Plenary, 10 Nov 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, November 10, 2005

Official Report 699KB pdf

---

Rail

The next item of business is a debate on the future of rail in Scotland.

I thank Fergus Ewing and David Davidson, who lead for their respective parties on transport, for their helpful suggestions about the structure of today's debate. I genuinely hope that this can be an opportunity to consider longer-term perspectives on rail and why it is important to Scotland and that the debate can take place in that spirit.

The biggest transfer of powers to Scotland since devolution has happened. Scottish ministers now have the central decision-making role in the future of rail in Scotland. We can and will bring a real focus—a Scottish focus—to the needs of Scottish passengers and businesses.

This morning I travelled on one of Scotland's key commuting lines, the Fife circle. We are using our new role to lead a joint performance team to consider performance on that line. That team has already identified options for further investment over the coming years to improve its performance. That has been possible because of our new role in rail infrastructure and because of this devolved Government working in partnership with Network Rail and First ScotRail to deliver integration and co-ordination of their work.

On the integration of the network, one of the points that concern me is that Network Rail and the Scottish Executive are making available facilities to encourage more freight to travel on the Highland line, which goes through my constituency but, unfortunately, users and operators of the service are now in retreat, rather than advancing. What more can the Government do to work with operators and Network Rail to encourage more freight to get off the road and on to rail?

That is an important aspect of the approach, which will be dealt with in the on-going consultation exercise. Mr Swinney might wish to bear in mind two specific points. One is the use of the freight facilities grant and the ability of that mechanism, which has been used widely in Scotland already, to be developed further. The other is the route utilisation work that is being undertaken by Network Rail, which will consider the pinchpoints, the balance between freight trains and passenger trains and how we maximise the use of our network. I will try to say a few more words about that in due course.

The opportunities to deliver performance improvements that I believe we have and can take are already being realised right across the Scottish rail network. As Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, I will not be complacent about the performance of First ScotRail and Network Rail. That is what the transfer of rail powers to Scotland is all about. I met First ScotRail and Network Rail bosses together in Edinburgh last night to discuss the issues at the heart of rail performance in Scotland.

Rail architecture in Scotland is simpler than elsewhere, with fewer bodies, fewer companies and a unified approach. I want an approach with Government, First ScotRail and Network Rail working together to deliver for rail passengers.

How will the Executive remain neutral in industrial disputes in the future, given that it has agreed to continue the practice of indemnifying companies for lost revenue during any industrial disputes? Does that not put the Executive on the side of the bosses in any strikes that might take place in the future?

Unlike Mr Sheridan, I do not want there to be strikes on the railways; I want the railways to provide good services for passengers. I will work with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which I will meet shortly to discuss those and other issues.

These opportunities offer a big but exciting challenge to build on what we have already done and on what we can do for the future. I hope that that is what today's debate can be about. I aspire to better connections across Scotland; faster connections between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom; and better use of the rail network to enable more goods to get to market, as well as more people to get to work, by rail.

For the first time, we are asking in the consultation exercise what people and businesses in Scotland want from rail and where the balance lies between the transport choices that we face—the choices that people have about rail. That is why we have launched the consultation on rail strategic priorities. When I met the Confederation of British Industry earlier this week, I asked it those questions and I look to it, as to other business organisations, to consider why rail is important to business and to supporting the economy and how rail can give Scottish companies a competitive advantage.

Today's debate is an opportunity to develop a new Scottish vision for rail. Why should we not have a high-speed intercity express network on a European or far eastern model if that is what Scotland needs for its future? Can high-speed links to and from Scotland help our economy and Scottish tourism and be a real alternative to the plane in the context of London links, or is it right to focus simply on improving existing links and connections? We have the opportunity to set out the future of rail in Scotland. I want to set out a strategic framework that will allow us to do that, and I encourage my fellow parliamentarians to take this opportunity to debate the questions that really matter. The challenge for us, in Parliament, is to look 10, 15 or 20 years hence in considering these issues.

Real devolution provides a new framework for rail in Scotland. It provides a new legal framework, as Scottish ministers today have far wider powers than before. It provides a new financial framework, with more than £360 million of funding transferring year on year to support us in our new role going forward, added to record investment in rail to date. We have a sound financial basis on which to build. Real devolution also provides a new operational framework, meaning clearer relationships that will enable greater co-ordination of activities and interaction by the key players. It means Transport Scotland having the flexibility to develop its own direct relationships with the private sector and better engagement between the rail industry, passengers and freight customers.

The minister mentioned £360 million of additional funding coming with the new permissions, and so on. Can he tell me where he would like to spend that money? I do not expect him to name specific projects, but does he wish to improve infrastructure, or is he going to mix it across the different aspects?

That £360 million is about Network Rail and the outputs that we will look for from it in relation specifically to the tracks and the infrastructure. We will discuss that matter further at the Local Government and Transport Committee next week, when I will be able to give a better and longer answer to those questions.

We have made a record investment in rail, which is delivering for passengers. The First ScotRail franchise in its first year has delivered significant improvements. The number of train delays caused by First ScotRail was down 20 per cent in the first year of the franchise. A new regime for higher-quality standards for stations and trains that is unique to the ScotRail franchise is ensuring a continuing improvement in service quality for the passenger. Investment in customer-focused areas has seen 400 new staff join First ScotRail; a new customer contact centre in Fort William; better cycle storage facilities; enhanced customer information services; and train fleet refurbishment.

Investment is gathering pace, with the franchise also set to deliver a £40 million package of improvements throughout Scotland, including the upgrading and improving of all stations and the introduction of closed-circuit television and customer information systems at stations.

I am delighted to hear the minister say that there will be much-needed improvement in some stations. However, he will be aware that people in my constituency would like to have more trains per hour between Kilmarnock and Glasgow. Can he give me an assurance that he will discuss the dynamic loop further with Strathclyde Passenger Transport?

I would be happy to discuss the dynamic loop further with SPT. However, we need further information from SPT, as Margaret Jamieson knows. Once that is received, the matter can be taken forward.

We are also supporting the growth of the rail franchise: 29 new trains providing more than 5,900 extra seats, complemented by longer platforms at 26 stations, thereby increasing capacity on key commuter routes by 30 to 50 per cent. We are delivering a large programme of enhancements to the rail network that will see passenger services, freight services, service quality, network performance and patronage grow and improve over the next decade.

Talk of improvements to stations brings to mind the reopening of Laurencekirk railway station in the Mearns in my constituency. I am sure that the minister is aware of the positive business case that has been made for reopening that station by the Scottish transport appraisal guidance appraisal and the engineering report that is about to be published. Will he confirm that such measures go hand in hand with Scottish Executive policy to increase use of the railways?

The reopening of Laurencekirk station has been championed for some time and I know that it is important to Mike Rumbles. I have looked at the latest information on the matter, and note that a process must be gone through. However, I take his point about the advantages of new station openings. I ask him to bear it in mind that when decisions about station openings such as the one that he mentioned are made, there are consequences for the city-to-city connections that we also want to maintain. The balance of that argument is one of the matters that must be considered.

The results of the consultation will be used to guide rail investment decisions in future. Other work continues, such as the route utilisation strategy for Scotland, which will identify hot spots on the network, the issues that affect performance and the options for alleviating them.

We are also leading a study to produce a Scotland planning assessment to look at what rail is good at and what it does best. That will indicate demand over the next 10 to 20 years and the extent to which the current network will have to change to meet that demand.

A sustainable, effective and efficient transport system is crucial to the economic health of Scotland and its people. This is an exciting time for rail in Scotland. We have a huge opportunity to shape Scotland's railways for generations to come. I want Scotland's railways to be as good as those anywhere in Europe or, indeed, the world—a genuine renaissance for rail in Scotland. I ask Parliament today to give voice to that challenge.

I thank the minister for agreeing that this debate should not have a motion and amendments because that means that we can have an open debate about how we see Scotland's rail services developing.

The Scottish National Party wishes to emphasise four points in this debate. The first and main point relates to the consultation. What do passengers want from Scotland's rail service? We submit that the answer to the consultation—we await the responses with interest—might be the same as it was to the previous consultation five years ago. Passengers want reliable train services that they know will leave at a specified time and arrive at the time stated in the timetable. It therefore seems that, in the short to medium term, we should focus on delivering that reliable service. From our discussions with industry experts, we believe that we should address in the expenditure of taxpayers' money the capacity constraints, the pinchpoints and the bottlenecks, which might be single-track sections, outdated signalling, old track, insufficient platforms or myriad other problems.

On its website, Network Rail divides Scotland into three sections and identifies some of the constraints in eastern Scotland, which is the most populous part. I submit that although the focus in the Scottish Executive's policy on rail in Scotland for the first six years of the Scottish Parliament has been on delivering new lines, we should now turn our attention to the improvement of the existing network.

Although the Scottish National Party supports improvements such as the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway line, the Airdrie to Bathgate line and the Borders rail link, had there been an SNP minister for transport six years ago, assessing how best the substantial amounts of money should be spent, they would probably not have concluded that some of the projects that have been promoted by the Executive would be the top priority. Politics is not easy, Government is not easy—

Will the member give way?

Not at the moment.

Government is not easy—

Will the member give way?

Not at this point.

In politics and Government, we need to distinguish between the important and the essential. That is not to say that the SNP opposes the projects that I have mentioned, which will go ahead. After all, they have already been planned and it would be foolish to cancel projects that have been agreed.

However, spending on the existing network has not followed what we regard as the priorities. For example, according to Network Rail's analysis and forecast expenditure for the east of Scotland, the total enhancements—or improvements—expenditure for 2005-06 is £18 million. However, approximately £2,200 million has been earmarked for new routes. If I were a commuter on the Glasgow to Edinburgh line on which severe problems over the summer and into early autumn caused the line to be cut, I would question whether the creation of new routes should be the top priority. As I have said, the SNP supports the projects that I have mentioned, but it is only reasonable to make that point. After all, the debate's purpose is to focus attention on ways of addressing capacity constraints.

Although Mr Ewing makes a fair point, will he also be fair to the chamber and give us an idea of the projects that he would abandon?

If Mr Arbuckle had been listening to me, he would have heard me say that I supported the projects that I mentioned.

Other projects have been proposed, and we support in principle the Glasgow and Edinburgh airport rail links. It is also right that the close parliamentary scrutiny of the Edinburgh tramlines should reach a conclusion; however, the former Minister for Transport himself questioned whether the lines would represent value for money if their costs increased. Of course, he said that before the costs increased.

Turning to point two, at the business in the Parliament event that took place in the chamber on 9 September, Janette Anderson made a lot of sense when she highlighted what she felt to be an element of confusion and lack of clarity in how projects can and should be delivered. In this debate, which is about the Parliament co-operating to take politics with a capital P out of transport, I repeat to the minister the offer that the SNP made in the debate on the Borders railway project. We agree with the First Minister's comment at the opening of the parliamentary year that we need to reform the existing parliamentary system in that respect. He said:

"Too many critical transport projects that we have planned are taking too long to implement"

and

"we will legislate to simplify the process."—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18782.]

If the minister wishes to fast-track the process, we will co-operate. If we can do it for a bill that, allegedly, is required to satisfy the European convention on human rights, we should do it for a bill that is necessary to deliver more successful links for rail passengers.

Mr Ewing, you have one minute for points three and four.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

We should also introduce an integrated ticketing system. If people can buy a phone card for, say, £20, why can they not buy a transport card that can be used on any form of public transport and can be topped up on the bus or train? If we are going to have smart cards for concessionary travel schemes, the same measure should be extended to the whole range of travel.

Finally, in the extremely short time available to me, I should say that the SNP agrees with and welcomes many of the long-term transport objectives for Scotland, including swifter intercity links and better links with London. Ideally, there should be more rail passengers and fewer air passengers. As the party that will form the next Scottish Executive, the SNP will wish to play a part with its Westminster partners to meet those objectives.

Members should be aware that, as the debate is oversubscribed, we will stick strictly to the time limits.

First, I apologise to the chamber, because I will have to leave before the end of the debate. I have already apologised to the minister for that.

The Scottish Conservatives broadly welcome the transfer to Scotland of additional powers over rail, particularly given that we also have powers to deal with the road network. Surely connectivity is the key to this issue.

I am, however, concerned about the potential increase in bureaucracy and central control that the minister might threaten us with. There is little doubt that the establishment of the new national transport agency and a network of regional transport partnerships will increase costs and slow progress, and we must ensure that those organisations actually deliver. However, there is clear evidence in some regions of Scotland that there are already developed transport partnerships—such as the north-east Scotland transport partnership—that work well without interference by ministers.

There is a simple philosophy to be applied when the minister is using the new powers: if it ain't broke, don't fix it—and, in the case of rail, that is how the minister is perceived. I would like to think that he will use the new powers to decrease bureaucracy and state interference in the railways and to focus instead on developing opportunities for front-line service improvements by freeing up the service providers and encouraging investment and cross-sector co-operation on timetabling and through-ticketing.

If we look at the rigidity of the current ScotRail franchise we can see that, despite the amazing service improvements by First ScotRail in its first year of operation, the company does not have the opportunity to consider which rolling stock should be used and how the hardware of the business can be improved in the long term. I find it strange that the franchise was cut from 15 years down to seven and that the operator was required to take over rolling stock that, in many cases, is inappropriate. There is little opportunity or encouragement to improve and generate greater private investment, which is currently dwarfed by public subsidy.

The Executive's excessive interference mantra has resulted in a lack of freedom for the train operating companies, whereas we wish to see operators freed up but still accountable—I stress that they should still be accountable. A recent respondent to The Scotsman online debate stated:

"Scotland's railway problems are not of First ScotRail's making … As franchise-holders, they seek to meet operational and performance criteria set by Scottish Executive mandarins who wouldn't know a Turbostar from a Hogwarts Express."

To be fair, I am not attacking mandarins, but that is a view that has been expressed.

There must now be an opportunity to provide clarity about how the decisions are made. I appreciate the fact that the Executive has announced a consultation on rail, which I welcome. I hope that it will use that opportunity to maximise and develop its responsibilities, providing that we see new, clear and long-term strategic thinking about the issues faced by rail operators, both passenger and freight, and about the needs of passengers and businesses.

The resulting new strategy must take a long-term view to address the relevant points, and I was heartened by the minister's words on that. That is particularly true where there are pinchpoints in our railway network, and the Executive must take a long-term view on how it intends to deal with infrastructure development and with the maintenance and upgrading of existing track and stations. Most of all, the Executive must ensure that the taxpayer gets maximum value for money, while providing increased opportunity for private sector investment. It is not just about profit; it is about the introduction of the huge capital requirements that we need to modernise the rail service, so as to offer a fair return to the investor and the operator and to help our transport system to develop.

I have little doubt that the primary role of the Scottish Executive in all of that is to ensure high standards of operation, real commercial flexibility, encouragement of competition and true public audit of performance. The Conservatives do not believe that the minister should run the railways directly. The new transport agency is, quite frankly, an illusion that he has let go, and he will have to work hard to convince me that he really wants that new agency to be strictly arm's length in its work with the rail operators.

No one in this chamber can have missed the fact that the minister recently threatened to terminate the rail operations of Strathclyde Passenger Transport as we know it. That is a major U-turn from November 2003, when the current Deputy First Minister gave us explicit assurances that SPT, or its successor body, would continue to manage, develop and monitor rail services in the area. We are now being told that, as the result of an agreement forced on SPT, an organisation and brand that enjoys public confidence will have its powers in key areas such as fares and branding curtailed, with the Executive merely agreeing to consult it. Perhaps the minister will clarify the situation and say what improvements will come about because of his actions. To those on the Conservative benches, it seems a wee bit like minister-knows-best interference.

Does David Davidson accept that it is a question of achieving a balance between the Executive's accountability for the rail operators and what the rail operators deliver? Is it not true that what the Tories did during privatisation was to let go so much that we had a disaster?

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, because we have to look forward.

The First Minister said in the debate on the Executive's legislative programme that he wanted transport infrastructure projects to be rolled out quickly. Conservative members want to see firm commitments to the upgrading of several major pieces of infrastructure to help with that work and to prove the point. Those projects include the upgrading of Waverley station and a new crossing of the Forth—that means a multimodal bridge or tunnel that includes rail, because one of the worst pinchpoints on our railway system is the bottleneck at the current Forth rail bridge, which muddles express trains and freight trains with local commuter services.

In conclusion, I ask the minister to continue with what he has promised us today: open discussion and debate. The Conservatives will certainly co-operate with him.

Fergus Ewing expressed scepticism about some of the projects in the Executive's plan. I encourage whichever member winds up for the SNP to name the projects that the SNP would not have proceeded with had it been in power. If SNP members sincerely believe that the projects were not all justified and were not all priorities, they should tell us which ones they would not have proceeded with.

Mr Davidson's approach was unbelievable. He seemed to put responsibility for all the rail industry's current problems into the hands of the Scottish Executive and failed to take on board Mr Crawford's point about the Tories being responsible for many of the rail industry's problems because of how they handled that industry in the 1990s.

Will the member give way?

Not at the moment. I might take an intervention later, but Mr Davidson has just spoken.

If the Tories are ever to be credible in Scotland they must accept that they have made mistakes. Their failure to do so and their refusal to recognise the problems that stem from their era ensure that they will remain in their current position—an irrelevance in Scottish politics.

A modern and efficient transport infrastructure is essential to any developed economy in order to sustain and enhance our standard of living and to develop in a sustainable manner. The development of a modern transport system is even more relevant to Scotland, a country on the western edge of Europe.

I firmly believe that rail can and should be a major component in the development of our infrastructure. That is an obvious and commonsense observation, but it is only a decade since the Conservative Government that Mr Davidson wishes to forget saw the rail network as a throwback to a different era. The Conservative Government believed that the rail industry was in slow and terminal decline and planned gradually to reduce investment in it. I am pleased by the Scottish Executive's record on the prominent delivery of public transport since devolution, when my colleague Sarah Boyack was Minister for Transport, which has continued through to the current minister, Tavish Scott. There is a shared agenda in respect of the role that rail can play in helping to deliver the economic, social and environmental aspirations of our country.

There have been a number of achievements to date, some of which Mr Scott mentioned. Those include the completion of the Edinburgh crossrail scheme, many enhancements to capacity that have taken place on some of our busiest commuter lines, more car parking and more security measures.

We have contributed more towards the freight facilities grant, but there remains much more for us to do to encourage more freight to travel by rail.

I draw attention to the freight inquiry that the Local Government and Transport Committee will embark upon shortly. I encourage all interested parties in the Scottish economy and in the transport sector to participate in that inquiry so that we can establish ways in which we can enhance the level of freight that is carried by rail and alleviate the burden on our roads.

I do not have time to mention all the major projects, but I will mention three that I think are particularly important. First, and most important within the current plans, is the project to enhance capacity and facilities at Edinburgh Waverley. That project is important not only to the east of Scotland and to Edinburgh, but to the whole of Scotland's transport infrastructure because of Edinburgh Waverley's crucial position on long-distance, intercity lines and its interaction with many key commuter belts within the central belt of Scotland. I do not see it as an east of Scotland project, but as one that is essential for the whole of Scotland. I hope that the minister will ensure that it is given top priority.

Secondly, the Edinburgh airport link is another ambitious project and potentially the most expensive of the current projects in the transport budget. Again, it could produce an exciting transport interchange at Edinburgh airport that will link the airport with Scotland's biggest cities by rail, road, air, bus and—potentially—tram. The project is of critical strategic importance to the country.

Finally, the project that is close to my heart is the reopening of the Bathgate to Airdrie line. Again, the project is of significance not only to my constituents and those of Mary Mulligan and Karen Whitefield, but to people who live and work along the M8 corridor. It will alleviate congestion in that busy part of Scotland.

The minister touched on the new powers. Given the shortage of time, I will have to leave that to one side. I commend the Executive on its proposal to introduce a transport and works-type bill. The proposal aims to address some of the bottlenecks in parliamentary procedures. I look forward to dealing with that bill in due course.

The final issue that I want to mention is one that the minister addressed earlier. It is possible that the Executive may have to compensate a franchisee in the case of industrial action. Like the minister, I hope that there is no industrial action over the course of the franchise. Will the minister expand on that and reassure staff and commuters that that will not encourage any potential franchise holder to act in a cavalier manner in its industrial relations because it does not have to face the downside of revenue loss as a consequence?

The prospects for the rail industry are positive. In terms of the contribution that rail can make in its own right, the question is what it can achieve for the Scottish economy and for social opportunities and environmental goals. I support the minister's proposals. The challenge that the minister, the new agency and the rail industry face is to deliver the proposed enhancements on time and on budget. If we do so, we will have delivered a rail network that is fit for the 21st century.

We move to the open debate. A considerable number of back benchers have indicated that they wish to speak and I have already had to tell one that he will not be called. I ask members to keep to a strict six minutes.

I am a little disappointed that some members who have contributed so far have not managed to get out of the trenches a bit more. Surely the purpose of the debate is to approach the subject in a different way.

I, for one, warmly welcome the new powers that have been devolved to Scotland, and to the minister, from 1 April next year. They are a great idea. The powers will result in First ScotRail being contracted to the Scottish Executive through the franchise and Network Rail being contracted to First ScotRail in terms of the responsibility for track access arrangements. However, one of the missing pieces of the jigsaw is the need for Network Rail to be more accountable to the Scottish Executive. Further discussions should take place to improve the situation. I accept that arrangements have been put in place, but they are not the same as having a binding contract or real accountability. The issue needs to be examined; we need to get it right for the longer term.

I recognise the considerable challenges that face the minister. The consultation paper is a good start. The first question asks:

"Following the delivery of the current major projects, should we change the focus of investment in the railways to concentrate on securing the benefits from the existing network"?

That is an important question. Fergus Ewing alluded to that when he spoke about the need to examine what the Executive has said about its planned projects.

We have to start getting the basics right: the challenge is staring us in the face. The small number of pinchpoints throughout Scotland give rise to considerable difficulties. If we were to lever in only a small amount of investment, it could make a significant difference to the rail network in that regard.

We need to get the fundamentals right. The question is how to get a lot more out of the existing infrastructure. I will move on to address capacity issues, but before I do, I will dwell on some of the significant questions that are raised by the Executive's planned extensions to the network.

What lessons can we learn from what has been happening, for example, with the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line? That line is very welcome, but the costs went up from an initial cost-base of £37 million to something like £60 million; the cost was never going to be the earlier figure. I have been told that there must be five appraisal stages for such projects before a robust cost analysis can be made, but the figure and the go-ahead for the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line were announced at stage two. The result was an unexpected and undeliverable cost factor for that railway line. There must be much more robust financial planning before such announcements are made to ensure that they are much closer to the final, real sum.

The costs could have been much higher and matters could have been more difficult than they have been had not Network Rail been as flexible as it was on the grouting of the mineworkings that exist along the route. I understand that there is also conflict in Alloa, because the building of a new superstore means that the station car park will have space for only 50 cars. That is not enough space for the Alloa station car park in this modern day and age. We must try to resolve such conflicts. The Alloa link might become a route into Glasgow for a large part of Clackmannan, Fife and, indeed, southern parts of Perthshire. We must examine the Alloa situation much more carefully.

Bristow Muldoon talked about the Airdrie to Bathgate line, which is important. However, significant issues must be resolved with regard to the tunnelling at Waverley. If the line is to be electrified, we must ensure that the improvement works at Waverley railway station happen at the same time as the works on the Airdrie to Bathgate line. Otherwise, train users will suffer a double hit of inconvenience. We must find better ways of planning projects. That is what I mean by the lessons that must be learned.

We had a debate in the chamber last week about the problems that the Forth road bridge faces. I inform David Davidson that, if he thinks we need a new rail bridge, he should look up the Forth just a little bit closer to the road bridge. That rail bridge, I have been informed, will possibly last us for a couple of centuries yet, unless something goes significantly wrong. It is time that David Davidson got his technical expertise improved.

Will Mr Crawford give way?

On you go.

What I was talking about earlier was the separation of local commuter routes from through-freight and express routes. That is one of the big problems. More capacity must be available in order to make that kind of separation. In fact, should we need to do anything with the Forth rail bridge, we must have somewhere else to go.

You are in your last 50 seconds, Mr Crawford.

I realise that.

Perhaps Mr Davidson thought that he said that, but I can assure him that that was not what members heard. There are, of course, issues around the rail bridge—for example, it needs improved signalling. We must start discussions with English Welsh & Scottish Railway about whether the products that it runs on the rail bridge line can be moved on to the new line between Stirling and Kincardine and whether EWS will give up some of its passes so that we can get more trains across the Forth rail bridge. Doing that would make a significant difference.

There are many more things that I would like to discuss in this debate; I wish I had time. However, as far as the rail bridge is concerned, I hope that the minister takes my particular points on board. We must get into some serious planning because of difficulties that may arise on the other bridge.

I welcome the debate and I am sure that there will be a broad consensus that rail has an important part to play in the creation of a modern, co-ordinated transport system in Scotland. No doubt, however, there will be some debate on the best way to achieve that and to what extent rail should take precedence over the car.

Recent years have seen an improvement in both the number of passengers using rail services and the quality of the infrastructure. Since 1996-97, passenger use of ScotRail services has increased by 9 per cent; and by 2006, the Scottish Executive will be spending £1 billion a year on transport, of which 70 per cent will be targeted on public transport. That funding is helping to deliver significant improvements in the rail infrastructure. Seventy-five new trains have been delivered since 1999 and 20 more new trains have been ordered. Work has also begun on the Larkhall to Milngavie line and the Stirling to Alloa line.

Those are just a few of the major projects planned by the Scottish Executive. The transfer of rail powers and resources from London can only help to ensure that we continue the process and deliver a co-ordinated and strategic rail service that joins up with car and bus journeys and complements other major infrastructure developments such as hospitals, housing and business developments.

The Bathgate to Edinburgh rail service provides clear evidence that investment in infrastructure can lead to significant passenger demand for a service. Since its reopening in the late 1980s, the service has gone from strength to strength. In fact, the number of passengers wanting to use the service increased so much from the original estimates that a number of platforms had to be extended to enable more carriages to run.

I am completely confident that the reopening of the Airdrie to Bathgate line will have a similar level of success. The Bathgate experience clearly demonstrates that a well-thought-out and well-located rail service can not only respond to customer needs, but stimulate additional journeys, moving people away from their cars and on to trains.

The reopening of the Airdrie to Bathgate section will provide not only a much more reasonable transport option for those who already travel from Airdrie and Coatbridge to West Lothian and Edinburgh, but greater employment, educational and recreational opportunities for the people of my constituency. The reopening will also help to reduce congestion on the M8.

I welcome the progress on the Airdrie to Bathgate project and in particular the appointment of Network Rail as the project promoter. It is vital, however, that we continue to consult the communities who will benefit from, and be affected by, the reopening of the rail line.

I would like to take this opportunity once again to restate my belief that there must be a proper balance between the aspiration for a relatively speedy service between Glasgow and Edinburgh and the need to serve local communities such as Plains and Caldercruix in my constituency. I am firmly of the view that both those villages must be served by stations—even if that means a less frequent service that alternates between the two stations. I ask the minister to consider that as the project progresses.

Yes, it is important that we have fast, efficient transport links between our major cities, but it is also important that some of our smaller, more isolated rural communities have access to the employment and educational opportunities that the project can deliver. The social justice that can be delivered by good public transport must be made available to those communities as well.

I also ask the minister to consider the case for improving both the quality of the station at Shotts and the service. At present, the journey from Shotts to Edinburgh takes so long that it is not seen as an option by commuters. I ask the minister to consider the Caledonian proposals. I believe that those proposals would offer a viable option for people in the Shotts area who want to commute into Edinburgh by rail. Likewise, people in Livingston would have a viable rail option for commuting into Glasgow. There could be great economic benefits for the North Lanarkshire area. The redevelopment of Shotts station would be required, to ensure much-needed disabled access. There should also be sufficient park-and-ride facilities.

I would like to conclude by saying a few words about Strathclyde Passenger Transport, a subject that has already been touched on. The new Scottish transport agency will be set up following the model introduced by SPT many years ago. SPT emerged because it was recognised that there was a need for a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to public transport in the west of Scotland and around major conurbations throughout the United Kingdom. It makes sense that that strategic approach should now be taken across Scotland as a whole.

I would like to put on record my recognition of the good work carried out by SPT over the past 30 years. I am pleased that the dispute between SPT and the Executive has been resolved. Perhaps David Davidson needs to catch up with the news.

I look forward to the new west of Scotland transport authority working in partnership with the national agency over the coming months and years.

I welcome the fact that the Executive is dedicating some of its debating time to the important subject of rail. I do not want to spend my speech making partisan, party-political points, despite the temptation to do so. However, I thank Karen Whitefield for her good grace in praising the Bathgate line, which was a creation of the last Conservative Government; I shall resist the temptation to dwell on that.

As the Executive knows, Scotland's railway network is vital to the country's economic performance—people rely on trains to commute to work and business relies on trains for freight haulage—and it links all parts of Scotland. I want to concentrate on rail services because they affect my constituents in Mid Scotland and Fife. I am sure that I am not alone in having a mailbag that is full of letters from constituents about the inadequacies of the rail service.

I have been a strong advocate of more rail services to Perth and of improvements to the station there, but I fear that Perth's rail situation is another example of the city being forgotten by the Executive. Of the £40 million that First ScotRail is investing in infrastructure, it is investing only £155,000 in Perth, which is to be spent on improving the station's closed-circuit television system and upgrading its clocks. The people who use Perth station will appreciate that many more upgrades than just those are required. There is a lack of vision for Perth and a lack of will to improve its train services.

People in Perth want—indeed, they deserve—a decent train service. There are not enough services to Edinburgh. Surely it is unacceptable that most services from Perth to Edinburgh are indirect and take more than two hours. Of course, we used to have a direct rail line from Perth to Edinburgh, but it was closed in 1970—I remind Mr Muldoon that that was done under a Labour Government. I am sorry for making partisan, party-political points again. Trains now have to loop round by Stirling and Dunblane or along the Fife circle. We are far from being able to make a case for reopening the direct line from Perth to Edinburgh, but surely we can come up with a better solution that provides more effective and reliable rail services between the two cities. Such services are essential for the Perth area and its economy. What a difference having fast, regular and direct links to Edinburgh would make to Perth's economy.

First ScotRail is responsible to the whole of Scotland. It is all very well for it to invest £100 million in Waverley station—that is tremendous news—but surely Perth station deserves more than £155,000 for better services.

Given the consensual nature of the debate, does the member not accept that without the investment in Waverley, improving facilities at Perth would not give his constituents any better access to the main station in the capital?

I accept that there is a major constraint on Waverley station and that expansion will open the door to more services, but much more could be done. For example, extending the commuter service from Edinburgh to Dunblane as far as Perth would give more opportunities to people in Perth and the wider area.

We have heard about the reopening of stations. My colleague David Davidson—no doubt, with a little assistance from Mr Rumbles—was involved in the campaign to reopen Laurencekirk station, but I want to mention the case for reopening Blackford station in Perthshire, which a feasibility study shows would be of massive benefit to the area.

We all know about the success of Dunblane's park-and-ride scheme for commuters who travel to the central belt, but there is now immense pressure on car parking capacity in Dunblane, the streets of which have been left chock-a-block with cars by people commuting to Glasgow or Edinburgh. It would make sense to reopen Blackford station, if only to relieve some of the pressure on Dunblane. Commuters from Crieff and other parts of Strathearn who do not use a rail service to the central belt might be more inclined to do so if Blackford station were reopened, as it would be closer to their homes. That would also relieve traffic pressure on the roads and be more environmentally friendly.

Furthermore, a reopened station at Blackford would provide local businesses with opportunities for freight haulage. The best example of such a company is Highland Spring Ltd, whose product—water—is heavy, stable and high volume and would be perfect for rail transportation. The Highland Spring plant sits right beside the main railway line. With a little imagination, surely we could get such goods on to trains. That would ease the pressure on the A9, which carries a higher percentage of heavy goods vehicles than the national average. Taking some of the traffic off the A9 would reduce the horrendous accident statistics on that road.

I discussed the idea with Highland Spring and it is interested in transporting its goods by rail. All that is needed for that to happen is a bit of encouragement from the Executive, so I urge it to give the suggestion serious consideration.

The minister said that he travelled on the Fife circle line this morning. I hope that he had a better experience than many of my constituents, who complain regularly about severe overcrowding and the line's poor punctuality record. First ScotRail must make it a priority to improve that part of the rail network. I drive in over the Forth road bridge and I know that many people who make that journey by car would rather use the train, but do not do so because the service is simply inadequate. It is essential for the Executive to consider improving the service on the Fife circle.

I have concentrated on local issues because they are a microcosm of the problems on the network as a whole. The Executive has much more to do if it is to deliver the rail service that the people of Scotland deserve.

I want to add some perspective to what has been an interesting debate in which most members have been positive and upbeat. There are significant choices to be made in the coming years, but we should all be proud of what we have achieved on the railways since the Parliament was set up.

Fergus Ewing did not let me intervene during his speech, but I was going to say that when I inherited the road and railway programmes in 1999, we had the possible Larkhall to Milngavie rail project and about 19 big roads and motorways projects. Those were the choices for significant transport expansion in Scotland, so it is clear that we have achieved a huge amount in the past few years. We now talk about real rail projects such as the Bathgate to Airdrie line, the Edinburgh crossrail project, the Waverley line and the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, which in 1999 were aspirations rather than worked-out schemes. The Edinburgh airport rail link represents a huge opportunity to link up the central Scotland railway network and it will massively increase travel opportunities for people who cross the central belt. In 1999, that project, just like the Edinburgh tram project, was not even on the horizon.

We have come a long way and the money has come with the projects. In 1999, we did not have significant resources in the transport budget, but the two subsequent spending reviews gave us those resources. For the first few years, we concentrated on how we could make the most effective use of the railways in the short term. We knew that we wanted to improve access for commuters, safety, the quality of services, reliability and comfort. Improvements such as CCTV have made a huge difference to passengers' sense of comfort and personal safety on our railway network.

In addition, we have done a great deal of work on access to the rail network, particularly through park-and-ride schemes. The best park-and-ride schemes now fill up quickly. We face the challenge of how to target small amounts of money on schemes that link in to the railways. Now that more people use the railways, we need longer trains and platforms—that was another of our early priorities. Apparently simple things have not been simple to deliver on the railway network. One of our biggest collective achievements is the fact that we now have a range of powers and a more integrated network, which gives us more opportunities for the future.

The expansion of freight transport by rail is a huge achievement by the Scottish Parliament, but we are still at an early stage and a lot more can be done. I hope that Tavish Scott will examine that during his time as Minister for Transport and Telecommunications. We used to have almost abandoned railways in Scotland, but we now regard the rail network as a core part of the country's transport network.

There are key pinchpoints on the rail network. Although I am glad that members have mentioned Waverley station, we need to mention Haymarket station in the same breath because, uniquely, it is national, regional and local. Phase 1 of the Waverley redevelopment is to be welcomed as a superb step forward, but the increase in capacity that it will produce is marginal. If we are to realise the aspirations to which Murdo Fraser referred and those that were discussed in last week's debate on the Forth road bridge, we will need more access at Waverley and Haymarket. Work has already been done, such as the engineering project to increase capacity, but the fact that Waverley still needs to be transformed is a measure of how much more we need to do.

Tavish Scott talked about what we want for the future. A key priority should be targeting commuting routes where motorways and other roads are massively congested and where we know from our national planning framework that more houses, businesses and other developments are planned. That is crucial. It is important to make best use of the existing network in doing that, but we must consider expansion, too. We are experiencing a renaissance.

In the summer, I unveiled a small plaque to John Miller, the bicentenary of whose birth we were celebrating. It was stunning to consider the huge expansion of the railway network that took place 200 years ago. Our railway network is undergoing a more modest but equally significant expansion. I need only point to the crossrail project in Edinburgh, whose three new stations at Brunstane, Newcraighall and Edinburgh Park have totally outperformed expectations, as has the Bathgate to Edinburgh line, and as I am sure the Bathgate to Airdrie line will do. People will use the railways when they are available and of good quality.

Nobody has mentioned this week's announcement about the Invernet services, for which existing track will be used to allow commuters to go between Inverness and Kingussie, Aviemore and Carrbridge. It is crucial that the far north line is also involved—that is a hugely significant step for people in the very small rural communities in mid-Sutherland. We need more such initiatives.

When we consider the significant expansion of rail services, it is crucial to consider expanding the rail network. If I agree with one point that SNP members have made, it is the idea of examining pinchpoints at which the relatively minor step of doubling track in key areas could hugely improve service reliability. By not sorting out the situation involving slower freight trains that are not time critical and commuter services that are hugely time critical, we can create problems in the rail network. In addition to new railway lines, I would like close work to be done on the pinchpoints around the network.

As our lifestyles have changed, the world has shrunk and we are all prepared to commute much longer distances. That means that a more flexible and integrated railway network is needed that pulls in not just cars, but buses. We could usefully consider that as part of the process of letting people use the railway network.

We have a huge opportunity. I hope that the minister will accept my invitation to speak a bit more about Haymarket and Waverley stations. We should continue the debate and consider how to expand use of the railway network and make the most of the renaissance that I truly believe is happening on it.

Last Friday, I attended a briefing—it is intended that such briefings will occur regularly—on progress on reopening the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line. It was not only useful to hear information about progress on that exciting development, but instructive to hear about the demands that are made on new projects.

When the rail companies blasted through the countryside almost 200 years ago, they might have needed acts of Parliament and armies of navvies, but they definitely did not have environmental assessment officers, health and safety officers or local community relations representatives. Such people are now part and parcel of new rail developments. Some people, such as Bruce Crawford, may grumble and worry that that adds to projects' costs, but the bottom line is that there is more consideration given to, and community planning of, such developments.

Unfortunately, the presence of such people and the increased democracy of the 21st century lead to long timescales for completion of new projects. Much to the frustration of all who are involved, several major rail projects are behind schedule, often because of land-purchase difficulties. Typical of those is the situation in Kirkcaldy, where a car-park extension has been delayed until spring next year. Another example is the multimillion-pound improvements to Markinch station, which have dragged on well beyond the original target dates. Those are two of the many significant developments that are regenerating old facilities.

It is accepted in many such projects that Scotland has a reduced rail network and that to cope with increased demand and maximise rail traffic, links must be made with other forms of transport, whether bus, car or whatever. As Sarah Boyack said, park-and-ride schemes are extremely—almost embarrassingly—popular.

Sarah Boyack also referred to the fact that after a century of neglect and decay, investment is going into the Scottish rail network system to help to meet the transport needs of the 21st century. The Scottish Executive is showing the way with its financial commitment to rail transport. I reckon that support for rail transport is now more than £500 million annually in Scotland. Seldom—if ever—has such a vast sum of money been invested in improving rail transport.

However, there is a problem with all that development, which is that it raises expectations and causes demands for more. Most members who have spoken have had a dash of parochialism in their speeches; I will add some to my speech by saying that I would have joined the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications on his rail journey this morning, but the train from Perth to Edinburgh does not stop in my local town of Newburgh. That is not surprising: 40 years have passed since the last train stopped there. The railway line runs through the town and passengers can see the old station as they pass through it, but unless there is an act of civil disobedience and somebody—perhaps even an MSP—presses the emergency stop button, no trains may stop and the people of Newburgh are left with nothing more than the occasional blast of a horn from the train.

Does Andrew Arbuckle accept that most of the train stations in this country were built to serve the time of the horse and cart and that it is time we had a good old examination of where the stations are, whom they serve and how we can make the network better? We might need new stations in places that would surprise people.

That is true. However, at the moment, I am concentrating on towns and communities that have working railway lines running through them but where trains do not stop, much to the annoyance of the local population. People want trains to stop in their towns not for the pride of having a station, but so that they can get the train to work and leave the car at home. That would allow them to cease worrying about the cost of fuel for their cars and to sit back and relax at either end of their working day.

Murdo Fraser said that the route from Fife to Edinburgh goes round the Fife circle line, but it does not: it goes through Newburgh and Ladybank rather than round the circle. He also mentioned the station in Blackford. Another place that is in the same situation as Blackford and Newburgh is Bridge of Earn, whose station closed years ago. Now, everyone who lives there commutes. There is an opportunity to increase our park-and-ride provision to enable the residents of such towns to get to their places of work.

Every member who has spoken today has said that more and more people want to let the train take the strain. Although the Scottish Executive is getting the message, there is a great deal of catching up to do and a great deal of cash is required to get us to where we want to be. Needless to say, we want to go there by train.

The Greens welcome the debate and, in particular, the Executive's plans for a transport strategy for Scotland. We need such an holistic vision of transport in Scotland. I hope that the debate will be followed by a debate on buses and a bus strategy for Scotland. If we are serious about public transport improvements, we must acknowledge that buses are just as important as trains.

We should examine the key issues for transport in Scotland, which include how to tackle excessive and inappropriate use of cars, use of road freight and air travel. Rail is central to our meeting those three key challenges, which are vital to our meeting long-term social, environmental and economic needs. That is why I welcome the transfer of powers to the Scottish Executive in the Railways Act 2005. We need rail to be the mainstay of commuter travel. We need speedy and reliable rail alternatives between Scotland's major population centres so that no-one chooses to use a car on those routine journeys. However, last year, people in Scotland took an average of only 13 rail journeys each compared to 17.5 across the United Kingdom. There is much more to be done if we are to make rail the central means of getting around.

We need rail freight to replace road freight. Currently, only 3.8 per cent of the total volume of freight in Scotland is transported by rail. There is much that we can do to improve that in dealing with the competition between passengers and freight for line access, tighter integration between rail and local road haulage, improving gauges—

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I must stick to my six minutes.

I agree with Fergus Ewing that too many people fly to London. Sixty per cent of flights that leave Edinburgh airport head to London. Air passenger journeys have doubled in the past decade, but rail travel is up by only 17 per cent. There is no logical reason why a person should fly from Edinburgh or Glasgow to London. High-speed rail alternatives are needed so that nobody has to make a choice. International flights are an entirely different matter, but why do so many people fly from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London and back? Flights are increasingly becoming a part of our climate problem and they need to be tackled.

What should be done? First of all, spending should be increased. Sarah Boyack spoke about the spending increases, which are welcome. Money at the levels that are spent in Germany, Italy and France is now being spent on our public transport system, but those countries did not suffer from the years of neglect that many members have mentioned. If we are going to close the gap, we must do more than simply match our European competitors' spending—we must make up the deficit.

I also agree with Fergus Ewing that priority should be given to dealing with pinchpoints and upgrading parts of our network as opposed to continually emphasising large and complicated high-profile projects. Unlike Fergus Ewing, however, I have a target—the Edinburgh airport rail link is excessively expensive for what it will deliver. The current bus link is a public transport alternative and we are looking for a new light rail public transport alternative that will take people to Edinburgh airport—I refer to the Edinburgh tram project. Those should be the priorities.

Does Mark Ballard accept that the rail link to the airport will provide services for people who do not come from Edinburgh as well as for people who do, and that such a link is not yet provided by any form of public transport?

The issue is our priorities and how people can get around Scotland. There are cheaper alternatives if we are looking for a rail link to Edinburgh airport. There could be a station near Turnhouse on the Fife line or integration with the proposed trams to the Edinburgh Park station and the station at the Gyle. That is the way forward.

Whatever arguments there might be between Andrew Arbuckle and Murdo Fraser over the Edinburgh to Perth route, the reality is that the time that it takes to get from Edinburgh to Perth has lengthened in the past 100 years. In that context, how will we be able to persuade people to get back on to trains?

There are many innovative ideas that we could use; for example, we should learn from our European competitors and consider integrated ticketing systems, such as the time-limited strippenkarte system in the Netherlands. One ticket allows people to purchase access to rail, buses and ferries. A more flexible ticketing system is the way forward.

Tighter integration of all forms of public transport is needed. Buses must arrive on time for trains and trains must depart and arrive punctually. We can match our European competitors in that way. If we are to have a rail system that is the envy of Europe, we must learn from Europe and invest as other European countries do. Those would be the first steps in building a sustainable public transport system for Scotland.

I speak as an unashamed rail enthusiast, even if I did not collect engine numbers as a boy. Indeed, there was not much point in doing so because only two steam engines ever came to Aberfeldy.

I am prompted to make a small point about disused or closed railway lines because I read the other day that the Goldielea viaduct on the old line from Dumfries to Stranraer—which has long since been lifted and closed—is to be restored for a 50-year life. The viaduct is clearly an important architectural monument and an important part of our heritage. Restoration will cost a considerable sum, which I presume will not be paid by Railtrack, but by BRB (Residuary) Ltd, or another body.

The maintenance of a viaduct that does not carry a track, and presumably never will again, contrasts with the important issue of disused in situ lines. One of the weak points in the objections to the reopening of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line was to do with the fact that there is always a fair chance that a railway line at the bottom of somebody's garden will eventually have a train using it. On the other hand, I had some sympathy with the objectors, although in some places the railway line was so overgrown that only Tarzan, lord of the jungle, could have got along it.

To run modern freight services often requires that old freight lines be upgraded, but restoration and reconstruction of, and planning for, a line that has not been maintained for many years is—although the line is still there—a problem. Other lines in Scotland are in that situation. There is a freight line from Dumfries out towards Maxwelltown and there is a disused line to Charlestown leading off the Kincardine to Dunfermline line. It is hardly possible to see the rails on that line because of vegetation. There is also a line going to Stranraer town station, which is the freight terminal. I do not know what the current condition of the Leven line is. The point is that many lines exist that are disused, but which could be used in the future. As far as I can see, there is no strategy to keep them under any sort of maintenance, which would make them easier to use should their time ever come. Such maintenance ought to be something that we want to do.

Many of the lines that I mentioned were freight lines; that takes me on to freight and a point that John Swinney made. I will break with the consensus of joy about what is happening at the moment because the level of freight carryings by rail in Scotland is very disappointing. We recovered overall from the bleak years of the early 1990s, but that increase has stalled and the level of use has even fallen, according to the latest available figures. If we remove minerals—mostly coal—from the total, the figures for other categories of freight are very poor indeed: they are lower than they were 10 years ago. I am not knocking coal, which is an ideal good to move on rail, but I suspect that in the medium term the volume of coal that is transported by rail may well decline, especially if John Home Robertson gets his way and builds a few more nuclear power plants.

I know that the Executive is committed to there being more freight on rail. It is clear, however, that the measures that are currently in place to encourage that are not working well enough. If they were, the total amount of non-coal freight would not have decreased over the past 10 years. I would be interested to know what the minister and his advisers think we can do to remedy that situation. The matter is particularly important because we know that the biggest contribution to reducing carbon dioxide would be to move freight journeys from road to rail. That would have a much bigger effect than moving passengers from road to rail.

I wish to make the case for ensuring that we allow for freight when mainline facilities are built or improved because I am concerned that freight is always seen as a Cinderella service. Improvements are often driven by MSPs, whose constituents' interaction with the railway is, by and large, as passengers. Very few of them are likely to be freight consigners. I suspect that the responses to the consultation will be along the same lines, which means that they will be in favour of passenger transport.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry—I am really short of time.

I am worried that, because the Executive's closest direct relationship is with ScotRail—a much more direct relationship than it has with the freight operators—there is a potential built-in bias for passenger services as opposed to freight services.

I have a further point about express services versus stopping passenger trains. As usual, every member wants their local Brigadoon-in-the-mist station to be reopened. I am not necessarily against such calls but, if we are going to do all that, we must ensure that the appropriate infrastructure and investment are put in place. That might include better signalling, new loops or whatever to allow the intercity express routes to carry on at least at their current level of service. City-to-city links compete on journey times and too many of their services are already on the margin of losing the battle with the car for passengers. I would hate it were that to happen.

I conclude with a plea for continuity of investment. Over many years under the Conservatives and, it has to be said, under the dead hand of the Treasury under whatever party has been in power, rail investment has been intermittent. The result has been deteriorating infrastructure and a decline in the number of UK manufacturers that can provide locomotives and rolling stock. Whatever level of investment we get—rail investment is a very good long-term investment—must be maintained.

As other members have done, I welcome the transfer of rail powers to the Scottish Executive, because it creates a new opportunity for us to revitalise rail services and to consider the infrastructure needs in Scotland.

We have heard from many members about the welcome investment that has gone in and which will be going into a number of major projects in the next few years. We have heard about the general welcome growth in passenger traffic, the extra rolling stock, longer platforms and grants for new freight facilities, which enable new freight flows to be established.

I support Alasdair Morgan's closing remarks: when I spoke to people at the annual meeting of the Minerals Engineering Society, I found that movement of aggregates and coal, the time slots that are available for that and the reliability of the rolling stock are major concerns to it. They should be major concerns for all of us who seek to increase the amount of goods carried by rail. There is a difficulty in that if we put on more passenger trains and increase the length of trains, we will increase journey times and restrict our ability to put freight on lines. The minister might want to address that in his closing remarks.

Despite claims to the contrary, Scotland has a much better record in delivering rail schemes than is the case south of the border. TRANSform Scotland, which I imagine has briefed every single one of us, has noted a number of things that it would like the Executive to do. Those include small-scale, high-value, priority projects that improve journey times, which we are doing; introduction of local schemes such as Aberdeen and Inverness commuter schemes, which we are doing; work on nationally important projects such as Waverley station, which we are doing; and consideration of longer-term priorities to improve services and make it easier to reach destinations quickly.

However, I have a problem for the minister—he was thinking that my speech was too good to be true—which has been highlighted by other members. Many people are frustrated by the delays that are caused by the bureaucracy of Network Rail. Difficulties and delays have beset Markinch transport interchange in my constituency, which Andrew Arbuckle mentioned, but it is now on track and on time. It is a major plank in building the case for reopening the Leven line, because that is where we are going to build passenger demand. There have also been delays in the installation of a small railhead on the mothballed Thornton to Methil line. That would allow coal to be taken out, which Fife Council and the operator want and which would be paid for by the operator. I will pass to the minister five pages from the opencast operator detailing the work that it has done to try to get the project carried out.

Lawyers in London are debating the finer points of the right-to-roam legislation and its impact on level crossings, while we sit in goggle-eyed disbelief that something that was delivered in Cumnock in three months cannot be delivered in Fife in three years. I hope that the minister will take up the suggestion from Fergus Ewing and others to have a good look at how to make Network Rail accountable to the Executive.

We also have funding available for a car parking project. We hear frequently that there has not been enough car parking in Dunfermline since 1994-95. However, because of legal difficulties with Network Rail, the project has still not been delivered. Andrew Arbuckle also mentioned Kirkcaldy.

We are considering initiatives, such as a rail halt for which the private sector will pay, which will trigger Network Rail's legal obligation to maintain the Leven line and which will, in turn, help us to justify the case for reopening the line and reduce the eventual cost to the public purse. It will also provide somewhere for the already lengthened Fife circle and other east-coast trains to be parked during off-peak periods. We in Fife will help the Executive in many ways.

What I have said supports the contention that was made last week that transport improvements, not just in Fife but in other parts of the country, are important for the economic well-being of Scotland. We are not just talking about moving goods and people in Fife; we are talking about the ability of the economy of Scotland from Aberdeen down to south of Edinburgh to operate appropriately in the 21st century. That includes trains that run faster, buses that link with trains, and it includes the new Forth road bridge, which we debated at great length last week. I welcome the minister's assurance that he will respond to Parliament when more information on the road bridge is available. I look forward to hearing that.

As I said last week, without proper integrated transport planning, the economy of Scotland will not grow and thrive as we all want and we will not be able to use the skills, the land and the abilities of our people to maximum effect. We will not have the sort of Scotland that I am glad to hear that we all want to see.

I want to raise two specific points to which I would like the minister to reply in his summing up. The first relates to indemnification. I hope that the minister is willing to apologise for misleading Parliament; it may not have been deliberate. When I asked in a parliamentary question how much has been spent over the past three years on indemnifying ScotRail in connection with industrial disputes, I was told that the information was "commercially sensitive" and, therefore, could not be released. However, at Westminster the figures were made freely available; therefore, we know that, over the past two years, the Government has paid £23 million to private companies that are involved in industrial disputes to compensate them for loss of revenue and that ScotRail has received £12.65 million in relation to that policy of indemnification.

I know whose side I am on in industrial disputes, although I appreciate that the minister does not share that commitment. I am always on the side of the trade unions. The minister may not like that, but it is a fact of life. He, however—[Interruption.] I am sorry. Does the minister want to intervene?

Tavish Scott indicated disagreement.

I am sorry, but the minister is sitting there talking away as if he wants to intervene but is unable to.

The minister is supposed to be neutral in industrial disputes—that is what we keep getting told. Yet, he has decided to accept lock, stock and barrel the Strategic Rail Authority's commitment. He accepted it last October, despite telling me in various committees that he had not yet made a decision. It is now clear that he made the decision last October to accept the SRA's continuation of indemnification for companies that are involved in disputes. That is important not just because of the public money that is involved, but because there is no incentive for companies to resolve industrial disputes—indeed, there is an incentive for them to be bad employers, because they can provoke industrial disputes in the knowledge that the Scottish Executive will compensate them for any lost revenue. That is a bad decision by the minister. I hope that he will accept that in his summing up.

I also ask the minister, in his summing up, to give a cast-iron guarantee to workers who are currently employed by Strathclyde Passenger Transport that, in the case of any transfer from SPT to the Scottish Executive, there will be continuity of employment conditions, including wages and pension rights, and that longer contracts will be offered—not just 12-month contracts—to ensure that people who have given a lifetime's commitment to transport services in the west of Scotland will not suffer financially from their transfer, under the new powers, to the Scottish Executive.

This is supposed to be a strategic debate. Christine May made some interesting points about the need to sort out the problems that we have with bureaucracy, delays and Network Rail and she appealed to the minister to make Network Rail accountable to the Scottish Executive.

According to the Ernst & Young report into the railway industry in Scotland, the industry cost £519 million to run in 2004-05. That included £119 million on rail maintenance and £120 million on operating costs including staff expenditure. Of that £519 million, £459 million of it came from the public in the form of direct public grant. Some £53 million of it came from passengers in the form of fares. In other words, 90 per cent of the money to run the rail industry in Scotland in 2004-05 came from the public in one form or another, but we do not own or control the industry that we pay for. Perhaps it would make sense to cut through the bureaucratic delays. When it comes to making bodies accountable, perhaps it would make sense to have them owned and democratically controlled by the people who work in and use the industry. That is why the idea of a publicly owned rail network is so important.

When Mr Armitt of Network Rail told the Local Government and Transport Committee earlier this year why Network Rail had brought rail maintenance in house, he admitted that when the rail industry was privately controlled, for every pound that was committed to rail maintenance, only 30p of it was spent on the rail. The other 70p went to contractors, subcontractors, consultants and agents.

Is it not about time that we took the whole operation in house—not just maintenance, but renewals and running the industry as well as the train operating companies? That would make strategic sense and allow us to plan and implement our vision for a high-class network that is safely run for the benefit of passengers and people who work in the industry, and not for profits and dividends.

I am pleased to participate in the debate. As we have heard, a number of rail improvements are taking place throughout Scotland and I take this opportunity to highlight just one of them.

Laurencekirk station was closed to passenger traffic by the Beeching cuts in 1968. To judge from his earlier comments, Murdo Fraser has been badly briefed and must be completely unaware that the long-standing campaign to reopen the station goes back to the time when our Deputy First Minister, Nicol Stephen, was the member of Parliament for Kincardine and Deeside. That was long before some people even appeared on the scene. Nicol Stephen has supported that campaign fully and constructively since that time.

Would Mr Rumbles like to confirm that the person who started the campaign for Laurencekirk station was Alick Buchanan-Smith when he was the Conservative MP for that constituency?

I know that it was certainly not David Davidson.

I am delighted to tell the chamber that moves to reopen the station are gaining pace. The Scottish transport appraisal guidelines study that was carried out last year found that there was a robust and positive business case for reopening the station. Of course, every infrastructure project that requires Government funding support must, quite rightly, be subject to the STAG process. I say to Andrew Arbuckle that although I support the reopening of his local station, there is a long queue. We must ensure that the reopening of stations provides value for money. Earlier this year, Aberdeenshire Council approved the next stage of the process, which is a detailed engineering study to firm up the detailed engineering requirements and give robust cost estimates for the proposal.

The proposal to reopen Laurencekirk station fits in very well with Scottish Executive and NESTRANS policies to deliver a balanced and integrated transport system. We need to get many of the commuters who travel north to Aberdeen and south to Dundee off the roads. A renewed and reopened station at Laurencekirk will renew the whole of the Mearns. Laurencekirk is doing well in anticipation of the opening of the railway station. The plan is to reopen a two-platform station, refurbish the former station building and provide a 50-space car park, and it is estimated to cost about £3.2 million.

We now await the detailed engineering study's conclusions, which are imminent and will form the basis of a bid for Scottish Executive funding to complete the project. Aberdeenshire Council has informed me that if the engineering case is proved—as I am positive it will be—and if the bid for funding is successful, the work will take four to six months to complete and the station could be open by the start of 2007.

I listened to the minister's reply to my intervention, but I tell him that we must not confuse the issue of reopening Laurencekirk station with concerns about interfering with intercity traffic. No one expects every train to stop at the station.

I hope that, given the robust business case and STAG appraisal and subject to a favourable engineering report, the minister will confirm when he winds up that the Executive will continue to support this important project for my constituents in the Mearns and for rail travellers throughout the north-east.

As Mr Rumbles has finished two minutes early, I am prepared to give those two minutes to Iain Smith.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. That is very generous indeed.

I thank the minister for accompanying us this morning on what is known locally as the late-running 07:26 from Ladybank to Edinburgh, as it gave him an opportunity to see for himself some of the problems that commuters face on the Fife network.

I accept that a great deal of investment has been made in the rail network and I welcome the new longer rolling stock, which has made a big difference to overcrowding. However, since it took over the franchise, First ScotRail has failed to deliver significant improvements in reliability and journey times on the Fife service. I realise that the fault is not all First ScotRail's; many of the problems centre on the infrastructure, which comes within Network Rail's ambit. As a result, I welcome the Executive's new powers, which might allow it to give more direction to Network Rail.

Will the minister consider asking First ScotRail and Network Rail to carry out a study to identify the main causes of the various delays on the Fife line and to find out the investment that will be required to reduce those delays significantly? Signalling will have to be improved; passing loops might be required; and the pinchpoints at Waverley station and the Forth bridge will have to be addressed. If we spend a relatively small amount of money in Fife, the service's quality and reliability will improve significantly and many of the delays will be cut out.

Very few members mentioned the consultation document on rail priorities, which I welcome. I realise that all of us would like trains that stop at our own station, do not stop anywhere apart from our destination and do not get delayed in the middle of the journey. However, we need to strike a balance between fast express trains and the local services that are so important to commuters. That will require some investment in better signalling and more passing points on the line.

After the speeches that we have heard this afternoon, no one can say that devolution does not work. Members around the chamber have been very constructive about the transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament.

On 1 April 2006, Scottish ministers will assume responsibility for the majority of rail functions in Scotland. Indeed, they have been directly managing the First ScotRail franchise since October 2005. Moreover, in April 2006, the Scottish Executive will take on the new role of funding all Scottish rail infrastructure in Scotland and, via the Office of Rail Regulation, will specify the network outputs that Network Rail will be tasked with delivering in Scotland.

The Local Government and Transport Committee has been interested in pursuing greater accountability and transparency in Network Rail, and that very point was made this afternoon by Bruce Crawford, Christine May and Tommy Sheridan. Tommy Sheridan mentioned that effectiveness and efficiency could be improved by bringing certain Network Rail functions in house. Bringing the powers for train and rail infrastructure together will create a simpler industry, leading to greater co-ordination and hence greater efficiency. Christine May talked about integration and the possibility of a more co-ordinated approach in relation to other areas of public transport. SPT has also been referred to in relation to transfer of powers. I have been approached by constituents about that issue, and it would be informative if the minister could tell us what progress is being made on that.

Many MSPs have spoken about the structures that are being put in place for the transport agency and the transport overview. I would like to say a little about the arrangements at regional level and the regional transport partnerships. Fergus Ewing and other members of the Local Government and Transport Committee know that we were keen to get guidance for those partnerships so that we would know more about what would be involved, and I am glad that we have recently received the draft guidance. One important task for the partnerships will obviously be the link between local authorities, which will have their own transport plans. The dovetailing of those plans within the regional transport partnerships will be one of the early tasks that must be done.

We have talked about constraints and about how we accommodate intercity express links on the same tracks as our commuter services and our freight, as will happen through Stirling with the new Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line.

It can be done.

It can be done. Indeed, First ScotRail has been most constructive in holding discussions through the Rail Passengers Council with the public and with MSPs and asking about the most appropriate way to run express services and more local commuter routes. We have gone some way towards getting that on the Stirling to Edinburgh line.

Fergus Ewing also mentioned reliability. Through our discussions with First ScotRail, we have managed to achieve a more reliable service between Dunblane and Edinburgh. Maybe I should cross my fingers in case it becomes less reliable this evening, but I certainly feel that we are getting there and that First ScotRail has been most constructive.

There are new developments. Sarah Boyack and Bristow Muldoon mentioned the Waverley station development, and we have heard many times in the chamber about the Borders railway. In my area, there is the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line. I know that Karen Whitefield has long campaigned for the Airdrie to Bathgate line, and many of us will be affected by the much-needed links with Edinburgh and Glasgow airports.

Only last week, I and many other MSPs in my area attended an updating meeting, which Andrew Arbuckle has already mentioned, on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway. Additional investment of £27.6 million is needed to ensure that construction work can take place, but it certainly seems to be on track, if members will excuse the pun. The other interesting thing that we learned is that the old rail will be recycled, possibly for use by historic steam organisations.

I would like to say a little about something that has not been mentioned much today but which has been mentioned in the Local Government and Transport Committee, particularly by Paul Martin—disability. We have spent a lot of time thinking about social inclusion and how we should best be providing for people with visual impairment and for deafblind and deaf people. There are a number of issues to consider, as I know from talking to my local group in Stirling, such as how gates can be better manned.

Will Sylvia Jackson take an intervention?

Yes.

I cannot allow an intervention. You have had six minutes, Dr Jackson, and you must draw your remarks to a conclusion.

Right. I just want to say that those issues are very live issues indeed.

In conclusion, I want to say that sustainability is important and that I would like the minister to say what progress—

Quickly.

—is being made on the noise and freight issues in relation to Crianlarich. I think that—

Close now.

I am just saying—

I must insist that you close now.

I make it clear that we support the devolution of rail powers to the Scottish Parliament. When it is sensible and in the best interests of the people of Scotland that the Parliament takes on additional powers, we should not be afraid to argue for that.

Even now that the powers have been devolved, rail is an area in which the wider issue arises of our links to England and, in particular, London, which many members have mentioned. The west coast and east coast main lines are crucial not only to business and to people who go to London but to people who go to the key centres of population in the midlands. It is important to realise that if we are going to limit the growth of air transport—the Greens made a valid point about the environmental consequences of that—we need to have an effective transport system that connects Edinburgh, Glasgow and points further north with the midlands and with London.

We would do a disservice to the rail industry if we gave the impression that rail should be viewed in a Scotland-only context, even now that it is devolved. It would also be a disservice if we allowed the Department for Transport in London to think that that was the case. We cannot always rely on the Secretary of State for Transport being a Scottish member of Parliament—perhaps we cannot always rely on the Secretary of State for Transport full stop, but that is another matter.

Our view is that politicians should make the policy decisions and set the objectives for transport policy but that they should not be involved in the day-to-day operational management of the railways. That is a key point. The Executive must tread a fine line between being specific enough to guarantee a service that is acceptable to the public and not being overly prescriptive and thereby constraining the way in which rail services can be provided.

All of us who travel on the services of the different operators around Scotland will see subtle differences between them; it would be helpful if we could allow the operators a greater degree of innovation. The Executive and the minister must resist the desire to meddle. I do not see the minister as the fat controller and I am not sure whether he would have the abilities either.

That is decent of the member.

I make the comment in the spirit of consensus.

A number of improvements could, of course, be carried out on the rail system in Scotland. The upgrade of Waverley station is one of the most important, as it seems to be crucial for future expansion. There has been a significant increase in the number of rail passengers over the past decade, since privatisation. If that trend is to continue, the Waverley station upgrade is crucial.

We must encourage investment in the railways. It is important that we get investment from the private sector as well as from the public sector, because we realise that, even with this Executive, public spending has to be limited. However, if private investment is to be encouraged, we must ensure that private investors have confidence in the system. The figures for the current franchise show that the amount of capital investment that is being contributed by First ScotRail is very small. That is symbolic of the fact that we need to increase the amount of private investment in the rail industry in Scotland. However, from the perspective of the private sector, why would it invest significant amounts of capital when the franchise period is so short and memories of what happened to Railtrack are fresh? The Executive and the UK Government must bear those points in mind.

Of course, everyone has their own pet local project. I could not possibly let a debate on rail pass without mentioning the importance of the Waverley line to the Borders and to Midlothian. I am grateful to the minister for his assurances on the robustness of the estimates for the cost of construction for that project. Cost control is essential for the delivery of all new rail projects throughout Scotland and we must ensure that we get a grip on that.

Bruce Crawford raised an interesting point about the siting of stations. That comes back to the strategic element of rail policy, which has perhaps been lacking in the past. We ought to be mindful of the comments that were made on the matter.

There has been a good consensual spirit today, although there have been one or two barbs about privatisation. Privatisation certainly increased the number of users of the railway and brought significant investment into it. We need to learn from that. I hope that the minister does not heed Mr Sheridan's call for the renationalisation of everything that is connected with the railways. I think that I am not pushing the minister too far in saying that—indeed, I suspect that I am pushing at an open door.

The past decade has brought significant growth in the use of rail. We have to welcome that and see what we can do to encourage it. We welcome the consultation and hope that it stimulates debate right across Scotland. However, if we are to see a rising trend in the use of rail, the Executive needs to operate at a strategic level and not get itself tied up in the minutiae. We have to ensure that the people who are operating the rail services in Scotland are allowed to innovate in order to develop services and respond to the needs of the travelling public.

We should be able to rely on our new Minister for Transport and Telecommunications to be objective about rail, given that he is one of the few members who does not have a constituency interest in the subject. Many members have rightly spoken about constituency interests. Some members made interesting and challenging contributions to the debate. Indeed, in addition to the constituency interest, the anorak interest was represented when my colleague Mr Morgan felt it necessary to deny that he had taken down the numbers of trains during his youth in Aberfeldy.

The debate was also interesting in the sense that some constructive suggestions were made to the minister. I hope that the debate will continue in that spirit as it draws to its conclusion. However, I was disappointed that some members felt the need to make party-political points. I was particularly disappointed with Murdo Fraser's efforts in that regard, given that he set out by denying that he would get involved in any kind of politicking. I am glad that he says that he is giving up politics, but in his case—and to paraphrase his friend, or former friend and erstwhile colleague, Brian Monteith—one can perhaps take the boy out of politics, but one cannot take the politics out of the boy.

I share Mr Rumbles's interest in the reopening of Laurencekirk station. I was glad to join him in calling for that and I am delighted that we are making some progress. However, that has been largely in the form of a commitment for the future; we have not had much at the delivery end, and I look forward to the delivery.

Sarah Boyack rightly referred to a number of projects that are now beyond the stage of the pie-in-the-sky wish list, but we have not seen their delivery on the ground yet.

Some members interpreted Mr Ewing's contribution in a way that was not intended. It is true to say that we now have a substantial programme of capital projects in rail and related activities, but it dwarfs the Executive's commitment to improve pinchpoints, and we need to redress that balance.

Does the member accept that the delivery on the ground of many of the smaller projects was mentioned in the debate? I hope that he will join me in welcoming that. The major capital projects take much longer to deliver and it is those projects that need to be speeded up. I hope that the member will join me in urging the minister to do that.

Absolutely. I plan to address that subject later in my speech. A range of projects are almost at the point of delivery. Members highlighted a number of them, in particular the crossrail projects for Edinburgh and Aberdeen. Indeed, in referring to the reopening of Laurencekirk station, we need also to highlight the crossrail project for Aberdeen. Instead of seeing further studies or hearing about commitments, I look forward to seeing the delivery of that project. Perhaps the minister will refer to it.

The strategic decisions that must be made are not always easy. My colleague Mr Morgan rightly spoke about the competition between freight and passenger rail. Freight has not been a major focus in the debate. Despite the introduction of the freight facilities grant, progress on delivering the change from road to rail is in doubt.

This is meant to be a constructive intervention. It strikes me that we have been good at putting new money into individual rail freight projects at the ends of lines, but does Mr Adam agree that the minister and his officials could consider a bit more strategically the future pinchpoints for rail freight?

I agree. The freight facilities grant is worthwhile, but we need a review of why we have not had the major shift that we need of freight from roads on to rail—or, indeed, on to sea transport, although there have been recent changes in that direction.

There is also competition between local and national interests. I am glad that my colleague from the north-east, Mr Rumbles, made the point that there does not have to be an either-or choice. If we are careful in our planning, we can deliver both interests.

The method of traction has not been mentioned so far. The major intercity services on the east coast main line are currently delivered by diesel traction. When the diesels are required south of the border, there is a significant loss of service. That has happened regularly over the past few years. Electrification of the east coast main line will need to be addressed at some point. Some members referred to electrification in relation to developments that will perhaps happen in the central belt. The debate is about whether we should consider committing to one form of traction for the future. Doing that would help to improve the infrastructure on the east coast main line, in which I have a significant constituency interest.

One of our Green colleagues made a small reference to conflicts between road and rail. All I say in response is that the argument of two rails good, four wheels bad is not sustainable. For example, when the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail line was off recently, if we had not had the M8 and other routes, we would have had serious problems—although the situation is serious enough as it is.

We must take a strategic view and address the competing issues. On behalf of the Scottish National Party, I make a commitment that we will participate in the consultation exercise. Members have made good points about freight, pinchpoints and, indeed, the preservation of existing but unused rail routes. If we are to have a progressive future for rail, as I hope we will have, I hope that the minister will take those points on board, not just in his winding-up speech but in the decisions that he will have to make on our behalf in the near future.

Mr Adam was right to say that I have no constituency interest in rail, unlike in some other transport projects. However, I say at the outset that one of my predecessors, in representative terms, went down to the House of Commons fees office—I hardly dare raise the issue of expenses—and was given a travel sheet to indicate what mode of transport he would use and where his nearest transport points were. When asked what his nearest railway station was, he replied, "Bergen." Therefore, I have an interest in rail matters, albeit that they are sometimes in different countries.

The debate has been a thoughtful one. I apologise for picking out just two members, but I would particularly like to thank Sarah Boyack and Alasdair Morgan for raising the important judgment calls that must be made in balancing the particular challenges of freight and rail commuters.

I start by acknowledging what Fergus Ewing said at the outset. He gave a genuinely brave analysis of the position, and I hope that he does not suffer that terrible crime in politics of being selectively quoted thereafter. I certainly take the point that he made. I also take seriously Derek Brownlee's point about meddling. I can assure him that this is not a minister who wants to meddle in the system at all, which is why we have set up the transport agency. That is what it is there to do and that is why it will have operational responsibility. All I say to Derek Brownlee is that he should ensure that David Davidson understands that point, because he did not show that he did in his opening remarks. Operational responsibility is very much at the core of the transport agency.

Having been told that it was not appropriate for a minister to meddle, I was then encouraged in many contributions to meddle hugely. Not least of those contributions was that of Mike Rumbles, who seemed to be getting into a bidding war with other colleagues on who should take personal responsibility for putting forward the aspirations of the community in Laurencekirk. I will watch that with interest.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I really should not, but I will.

I missed my opportunity to bid earlier. Will the minister confirm the Executive's continued support for the transport interchange at Gourock station? We had a recent meeting on the subject; will the minister tell me when he will be able to report on progress?

I knew I should not have taken an intervention but I take the member's point. I have discussed the issue with him and I assure him that progress is being made on the project. A specific point has arisen to do with the developer's contribution. We will have to consider what can be done there before the funding package can start to take the shape that we will need it to take for the project to happen.

Bristow Muldoon, Sarah Boyack and others talked about the strategic overview and the importance of Waverley. I will reflect on that and on a number of capital projects, and I will talk about why we are investing in those projects. The projects are not just simple solutions to pinchpoints; they are of strategic importance to Scotland, as Bristow and Sarah said. That is very much the case with Waverley.

I say to Sarah Boyack that I know that City of Edinburgh Council is considering a number of options for further development of Waverley station, and we are very much encouraging that. The objective is to improve transport efficiency and passenger access, and to upgrade passengers' rail and station experience. Edinburgh Waverley should be a flagship for the whole of Scotland. It is a fantastic building in its own right and we should make as much as we possibly can of it. My officials and officials at Network Rail are assisting the council with the project.

A number of colleagues have spoken about the Edinburgh airport rail link. That, too, should be a great project for Scotland not only for tourism but in providing the kind of transport experience that we Scots get in many other parts of Europe. I cannot agree with Mark Ballard that the link is just about Edinburgh. It is not; it is about the whole of Scotland. That is why it is such an important project for all members of the Parliament.

I take Karen Whitefield's points about stations on the Airdrie to Bathgate line. We are currently looking into that and I hope that we can make progress as quickly as possible. Karen and others spoke about how the line could help to alleviate congestion and reduce pollution. They made important points about the strategy behind our capital investments in rail systems.

The minister mentions the Airdrie to Bathgate line. Will he comment on my offer that the SNP will be happy to help to fast-track the proposed transport and works act so that the Airdrie to Bathgate line is not delayed by the parliamentary committee process? That process is likely to add a year or two to the timescale.

I wanted to pick up on that point and am happy to do so now—especially as the Minister for Parliamentary Business is sitting to my left. We would be very happy to work with the SNP to make the parliamentary process better. I am sure that we can do that positively.

A number of colleagues have spoken about car parks, again in the context of reducing pollution and congestion. Christine May and many others made strong arguments for creating more car parking spaces at stations throughout the network, to encourage more people to use rail. I am determined that we should find solutions to those challenges.

Alasdair Morgan spoke about freight, as did John Swinney and Murdo Fraser. Murdo spoke about Highland Spring and I would be more than happy to find out about the particular circumstances there and to see whether we can help.

In answer to John Swinney earlier on, I think I mentioned the route utilisation exercise that is under way. However, Alasdair Morgan was right: we have to make fundamental choices about the balance between city-to-city links, stopper services that satisfy more local transport needs and freight services. Striking that balance will be fundamental in our consultation and in our route utilisation study. That study is about finding out about the capacity of the system and how it can be used.

Will the minister use the Scottish transport appraisal guidance approach to take on board the longer lines in the far north of Scotland, so that the next phase of rail development can include them in a way that this one has not?

That is part of the consultation exercise. It is also part of the strategic projects review, which will flow from the national transport strategy next year. I believe that it will provide opportunities to take forward exactly those points.

Unlike those who grandstand permanently from the back benches, Bristow Muldoon made a reasonable argument about staff and strikes. I will discuss the issue with the STUC. It cannot be in the interests of the franchise operator to cover industrial action, despite what Mr Sheridan may think. No one in the real world could believe that a franchise operator could subsequently win a franchise having allowed such a thing to happen, but then perhaps Mr Sheridan is not in the real world. How we take that forward is important, and we will do it in the right way and not in any other way.

I am happy to meet Sylvia Jackson to discuss Crianlarich. I know that she has been concerned about that issue for some time. We need to find a resolution to it as quickly as possible.

Many members raised the issue of costs as well as issues concerning Network Rail. I understand colleagues' concerns about projects that are not proceeding as quickly as they should. The devolution of rail powers and responsibilities for Network Rail and the work that the transport agency will do give us a real focus on those issues. I know that many of the projects need a bit more effort—and a bit more communication with MSPs, apart from anything else—a little more efficiency and some quicker responses. I am determined to find ways to allow that to happen operationally through the agency.

I can tell Fergus Ewing that I met Janette Anderson for discussions. We dealt with how we can best fast-track parliamentary bills with the appropriate scrutiny. I discussed with her the funding mechanisms and the process that Parliament undertakes on scrutiny.

I hope that I have dealt with the Conservatives' arguments about bureaucracy. I cannot resist one bit of party politics, because this is a good quotation.

You have one minute left, minister.

It is a one-minute quotation.

Bristow Muldoon was right about the Conservatives. Rail was a privatisation too far, as the Tories have said themselves. I can do no better than David Willetts, a man with some knowledge of the Conservative party, who said:

"I would not defend the way we carried out the railway privatisation … Rail privatisation was a classic example of taking a model that had worked for one industry and wrongly applying it to different circumstances."

We should all learn from that, and perhaps when the Tories are criticising us heavily they should reflect on Mr Willetts's words.

This has been a good, useful debate in which important and strategic issues on the future of Scotland's rail system have been raised and we have debated what we need to do. We have come a long way from the experience of the passenger who got off a train at a certain stop only to hear an announcement ring out over the station platform: "Will the passenger who has just left the train please rejoin it immediately, as this was an unscheduled stop?" We are doing much better than that.

In 2005-06, for the first time, we will be spending more than £1 billion—which will increase to £1.4 billion by 2007-08—of the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department's budget on meeting the commitments in the 10-year transport plan. Seventy per cent will be spent on public transport over the period of the long-term transport investment plan to fight congestion and to promote more sustainable transport.

It is right to invest in that way, and Parliament has an opportunity to be part of it.