
In the north-east, we are getting used to the SNP’s broken promises. The £200 million rail improvement programme has gone the same way as the dualling of the A96 and the Alex Salmond commitment to dualling the A90 north of Ellon. The dualling of the A90 north of Ellon is important to many of my constituents, because rail services simply do not exist for many of them. In Aberdeen Donside, there is only one station; in Aberdeenshire East, there is only one station; and in Banffshire and Buchan Coast, there are no stations. I encourage the SNP members who would like to celebrate the removal of peak fares to spare a thought for many in the north-east who will not benefit one bit from this policy—it is central belt bias once again.
Rail services in the north-east could be improved. My colleague Liam Kerr has a petition to open stations at Cove and Newtonhill to the south of Aberdeen, but those calls seem to be falling on deaf ears as no support is forthcoming from the SNP Government. The excellent Campaign for North East Rail proposes new routes to Fraserburgh and Peterhead, which would unlock huge economic benefits for the north-east. Once again, those proposals have been met with a lukewarm reception from the SNP Government.
When it comes to rail, there are even more SNP broken promises. We were told that rail services would be decarbonised by 2035, but that has since been pushed back a decade and there seems to be very little detail, even for the new deadline. Our diesel trains will have to be replaced soon, and there will be no option but to replace them with other diesel trains—probably more hand-me-down trains from parts of the country that have got their act together and electrified.
I will also quickly mention Caledonian Sleeper. Two years after bringing it into public ownership, the question must be asked—what was the point? There are no new services, fares are not reduced, and its management team is still separate from ScotRail’s. The Caledonian Sleeper chief executive costs in the region of a quarter of a million pounds. More integration would have made sense. The change was made at the taxpayer’s expense, just to satisfy the egos and ideologies of the SNP.
Overall, ScotRail is running fewer trains than it did before Covid; decarbonisation has been pushed back a decade; ScotRail is running half-a-century-old trains; Caledonian sleeper prices have increased, as has the burden to the taxpayer; and the facilities on board ScotRail trains are miles behind where they should be. The promised £200 million for north-east rail improvements was a lie, and the SNP thinks that that is a cause for celebration.
Mr Lumsden, you need to conclude.
Instead of tinkering for tinkering’s sake, the SNP should focus on the day job, provide a clean, fast, modern and reliable rail service and actually deliver on the promises that it made.
Thank you, Mr Lumsden. I remind back benchers that speeches should last for up to six minutes.
16:03
From today’s motion, two things are very clear to me: the SNP is good for Scotland’s railway, and improvements are easier to make for Scotland’s railway when the powers lie here in Scotland.
I am a very regular user of Scotland’s railways. I am fresh off a train this morning from my home in Inverness, and I will be back up there again on Thursday night. I often use the far north, west Highland and Kyle lines, as well as the Aberdeen link for getting the ferry to Shetland or Orkney, and many of Scotland’s other routes to get along to Caley Thistle away games.
I love being able to work on the train and skip night-time driving, and I sometimes sleep on the train if it is very late. Therefore, I was incredibly excited when, as a candidate, I heard that the SNP was going to commit to nationalising ScotRail in this session. It felt like a strong commitment for a fairer country, because a fairer country must include transport links that are accessible, affordable and appropriate for different areas in the country.
The profit motive of a private company often comes at the expense of long-term investment—a barrier that is no longer in place for this Government. In an online meeting only the night before the announcement, I mentioned that nationalisation would be a great step forward, which led some people in my local branch to credit me with the announcement. I did not make the announcement, but I have been in regular contact with the cabinet secretary and her predecessors to push on some other issues.
There are many things that I would love to see improved about our services and infrastructure in the Highlands. The doubling of the Highland main line has already been mentioned, which would reduce the impact of disruption as well as offer the potential for shorter journey times and more freight capacity. A loop—either at Lentran or Delmore; I am not particularly fussed which one—would build resilience on the far north line, and there are other improvements that could move freight off our roads and passengers out of cars.
A thriving rail network in the north of Scotland is crucial to decarbonising the transport system overall. We must support critical industries in my region, be it wooden pallets from West Fraser or whisky that is travelling from and to everywhere, to become more sustainable. That requires rail freight being a viable alternative to heavy goods vehicles on the A9 or the A96.
The member makes an important point about doing all infrastructure upgrades simultaneously to get the best utilisation of the line. Is there a risk of simply chasing decarbonisation as one metric at the expense of increasing capacity on the line? We need to do both at once, because just doing electrification might preclude further investments in the future.
Certainly—I hope that nothing that I have said gave any other indication, because it is one and the same; increasing capacity will decarbonise. Decarbonising in the right order will benefit passengers and those who use our railway for freight at exactly the same time.
My loyalty to taking the train to work in the Parliament is possible because the time that it takes is comparable to driving, but that is not yet the case everywhere. It can take twice as long to get to Wick by rail than car, and the west Highland line, although scenic, is often not an option for me when attending meetings in the south-west of my region.
I am clear that these improvements are possible only with the Scottish Government in charge, and I am certain that the improvements would be more forthcoming if the Scottish Government were to have control over every aspect of budget setting, revenue raising and our railways. The progress that has been made in this parliamentary session is incredible: nationalising ScotRail and the Caledonian sleeper, scrapping peak rail fares and opening or reopening a number of stations, including at Inverness airport, which I had the pleasure of attending the opening of and making use of since. Many other changes to ticketing have offered my constituents good deals on regular journeys.
That record extends beyond the past four years. The SNP Government was responsible for prolonging my weekly commute from Alness to Inverness as a teenager by reconnecting Conon Bridge to the railway.
Although it seems that most of the cabinet secretary’s portfolio—or, at least, the tricky bits—relate to the Highlands and Islands, I also have a great appreciation for what has happened elsewhere. I took the train to Galashiels earlier this year and, it is a deserved point of pride that, regardless of where it is in the country, the longest domestic line in the UK in a century was delivered by the Scottish Government. If the cabinet secretary is ever looking for suggestions on what new line could beat that record, I have a wee wish list of long lines that could keep Scotland on the right track.
We know the impact of new lines. The cabinet secretary’s motion mentions an increase in passenger numbers by a fifth, but what that figure cannot tell us—and what we know lies behind it—is about the people who would otherwise have used their cars, as well as the people who would have been stuck at home because they cannot use a car. New lines have people travelling who would otherwise have driven to a retail park instead of shopping in town centres, as well as people who would otherwise shop only online. That increase in passenger numbers has a benefit for those passengers, the climate and local economies.
However, all of that, and whatever we will do in the future, pales in comparison with what would be possible with independence. What has been done under devolution is impressive but it is incomplete. Although it is fantastic to see that the UK Government might be getting ready to follow Scotland in various policies such as nationalising rail, we must be clear that we need to look at having more powers, and certainly not any diminishing of the current situation, which has delivered so much.
Scotland should not need permission to keep improving the railway. With independence would come full fiscal powers and the agility to react to public pressure on what users of the railway need—in short, it would give us the strength here in Scotland to do even more.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is about to conclude.
Thank you.
The member has concluded.
16:09
I declare an interest as the convener of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Scottish parliamentary group.
I will begin with some common ground and consensus with the Government. In this session of the Parliament, we have seen the removal of Abellio and Serco, and so the removal of foreign and private ownership from Scotland’s train operations. They have been replaced by the reintroduction of public ownership of both ScotRail and the Caledonian sleeper. That is a victory, not least for the RMT and the other rail unions, which have never stopped in their campaign, inside and outside the Parliament, for the return of our railways to public ownership.
I applaud, too, the promotion of the Minister for Transport to the rank of cabinet secretary, and the appointment of the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to the board of publicly owned Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd, although I have to remind people on a regular basis what Tony Benn, whose centenary we celebrate this year, used to say:
“nationalisation plus Lord Robens does not add up to socialism.”
Of course, there is also widespread agreement on the Scottish Government’s recent conversion to the scrapping of peak rail fares once and for all, which represents, in my view, another victory for the campaign that was led first and foremost by the railway trade unions. However, I am bound to say that I never understood why, for a whole year, the Scottish Government maintained that it was only existing, undeserving and—worse yet—middle-class passengers on above-average earnings who gained from the scrapping of peak fares. I never understood that. A policy of peak fares is a tax on all workers travelling to and from their work, who are, by my definition, the working class.
That reawakening by the Government is welcome, but it must go further. Cuts to British Transport Police’s operations in Scotland remain a very real and present threat, and are at the forefront of the minds of front-line workers who are dealing with antisocial behaviour, including assaults in our stations and on our trains.
I share the member’s concerns. Those cuts have not come from the Scottish side of the arrangement. He should be making those representations to his UK Labour Government colleagues.
Let me turn to cuts to the rail systems alliance Scotland budget in control period 7, which have led directly to redundancies and job cuts at Babcock Rail in Scotland over the past year and are compromising safety-critical work. Those cuts must be reversed.
Last Friday, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport announced the purchase of 69 new trains for the ScotRail network—a welcome and long-overdue announcement. However, I hope that the Government will reject the old ways of procurement, where we end up with our trains being owned by private capital and leased through rolling-stock companies, and an oligopoly of private profiteering corporations such as Angel Trains, Porterbrook and Eversholt Rail, which are owned and controlled from Australia, Canada, Germany, France and Hong Kong, which is where all the profits go.
I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport will instead issue green bonds—an idea that was backed in a report by ASLEF that was launched in the Parliament this year—as a progressive alternative to extractive capitalism, as a public financing model in place of a private financing model.
In recent weeks, I have also raised with the cabinet secretary the outsourcing of ScotRail customer experience services to Teleperformance, which is a company that promotes the offshoring of its contracts to its South African subsidiary, and a company that is also anti-trade union.
The cabinet secretary tells me that that is an operational decision for ScotRail Trains Ltd, but I ask her in Parliament this afternoon, does she care so little for those workers in Scotland who currently provide that service? What about their upskilling? Where is the Government’s fair work first commitment to those workers? Has it just melted? Is it optional? The cabinet secretary should step in, halt that threatened injustice and bring that service and those jobs back in house to benefit both workers and passengers.
Finally, there is something else that the cabinet secretary also regards as an operational matter for ScotRail, which we have debated before but which I must raise again. The big cuts in ticket office opening hours are taking place in almost 100 out of the 143 staffed stations across Scotland. A former First Minister used to try to tell me that, “Frankly, this was modernisation.” The cabinet secretary now tells me that those cuts are being done in the name of “front-line customer service improvements”, but I say that that is a fraud on the travelling public, because the cabinet secretary and the many representative groups that have opposed that change know that the removal of staff from railway station ticket offices will not simply deter passengers but will deny many passengers access to public transport altogether.
So I welcome public ownership, but it must be an equal and inclusive public ownership; it must be a transparent and accountable public ownership; and it must be a comprehensive public ownership. Let us have public ownership built on the timeless principles and the enduring ethical practice of popular, democratic and—I would argue—socialist ownership and control.
16:15
Under an SNP Government, ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper have been brought back into public ownership and peak-time rail fares have been abolished. Since 2007, the Scottish Government has invested more than £11 billion in Scotland’s rail infrastructure. The past 20 years have been good for Scotland’s railways, and the SNP Government’s work in supporting our railways and our railway-going passengers has been immense.
However, I hope that I will be forgiven if I focus on Aberdeen and the north-east rather than the whole of Scotland. The past 20 years have seen improvements in north-east rail in three key areas: the upgrading of track, the renovation of old stations and the opening of new stations. For travellers heading north-west from Aberdeen to Inverness, the Aberdeen to Inverness improvement project has resulted in significant gains for passengers.
On the track front, signalling has been enhanced between Insch and Aberdeen, and the line between Inverurie and Kittybrewster junction has been redoubled. With regard to upgrading old stations, the station at Forres has been rebuilt and the platforms at Elgin and Insch stations have been lengthened. Laurencekirk station was reopened. Last but not least, the reopening of Kintore station after 60 years was a critical milestone and has been a great success. The station now sees 28 ScotRail trains stopping daily.
Improvements for points south of Aberdeen are currently under way, thanks to the Aberdeen to central belt enhancement project. The project will see 20 minutes knocked off journey times for Aberdonians heading to Glasgow or Edinburgh. That ambitious project will ensure those improvements. Network Rail has carried out ground investigation work across the entire track, and the defunct bridges at Ironshill and Lunan mill have been demolished. There is much work still to be done, including vital improvements at Aberdeen railway station and the construction of freight loops to manage mixed traffic. When that work is completed, the north-east will enjoy those shorter journey times to the central belt.
Having discussed the past improvements on the line from Aberdeen to Inverness and the present improvements on the line from Aberdeen to Glasgow and Edinburgh, it is vital that we do not lose sight of future improvements for the railways in the north-east. That future has to be the reopening of the lines from Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. Thanks to the better together alliance of the Tories commissioning the Beeching cuts and the Labour Party wielding the actual axe, Peterhead is the largest settlement in mainland UK without a railway station, and Fraserburgh is the second largest.
That was a terrible injustice and it is an unacceptable status quo. The Campaign for North East Rail is a grass-roots movement driven by engineers and local advocates who have put forward a clear and well-researched blueprint for a revitalised railway network. The campaign is about more than trains; it is about regenerating our coastal towns, supporting our vital fishing industry by enabling the shift of freight from road to rail, and unlocking the economic potential of our region. Most importantly, it is about the moral and economic imperative to ensure that no community is left behind.
Last year, the Campaign for North East Rail and Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce produced the “Buchan Sustainable Transport Study”, which provides a compelling evidence base for reopening the Aberdeen to Peterhead line. There are a number of reasons why that is an imperative. The lack of a railway means that lorryloads of beer and truckloads of fish often share single-track roads with folk commuting to work and folk taking their kids on the school run. Improving freight transport would also make a vital contribution to the economic regeneration of the area. However, as usual, it is those who rely on public transport in those areas who are hit the hardest—85 per cent of the people who would like to take the bus often decide not to because of the long journey and unreliable bus services. That is a major blight on the folk of the north-east. Improved public transport connectivity would be a major force in improving the economic opportunities for everyday folk in our corner of Scotland.
Therefore, I ask the cabinet secretary to consider the major advantages that are now at play as a result of the rail lines in the Borders and Leven, as we have heard, and to think about doing the same for the north-east. Listen to the Campaign for North East Rail and the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce. Let us do right and put to bed the wrongs of Beeching, which led to the closure of the lines from Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh.
16:21
The motion that is before us is classic SNP—a self-congratulatory tale of trumpets and selective successes that ignores glaring failures. If Thomas the Tank Engine ran Scotland’s railways, we would have really useful engines. Under the SNP, it could be argued that we have had really useless policies. Yes, there have been new stations, some electrification and anniversaries to celebrate, but behind the rhetoric lies a Government that has let Scotland’s transport infrastructure—and, with it, our economy—fall behind. The SNP is a master of patting itself on the back, but, when it comes to real delivery, particularly in Glasgow, it is utterly failing. Like Gordon, the big engine, the SNP loves to boast that it is the fastest, but, when we look at the timetable, we see that it is always running late.
Nowhere is that more obvious than in the Government’s gold-standard incompetence in failing to deliver a rail link between Glasgow airport and Glasgow city centre. That is not a minor omission. Glasgow airport is arguably Scotland’s principal business airport, and, in my opinion, it is its most important one. It is the gateway for conferences at the SEC, for tourism across the west of Scotland and for international investment. However, unlike airports in Manchester, London and even Vilnius, in Lithuania, there is no direct rail connection. Instead, travellers step off their flights into traffic jams and bus queues. That is not the image of a modern and forward-thinking Scotland; rather, it is symbolic of the shambles that the SNP has created with its economic incompetence.
I agree that a rail link between Glasgow city centre and the airport would be fantastic, but does Sandesh Gulhane realise that, due to the limitations of the track coming out of Glasgow, that could impact services to Ayrshire? I am sure that he would not want those services to be impacted. Will he ask for investment in the track itself?
Elena Whitham leads me on to the next part of my speech. Let us cast our minds back to a little project called the Glasgow airport rail link, which was planned, costed and backed by business in 2006. The environmental statement and economic impact assessment that Strathclyde Partnership for Transport produced showed the clear benefits of delivering such a rail link: faster journeys, reduced congestion, reduced emissions and billions—yes, billions—of pounds in long-term economic gain. What happened? In 2009, the SNP pulled the brakes. The project was cancelled and gone. Since then, there has been a decade and a half of dithering excuses, glossy brochures and so-called reviews.
The Government now tells us that the Clyde metro is the answer, but the Clyde metro is not a train but a bedtime story. We are expected to sit like railway children, waving our flags and waiting for salvation to appear at the end of the tunnel, but there is no train coming—just more SNP announcements of delays again and again. The SNP admits it. The case for investment is not due to be completed until 2027. That means more years of waiting, more years of lost opportunity and more years of watching Edinburgh—yes, Edinburgh—overtake Glasgow as the airport of choice, even for a number of Glaswegians.
As a Glasgow region MSP, I hear from business leaders, from the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce and from constituents, and they are crying out for this connection. They know about missed opportunities such as convention organisers choosing other cities because they cannot ask delegates to waste precious time on the M8. In fact, work that is due to start on the M8 this week is set to cause nine months of further disruptions, including overnight closures on the eastbound and westbound carriageways at junction 26. Investors also look elsewhere, and tourists who might have chosen Glasgow take the easier option and fly into Edinburgh.
The SNP is good at blowing the whistle and shouting, “Peep, peep!”, but ministers do not have their eyes on the track, certainly when it comes to connecting Glasgow with its airport. That could all have been avoided if the SNP had acted when it had the chance. In contrast, Manchester has had a rail link to its airport since 1993. Luton airport has a direct air-rail transit driverless shuttle, which takes passengers from the station to the terminal in minutes and connects seamlessly with frequent trains to London. Even Lithuania has an airport rail service. If they can do it, why can Scotland’s largest city not do it?
The answer is simple. Under the SNP, infrastructure is sacrificed to political priorities, competence is in short supply and ministers never feel the consequences. After all, they have their governmental limos. If Thomas the Tank Engine ran Scotland’s railways, Glasgow would already have a line to the airport, but SNP ministers are in control and all that we have are weighty excuses.
It is not just Glasgow airport. Let us look at the wider picture. Services have been cut since the pandemic, electrification plans have been delayed, the sleeper service is more expensive but no better, and 50-year-old trains are still in use.
Tragically, the Stonehaven rail crash reminded us all that safety must come before spin. Let us also not forget that, since 2006, the Scottish Government has been responsible for ensuring that our railways are safe and resilient. Five years on from the Stonehaven rail tragedy, key improvements that were demanded by investigators have yet to be completed. Scotland deserves better, Glasgow deserves better and our economy deserves better. The truth is that connectivity is not just about transport but about growth. It is about making Glasgow a competitive global city and supporting our national health service staff, businesses and communities that rely on having reliable, efficient links.
16:27
Despite the unexpectedly miserable contributions of Sandesh Gulhane and Douglas Lumsden, I have something in common with Douglas Lumsden. I, too, am a railway geek. I prefer to let the train take the strain.
Today, I shall concentrate on the success of Borders railway, because today marks exactly 10 years since its formal reopening. Viewing a map of the pre-Beeching rail network in Scotland is eye opening. The first Beeching report identified more than 2,000 stations and 5,000 miles of railway line for closure—55 per cent of stations and 30 per cent of route miles. On 5 January 1969, the Waverley line was one victim of those cuts. Those cuts did not stem losses and at that time, no account was taken of the wider social and economic impact of railways. Today, we take account of that impact and—crucially—the reduction of the emissions that are so damaging to this planet. Electrification was part of the future proofing of the Borders railway and it is now on the cards, as is new rolling stock.
The project to return the Borders railway took root with a 17,000-signature petition to the Scottish Parliament in the name of Petra Biberbach. I met her by chance on Gala high street just after my election in 1999. As a member of the Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, I advised her that that petition should be presented to the committee. It was. In 1999, the campaign for Borders rail was also established, and I set up the parliamentary cross-party group for Borders rail here. However, it was not an easy parliamentary route. Sarah Boyack will understand, because she went through it with me.
A feasibility study, the Scott Wilson report, stated that patronage projections for a new line were not encouraging and that none of the route options that were examined produced a positive cost benefit value. How wrong was that?
The economic case was built on projected housing developments: 700 in the Borders and 1,100 in Midlothian. Unbelievably, that led to an anti-rail backlash from the breakaway local Borders Party, which described the proposal as
“a colossal waste of money”.
The Tories also called at the time for the money not to be used for the project, but to be used instead for dualling the A7—although, thankfully, they later recanted.
In time, the petition received the unanimous support of the Parliament’s Rural Affairs Committee and, on 14 June 2006, the bill to restore the line was almost unanimously passed. In 2007 the SNP Government committed to build the line, and build it it did.
I reprise that, because the predictions were way off course. For Sue Webber, I say that that past achievement builds the case for future rail developments. As for how to build a railway, practical lessons were learned. Nobody had built one here in years.
The huge housing developments happened. Fields next to the station at Shawfair will soon be bursting with new homes. There is already easy access to the railway at Gorebridge, Newtongrange and Tweedbank. One look at the full car parks shows us how busy the line is—which is far flung from the gloomy predictions. People are taking the train, not the A7.
Here are some statistics. The Borders railway has had a significant increase in the number of passengers, rising from an initial forecast of 600,000 and approaching 2 million in 2018-19. By September this year, there had been more than 13 million passenger journeys since the line’s opening. In its wake, former railway buildings along the line have been transformed through community efforts at Newtongrange and at Stow station house, and there are now proposals for Gorebridge station house. Groups such as the Signal Box in Galashiels are working to raise funds for the Campaign for Borders Rail, and beautiful station flower displays—the display at Gorebridge being particularly stunning this year—are wholly maintained by a few volunteers. The communities take their railway very personally, having won it themselves.
This is, of course, about passengers. Removing peak fares will save someone travelling from Tweedbank to Edinburgh at least £7 a day, so there will be more bums on seats. Kids for a quid is another excellent initiative. The railway is about so much more: it concerns the wider economy and the social fabric of communities.
The Borders railway has not just pioneered how to build a railway; it has shown what the economic and social benefits of a railway are. Its extension through Hawick to Carlisle will complete that social and economic journey, and it is living proof for other future railway developments.
16:32
I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests.
It is a pleasure to follow Christine Grahame. I was very pleased that she raised the Beeching cuts, which I believe have proved to be a disaster for many communities.
I hope that we all now accept that supporting and extending rail services is vital to meeting our climate change targets and to making transport more sustainable. The scrapping of peak fares, which came into effect last week, is very welcome. Ending peak fares is important for increasing passenger numbers by making rail travel more affordable for working people. That is why the Scottish Government’s decision to end the pilot scheme last year was strongly opposed by both passengers and rail unions, and it is a testament to their tireless campaigning that the Scottish Government has now changed its position and has scrapped peak fares. I congratulate the cabinet secretary on that decision.
While the scrapping of peak fares will make rail travel more affordable for many, people in many parts of Scotland will not benefit. It is important that rail travel is truly accessible for all passengers, and that is why the rail unions and campaigners have repeatedly warned about the impact of cuts on ticket office opening hours. Reducing ticket office opening hours means that some stations will no longer have guaranteed staffing for notable periods of time. That leaves many passengers—women, the disabled and the elderly, in particular—unable to seek assistance, and it leads to passengers feeling unsafe at a time when crime on Scotland’s rail network is increasing.
I agree with what Katy Clark is saying about the closure of ticket offices, but we should remind the wider travelling public about the enhanced closed-circuit television and help point monitoring that is in place in every station. I have been to the centre in Paisley that monitors that, and I hope that Ms Clark can do the same. We should promote that and encourage people to feel that that makes our stations as safe as they can be without ticket offices.
Scottish Government research has shown that passengers feel safer at staffed stations. I take on board what Jamie Greene is saying, but women, in particular, and other groups tell us repeatedly that they feel safer if there are staff available. However, many stations across the West Scotland region are being affected by cuts to ticket office opening hours. Ticket offices at Ardrossan South Beach, Irvine, Largs and Saltcoats stations, along with many others, are seeing opening hours reduced by at least one hour or more.
There are on-going issues with the punctuality and reliability of ScotRail services, which the Scottish Government must address. ScotRail, as has been said, is still running fewer services than it ran before the pandemic. ScotRail ran more than 63,000 services this July, which is 6,000 fewer than in July 2019. More than 17,000 services were cancelled last year, and more than 55 per cent of services failed to arrive at their scheduled time.
Last year, I raised concerns about the punctuality and reliability of the Largs to Glasgow line. More than 200 trains were cancelled on that line alone last year, and more than 500 services were late. In 2023, a total of 455 services on that line were either fully or partially cancelled, which is simply not good enough. The repeated failure to deliver rail services for the people of Largs, Ardrossan and the wider area is unacceptable and, unfortunately, that is not an isolated example. I hope that action is now being taken to improve infrastructure, reduce cancellations and ensure that trains run on time.
As I said, crime on Scotland’s rail network is increasing. Reported crime has increased by a third since before the pandemic. The number of reported sex crimes has increased by two thirds over the same period. More than 200 women and girls were assaulted or harassed or faced unwanted sexual behaviour on Scotland’s rail services in the past year alone.
Rail workers, too, are facing an unacceptable level of abuse and violence, and rail workers have raised concerns about the abuse that they receive. Women transport workers, in particular, have told me about the increase in threatening behaviour that they are subjected to. ScotRail staff were subjected to more than 100 attacks on trains and at stations last year, which is more than double the number that was reported in 2022. I hope that the cabinet secretary will outline what steps the Scottish Government is taking to improve the safety of rail services for women and girls.
The UK Government’s proposals to create a single, publicly owned and nationally integrated rail network are welcome. I hope that Scottish and UK ministers will be able to work together to ensure that the proposed Great British railways and ScotRail deliver improvements to infrastructure, reliability and safety, and I hope that we continue to have debates of this nature in the chamber.
16:39
The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has disappointed me. She persists in using kilometres, as she has done in the Government motion, when we use miles in this country. The “570 kilometres” in the motion should be “354 miles”.
I think that we all want ScotRail to succeed. Many of us use the train regularly. It is the backbone of Scotland’s public transport system, but we must accept that there are challenges with it. In the past year alone, more than 17,000 train services were cancelled and far too many are still not arriving on time.
Will the member give way on that point?
I have very, very little time, but I will let the cabinet secretary in.
Does the member realise that there are hundreds of thousands of journeys, that cancellations affect just a few percent of those and that many are caused by infrastructure, for which Network Rail is responsible, or by the many storms that we have had, not least storm Floris a few weeks ago?
I am going to cheer up the cabinet secretary, because I have some positive things to say. Overall customer satisfaction with ScotRail is 91 per cent. That is among the best in Britain and we must accept that. Punctuality is at 92.9 per cent, which sounds pretty good although it is still not good enough. We must accept that, but we do need more investment in infrastructure, more modern signalling, track upgrades and station improvements. It is still the case that ScotRail has one of the oldest fleets in Britain. We need more electrification and a plan for battery electric trains to reduce emissions and improve service quality and we need the hydrogen that Jamie Greene mentioned.
Affordability is key. Some speakers have mentioned the removal of peak fares. I remember leading a debate here and Parliament voting to end peak fares. The Scottish Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do that, but I am glad that it has.
We need integrated ticketing—the cabinet secretary knows that I have been going on about that for what seems like years—and it must work across trains, buses, trams and ferries. I am lucky enough to live in East Kilbride, which has had some welcome investment. We have two fantastic new stations and are going to get electric trains, which is great.
Please bring your remarks to a close, Mr Simpson.
I will.
There is more work to do, but we must celebrate what has been done well and must thank the staff of ScotRail for doing that.
We move to closing speeches.
16:42
We have had a pretty passionate debate that has certainly given all the railway geeks in the chamber their six minutes of fame, although Sandesh Gulhane will not be replacing Michael “choo-choo” Portillo any time soon. Kevin Stewart spoke passionately about the campaign for rail in the north-east and Christine Grahame spoke passionately about the Borders railway and next steps there. We have heard about Winchburgh and Newburgh and about new lines in the Highlands.
The cabinet secretary is right to underline the successes that we have had in opening new stations: there are 25 stations on four new lines. I was in Levenmouth earlier this year when the rail line was reopened. It was a hugely emotional day that spoke to the perseverance that Claire Baker referred to as that community built a case for the reopening of the Levenmouth line. It was an incredible day and I am pleased that the number of services has now gone up to two every hour, which is fantastic.
Sue Webber has a point. I never thought that I would say those words in the chamber, but she has a point about how we plan for new or reopened rail stations. The case for the reopening of individual rail stations does not feature anywhere at all in the strategic transport projects review, which is Scotland’s big strategic plan for transport. Rail station reopenings are treated on an individual, case-by-case, basis and not seen as being strategic, even though they are part of a network.
A number of years ago, the Greens successfully made a case to the Scottish Government that we need a seed fund for local rail development to help communities put together business cases for station reopenings. I am pleased that Newburgh, St Andrews and other communities around Scotland have benefited from that, but there is a frustration that it takes years and years to get through the Scottish transport appraisal guidance process, to engage with Transport Scotland officials and regional transport partnerships and to build a case so that communities can become part of that bigger network. I am heartened by what the cabinet secretary said about Newburgh and a decision being made fairly soon, but that has been years in the making and community stamina is an issue.
We have had a few contributions on rolling stock. I quite enjoyed Richard Leonard’s reflection that the rolling stock companies are, in effect, an oligopoly of extractive capitalism. We need to pay a bit more attention to the ASLEF report. The Government has the opportunity here, and in a number of other areas, to issue green bonds that would reinvest the revenues in our public transport system. I note that Caledonian Rail Leasing Ltd is owned by foreign companies. It generated £1.3 billion-worth of dividends between 2012 and 2018, which were largely removed from this country and invested elsewhere. Other models are possible; other models are normal elsewhere. Transport for London invested directly in the trains that were needed for Crossrail. Of course we need full borrowing powers, as Emma Roddick set out, but we can also use the powers that we have.
On the passenger experience, a number of members have talked about timetables and whether we should go back to the timetables of the pre-Covid world. We have to recognise that the world has moved on, and it would be very difficult to restore in full the timetables that we had. There has been a shift to the busiest time—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will expand this point first. There has been a shift in that the greatest rail usage is now for leisure travel. The removal of peak rail fares speaks to the post-Covid world that we live in. Yes, there is a need to restore some services, but I do not think that simply going back to the pre-Covid world would be acceptable. I will take the intervention if it is brief.
I am glad that Mr Ruskell has highlighted the changes in travel patterns. Does he agree that, if we went back to the pre-Covid timetable, we might lose weekend services that are doing very well and bringing a lot of income into our national railway system?
That was my point—that peak usage now is leisure usage, and that is very much at the weekend. Yes, we should restore services, but we have to see where we are at.
A number of members have talked about safety. Like Jamie Greene, I went to one of the customer service centres that ScotRail runs—I went to the one in Dunfermline, which is for the other half of Scotland. I was impressed by how much attention ScotRail is able to give customers through those customer service points. It is able to offer all kinds of advice and support, but I wonder whether that message is really getting out there. However, I still agree with Katy Clark that we must monitor the changes in ticket office opening hours, and I have concerns about vulnerable passengers.
I will finish by talking about first-class ticketing. The discussion on this today has really just been between me and the cabinet secretary, and I am impressed that she came to the debate with a list of all the services on which there is no first-class seating. However, if there is no first-class seating on the service from Dunblane to Edinburgh, why do we have it on the service from Glasgow to Edinburgh? Really, there is no first-class offering on ScotRail services any more. There is not a leisure first-class offering, as is the case on services that are run by LNER and some other UK train operating companies, so what is the point of it any more? ScotRail gets a little bit of income from it, if, say, a passenger is travelling from Edinburgh or Aberdeen to London. However, overall, on those key commuter routes, we should be freeing up the seats and allowing people to sit anywhere, because the good news is that peak rail fares have gone and I think that we are going to see increased patronage of our railways—
Mr Ruskell, you need to conclude.
—and getting rid of first class is a good step towards that.
I call Sarah Boyack to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.
16:48
I welcome today’s debate, because there is huge interest across the chamber in improving our rail services right across Scotland, including in the Lothians. Communities such as Winchburgh have been promised a station for years. I thank Lawrence Fitzpatrick, the leader of West Lothian Council, for his persistence in pushing for that station. Without a station, it is harder for people to get to work, which leads to more delays and congestion on our roads—and that is not good enough.
Claire Baker’s points about overcrowding also urgently need to be addressed. Christine Grahame mentioned the Borders railway. Way more people are using it than was anticipated, and we need the trains to be big enough. Trains from East Lothian and Fife are now regularly at capacity, and passengers can be left standing. On some key routes, there are not even enough bike spaces, so addressing capacity is key.
As we have discussed, the abolition of peak rail fares is a huge opportunity for Scotland, because it makes rail travel more affordable and has the potential to encourage people out of their cars. However, it was a long time coming; it was the result of cross-party pressure and work by trade unions. If there is to be a real shift, we need the capacity on our trains so that people can use them.
We also need to have railway stations that enable people to get access to our trains. When I was transport minister in the first session of the Parliament, I was proud to approve the Airdrie to Bathgate, Larkhall to Milngavie and Stirling to Alloa lines. It is good to see that it is 20 years since the Airdrie to Bathgate line was opened. [Interruption.] Sorry, it is 15 years. In December, we will be able to celebrate the anniversary of the opening of the Larkhall to Milngavie line. There is something about the benefits of that work.
Mark Ruskell’s point about strategic planning is absolutely critical, because we need to take a national approach to supporting our regions—one that benefits passengers, our economy and our environment. It was therefore good to hear about the north-east. I would like to have heard a bit more about Inverness, because the northern routes urgently need access to passenger and freight connectivity. Before the summer, we were lobbied by the freight sector about the need to link freight routes to ferry connections in the south-west of Scotland. There is therefore a lot of work to be done.
We need to go further and make sure that stations are properly connected, with access to local buses, safe cycling routes and walking access. A key issue is accessibility—step-free access, lifts and ramps. We need to make sure that our railways are accessible for everybody.
The debate’s title refers to a strong platform, but platforms do not sell tickets. Several colleagues have talked about ticket offices. Although many of us use the ScotRail app, Audit Scotland has highlighted the fact that around one in 10 people do not have internet access and that around one in six lack foundational digital skills. If we are to get a sustained level of modal shift, we need to make sure that accessibility is built in. For example, Waverley station relocated its ticket office this summer, making it less accessible for a lot of passengers who need to get tickets in person and who also need in-person assistance. In her summing up, I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary about the companion travel scheme. I have been working with Sight Scotland and the Royal National Institute of Blind People Scotland, which are pushing for passengers to get the support that they need when they need it, so that everybody can travel on our trains.
We also need to make sure that passengers and railway staff are safe. The points that were made by Katy Clark and Richard Leonard about women passengers were very powerful. It is shocking, too, that 70 per cent of RMT’s ScotRail members had experienced violence at work in the past year, with 80 per cent of those staff being lone workers. Again, I hope that the cabinet secretary will outline what action can be taken to make people safe on our trains.
We need to build a railway that people feel is safe, is accessible and is worth the fare that they pay, and that it deliberately links our economy and our climate ambitions. It needs to be fit for purpose and resilient to extreme weather. Passengers deserve better.
I will focus briefly on the fact that UK rail reforms will be a massive benefit. There are explicitly no plans to diminish the powers of Scottish ministers. As has been discussed, we need joint working between the UK and Scottish Governments. Particularly in Scotland, we need more trains, because, every day, 250 fewer run than was the case pre-pandemic. We need more trains—accessible and affordable trains that everybody can access across the country. If we do that, we will build passenger confidence, build our economy and support our environment. Let us work together to get that done.
I call Finlay Carson to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
16:54
Today’s debate is a timely and important opportunity to reflect on the progress—satisfactory or otherwise—that has been made across Scotland’s railways. From the contributions that have been made this afternoon, it is clear that there is cross-party consensus for a railway that delivers value for money and puts passengers first.
Jamie Greene reinforced the Scottish Conservatives’ point that we need the private sector to ensure a reliable and efficient service in modern, comfortable surroundings, without its requiring passengers to take out a second mortgage for a ticket. If we can do that, we are halfway towards winning back public confidence, which is key to encouraging modal shift.
Sue Webber and others spoke of the recent removal of peak rail fares. That is a welcome step, and we on the Conservative benches are pleased to see the Scottish Government respond to calls from across the chamber to scrap the two-tier system. It is a welcome U-turn on the Scottish Government’s premature decision to end the first trial.
Across the chamber, we accept that the journey ahead will not be easy. Much of Scotland’s rail infrastructure dates back to the 19th century, and that presents real challenges. If we are serious about modernisation, both the Scottish and UK Governments must work together to unlock private investment and commit to long-term upgrades.
We heard that Douglas Lumsden likes a bit of nostalgia. He loves nostalgia so much that he is still emotionally stuck in 1983, back when Aberdeen beat Real Madrid and perms were peak fashion. However, that nostalgia does not cover the 50-year-old InterCity trains still serving in Nigeria and Scotland. He highlighted the central belt bias when it comes to new rolling stock. If he thinks that it is bad in the north-east, he should pay a visit to Stranraer, where the first train of the morning is referred to as the polar express, because of the lack of heating.
I will not spend any more time summing up other members’ contributions. Apart from the cabinet secretary’s speech, without exception the calls from across the chamber were for more to be done, and quicker.
My colleague Sue Webber, a long-time campaigner for Winchburgh railway station, called for new developments, saying that they should be aligned with areas of population growth. However, we must be cautious. Expansion must not come at the expense of rural and remote communities. Scotland’s railways must serve all of Scotland, not just the central belt. I will therefore use my time to shine a spotlight on the south-west, particularly Stranraer and the strategically vital port at Cairnryan.
Like the region’s road network, the railway in the area has been neglected for far too long. Back in 2012, Keith Brown, the then transport minister, and First Minister Alex Salmond set up the Stranraer task force. At the time, Keith Brown said:
“I again repeat the Scottish Government’s absolute commitment to rail services in Stranraer and, indeed, to doing all that we can do to improve and develop the service. Our current Rail 2014 consultation allows the public to have their say in the future of the railways in Scotland and I can assure passengers that we will continue to ensure the delivery of the best possible service.”
Since then—surprise, surprise—services are less frequent and more focused on connections at Ayr rather than direct trains to Glasgow. More trains now terminate at Ayr, requiring passengers to change for Glasgow, and there are fewer early morning and late evening options in comparison with the situation pre-Covid. That is hardly an improvement.
Stranraer is a town with a proud past and now—finally—there is momentum. Thanks to the Borderlands inclusive growth deal and the Stranraer place plan, we are seeing real investment, including a waterfront redevelopment that is expected to attract tens of thousands of additional visitors annually. However, one thing is missing: a modern, reliable rail service to support that revival.
We need a long-term strategy to improve passenger services, unlock freight potential and, in particular, shift heavy goods off the dangerous A77 and the A75. Cairnryan remains a key national asset, yet lorries have to depend on those unfit-for-purpose roads. Investment in rail freight is not just a local issue, but a strategic priority for Scotland and the UK.
Despite repeated commitments, post-Covid, rail services to and from Stranraer remain poor. Communities are isolated, economic recovery has stalled and passengers face some of the highest fares per mile in Scotland. The Stranraer service was suspended for more than 10 months following an arson attack on Ayr station hotel. One has to ask oneself whether such a delay would be tolerated elsewhere.
The south-west is not a cul-de-sac; it is a corridor of opportunity. I am calling for a feasibility study to extend freight capabilities to Cairnryan, a clear timetable to restore pre-Covid service levels and address unfair rail fares, and a renewed commitment to station improvements in Stranraer, including the creation of a new, fit-for-purpose facility that reflects the town’s ambition and serves the needs of 21st century travellers.
For nine years, I have worked with stakeholders to make that vision a reality. What my constituents and rail passengers across Scotland want is simple: a ticket to ride, not the track of their tears.
16:59
Today’s subject matter is of enormous importance, and the debate has provided a timely opportunity for the Parliament to mark the achievements of many people who have contributed to the rail industry in Scotland over the past 20 years. It also allows us to set out what will happen next on our railways and to set out our aims for—and express our concerns about—the UK Government’s imminent railways bill. People have shown their passion and interest in rail, and I am delighted that the Government has been able to provide the opportunity to discuss different points. I will address a number of those that were made during the debate.
Sue Webber talked about the need for fleet replacement. The new intercity trains are being procured. On Friday, I announced that the Fife and Borders fleets will be procured, and so will the suburban fleet. To answer Sarah Boyack’s question about accessibility, the fleets will have step-free access.
Sue Webber also raised concerns about boom and bust in rail investment. That is a criticism from the rail industry for the UK as a whole. In Scotland, the industry says that we have managed to have steady investment, which allows for planning, keeps project teams together and keeps supply chains intact.
Claire Baker raised the Fife circle issue. We recently had an exchange, and her point about the measurement of short-forming is reasonable. I note that she welcomed the investment in electrification and the battery electric fleet for that line.
Claire Baker and others, such as Katy Clark, raised women’s safety issues, which my predecessors and I have taken very seriously. The travel safe teams have been expanded. The ticket offices issue is about staff visibility. There are more staff visible on our railways now than ever before. One issue that I raised was about access and visibility from ticket offices to platforms. Only 97 per cent of those that were impacted had visibility of the platforms. However, the points that a number of members made about CCTV and so on need to be communicated a bit more.
I am concerned about the British Transport Police issues, so if Claire Baker can do anything in relation to the UK Department for Transport’s cuts, that is an issue that needs to be raised. We are also working with our justice colleagues to look at other powers that might be available to help with prosecutions, which people are keen to see, although the cases that are reported are being prosecuted.
Mark Ruskell raised a number of issues, including that of unused first-class services. Currently, they generate £8.5 million in income, so he may want to have a further discussion about what that means for earnings, but he is right on the commuter aspects. Those services have been declassified, although I doubt that many people know about that. Therefore, that might be a communication point that has to be addressed.
Mark Ruskell and Richard Leonard also raised a point about bonds and, in particular, ASLEF’s proposal for green bonds. The Scottish Government continues with its due diligence process on the work towards Scottish Government bonds, which is in line with the approach that was outlined in the 2025-26 Scottish budget and the 2025 medium-term financial strategy. We have engaged with ASLEF, which actually underestimates the savings that can be made. However, there is a restriction on our borrowing, and bonds would count against that. As a Government, the limits on our borrowing are prohibitive, and that, too, needs to be addressed.
Jamie Greene raised a number of important points. He asked why I said that it was unaffordable to extend the pilot scheme to remove peak rail fares. It is important to remember that the pilot was a pilot. Finlay Carson said that it was ended prematurely, but it was not, because it was extended twice—once when the Greens were still in power and once when they left the Government. I extended the pilot because I wanted it to have more time to be successful. Anyone who remembers last summer will know that there was the minor incident of an emergency budget that occurred when the new UK Government came into power, which caused major affordability issues. The Tories have delusions about their influence, because I always said in debates that, if funds became available for my budget, I would reintroduce the removal of peak rail fares. Why? Because certainty is important. The fact that peak fares are now gone for good will help people to make the decision to switch, which is where the modal shift will come from.
Finlay Carson raised an important general point about decarbonised transport. In our climate change preparations, we will be setting out a number of measures in transport areas. We are already taking action in relation to heavy goods vehicle reductions and what we can do in that territory, and more will come on that issue.
Members raised other issues—Douglas Lumsden and others highlighted issues with various stations. With regard to the proposals for stations at Cove and Newtonhill, I refer Douglas Lumsden to the decisions that were made by the North East of Scotland Transport Partnership. There have been discussions between my officials and the Nestrans board, but the next stage is the development of a strategic business case, and that sits with the Nestrans board.
We heard similar passion in contributions from other members. I pay tribute to Christine Grahame for her role in supporting the Borders railway, and I look forward to joining her and representatives of Scottish Borders Council tonight as we celebrate and mark 10 years since the railway’s official opening.
Emma Roddick talked about the Highlands, and both she and Finlay Carson highlighted the point that, while population growth, which the Conservative amendment mentions, is an important aspect, we need to identify what can be done in other parts of Scotland. I was recently on the Alness line in the far north, looking at the maintenance improvements.
That leads me on to Richard Leonard’s point—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Oh no—after his miserabilist contribution, there is no way that I am taking an intervention from Sandesh Gulhane.
Richard Leonard needs to address the issues around the budget. I have had exchanges with him, and we have sat down with the RMT. There has been a 34.9 per cent increase in our rail infrastructure improvement and rolling stock projects budget this year in comparison with last year. The network budget was down, but there was an issue around the international financial reporting standards capital cover for leasing stock; that will also impact on the UK Government when it is trying to integrate track and train and bring in public ownership. It is an accounting issue; in effect, the real capital budget increased by £63.8 million—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No, I want to make progress.
With regard to other areas, Kevin Stewart was right to talk about the north-east and the rail campaign there. Everybody has demands, and we want to continue to improve where we can.
I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. Yes, people want to see improvement—in fact, Graham Simpson at least recognised that there is growing public satisfaction, and we have one of the best performance records in comparison with the rest of the UK. However, there is more to be done.
I also want to address the important point that was made about the campaign by Sight Scotland for companions for blind people. The pilot is happening just now, and that is a very important part of what we are doing to try to ensure that companions can help to support those who have needs in that area. I encourage members to publicise that pilot.
On where we go from here, we need investment, but we also need to ensure that people understand that railways and transport investment are not only about services that provide a contractual arrangement for going from A to B, but about communities, resilience and the economy.
With regard to freight, which was mentioned, we have been able to reintroduce the rail freight grant this year.
rose—
I am sorry, but I really need to bring my remarks to a close.
We have ambitions for the railway, and we have had success in bringing together track and train in Scotland, but I continue to have concerns about the UK rail reform bill. I appreciate the reassurances from Lord Hendy—whom I have had meetings with and will continue to meet—that he does not want to see a diminution. However, until we see the legislation, the proposed UK vertical integration presents a real quandary and conundrum in respect of how it might apply to Scotland.
It is important that we, collectively, send a message that we value our devolved responsibilities. In supporting the motion today, we can meet that challenge and, prior to the introduction of the UK Government’s railways bill, send a strong signal that is wholly in keeping with the efforts over the past 20 years. We are hugely proud of Scotland’s railway, and it should be afforded the power that it needs to secure the best possible outcomes for the people and businesses of Scotland and deliver the improvements and the extension of services that the people of Scotland want, need and deserve.
That concludes the debate on 20 years of Scotland’s railway providing a strong platform for the future.
Previous
Urgent QuestionNext
Business Motions