Fife Rail Service
Members' business tonight is motion S1M-379, in the name of Tricia Marwick, on the Fife rail service. Helen Eadie will open the debate. I ask members who are not waiting for the debate to be courteous and leave very quietly.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the appalling level of rail services being provided to the people of Fife and makes representations to ScotRail and Railtrack to improve this service; notes with concern the overcrowding on these trains and the health and safety issues this presents; calls upon ScotRail to announce and implement an immediate action plan to improve punctuality, reduce train cancellations and increase the number of carriages on peak-time trains, with such an action plan to have been successfully implemented within six months, and further calls for an explanation why the new rolling stock which was ordered from the train manufacturing companies by ScotRail for use on this line has still not been delivered more than four years later.
When it comes to high levels of unemployment, we in Fife are behind only the western isles and the Strathclyde area. Our routes into Edinburgh and the jobs there are our lifelines. The people of Fife have problems of access that are different from Edinburgh's problems of congestion. The people in my constituency want to travel by train and to use public transport. However, on cold, rainy and icy mornings, who will trade their car, with its heating and its stereo, for waiting on trains that either never seem to come or, if they do come, simply pass by without letting passengers on? Recently, I even witnessed commuters being put off an early morning train because of overcrowding.
In just two months, I have received more than 600 complaints—nearly 300 postcards and more than 300 letters. We all know that signing a postcard is relatively easy. However, the feelings expressed in some of the passionate and detailed letters that I have received would go right off the Richter scale of anger. Older, slightly infirm passengers in Fife should forget trying to travel in peak hours, as should pregnant women. In one of the most recent letters that I have received, a woman due to give birth in only two or three months said that she was told by ScotRail to get a later train into work. People who are disabled or are in a wheelchair should not even think about travelling on those services.
Some letters are diaries of inconvenience and financial loss. Commuters and their employers suffer economic loss because of ScotRail's absolute inefficiency. Although commuters complaints mainly relate to peak travelling times, others question why there are no late-night services on Fridays and Saturdays. Adding insult to injury, people in Fife have the most expensive train fares per kilometre of any rail service in Scotland. The trains are so packed that conductors are not able to collect fares from passengers if and when those passengers are able to join trains from unstaffed stations. Furthermore, stations are often closed with no notice. Fare-paying passengers speak of the manifest unfairness of fares remaining uncollected and are angry at the loss of essential revenue that could be invested in new rolling stock.
ScotRail says that, in trying to increase the frequency of the trains, it has had to put on two- carriage trains, which are faster. However, that means that commuters have been deprived of the previous three-carriage trains. Trains are so old that ScotRail put around the story that a mechanic travelled on the older trains in case they broke down.
We have now been told that Fife will be provided with a cascade of left-over trains from the Edinburgh-Glasgow line. However, it is not clear when that will happen and any doubts that I might have are based on my experience of the past four years. In that time, I have witnessed my colleagues' most intensive efforts to secure extra seating capacity for commuters in Fife. For four years, we have lived on promises, promises and yet more promises that we would have newer and bigger trains.
It is clear that our country has a major problem with timeously acquiring new rolling stock. Of more than 500 trains that have been ordered in the past few years, only 75 have been delivered. There should be a major investigation of the manufacturers, who are apparently inept. It is becoming the norm for peak hour trains only to offload passengers from Inverkeithing onwards into Edinburgh, with every other passenger in Inverkeithing, Dalmeny and South Gyle often left standing helpless and angry on the platform.
This is the first joint-member cross-party motion before the Parliament. Cross-party support for the motion in Fife should send a powerful message to this Parliament and to all the agencies concerned. Since the introduction of the new 15-minute Edinburgh-Glasgow service, what was a dreadful service in Fife has now become diabolical. I have ensured that copies of every letter, e-mail and postcard on this matter that I have received have been sent to ScotRail; Railtrack; Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott; Sarah Boyack, Minister for Transport and the Environment in the Scottish Parliament; the rail regulator; and the rail franchise director.
ScotRail's performance is said by the rail regulator to be second only to the Isle of Wight. I have two comments to make about that. First, pity help the rest of the country. Secondly, that fact raises serious doubts about the software used by the rail regulator. For example, does that software emanate from Electronic Data Services, which was at the heart of many other major problems in the country's computerised systems?
ScotRail spokespersons have been quoted in press reports as saying that the Fife campaign is more about me trying to heighten my political profile. When people are losing the argument, they try to personalise the issues. I was elected to the position of roads and transportation spokesperson in Fife in 1996, from which time I have been acutely aware of the deplorable rail services in that part of the country. All the successes in improving the services have been due to Fife Council and the Scottish Executive and not to the privatised rail companies. I am not opposed to public-private partnerships when the partnership is real and meaningful, but in Fife, it is the public bodies that have delivered on transport issues, while the private sector has left question marks.
People in my constituency want to know how much longer they must suffer at the mercy of ScotRail, which is treating semi-rural and rural areas across Scotland with contempt. I appeal to the Parliament to support the motion and to require quality customer care and service level agreements to be paramount in all future dealings with train operating companies.
Before I begin, I should declare an interest. In an attempt to follow the best and friendliest environmental practices, as promoted by the Parliament, I am a rail commuter. I travel every day from Markinch and have done for many years.
I have travelled the railways of Fife before, during and after privatisation. The rolling stock on which Fifers are expected to travel predates even my first rail journey. Indeed, I suspect that the rolling stock is almost as old as I am. I have never before suffered the sustained delays and the shoddy standard of service which we have had to put up with in Fife during the past few months.
After standing on a cold platform in a futile wait for a train that simply does not arrive, we are offered platitudes, not reasons. Sometimes we are even offered apologies. Such is the anger of the commuters in Fife that at my station the clerk has the complaint forms ready for us before we ask for them. On the occasions when the long, cold wait yields a result, an old, dirty multiple unit from the 1950s rattles and belches its way through Fife.
Ancient rolling stock running on lines that have been starved of investment for years is not a recipe for a punctual or comfortable journey.
Sometimes the problem is the wrong kind of snow; sometimes it is the signals, the track, the points, engine trouble, the fact that there are no staff to man the station or a slow-moving train in front of us. Always, the problem is uncertainty, delay or cancellation. By the time that the trains pull into Inverkeithing, they are so overcrowded that they closely resemble cattle trucks.
Helen Eadie has already mentioned the problem of people at South Gyle and Dalmeny who simply do not get on. People from Inverkeithing stand in the aisles, because there is no space. They do not fall down, because so many people are jammed up against them that it is impossible to move in any direction—sideways, upwards or downwards. Initial relief at the eventual arrival in Edinburgh is tempered by the inevitability of the return journey. It is little wonder that ScotRail bosses declined my invitation to join their customers on the journey from Markinch to Edinburgh.
Among the platitudes that pass for excuses for the service, we are told that Fife is suffering because of a delay in getting new trains for the Edinburgh-Glasgow line. What is the relevance of that? The answer is that Fife is waiting patiently for the cast-offs from that line—the trains that are currently running between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
The message from the Parliament to ScotRail and Railtrack is that while we may not be the flagship Edinburgh-Glasgow line, we are not second-class commuters. It costs £46 a week for the privilege of travelling from Markinch to Edinburgh. We do not want second-hand rolling stock, nor do we want a second-class or, more likely, a fifth-class service, which is what we get at the moment.
I expect my work in the Parliament to be challenging. I do not expect the 25-mile trip home to be even more challenging. We cannot expect people to move from using their cars to using the train when the journey home at the end of the night is a fraught and uncertain experience.
I urge the minister to make representations to Railtrack and the operators about the service. Otherwise, commuters will vote with their feet—or their cars—and the already overcrowded Forth road bridge will be more congested than ever.
First, I thank Helen Eadie and Tricia Marwick for their initiative in obtaining this debate. The Herald suggested this week that I had taken a vow of silence by
being the Liberal Democrat whip, so I would like also to thank my ministerial colleague Sarah Boyack for allowing me to speak as a constituency member, which ministers do not usually get to do.
Like Helen Eadie and Tricia Marwick, I have to declare an interest. I commute from Ladybank—or try to commute from Ladybank—by train every day. I say "try to commute" because it is not always easy. I, too, have suffered the problems of rail in Fife over the last few months, with cancellations of services, delays, overcrowding and a lack of information.
One day, not long ago, I was waiting at Ladybank station for the 7.50 train, which decided not to bother turning up. I spent 40 minutes in the freezing cold on the platform of a closed station with no staff; there were no announcements on the so-called public information system. The 8.30 eventually arrived, a two-carriage train which took the place of the six carriages that should have formed the two services. I stood all the way to Edinburgh.
Sometimes, I do have a slight smirk when the train that I am in passes through Inverkeithing and I see some of my parliamentary colleagues desperately waiting to get on the train. They cannot get on, and the train passes by. I am fortunate enough to get on at a stage when there is still an occasional seat. Frankly, that is not good enough. There needs to be better rolling stock and more seats. It is not good enough that Fife has to wait for improvements elsewhere before it gets new rolling stock.
ScotRail recently ran a trial of a new Turbostar, which it hopes to run from Edinburgh to Aberdeen soon. I managed to persuade ScotRail to make an extra stop at Ladybank to pick me up and let me have a little shot on this fancy new train. I did not just get a shot on the train; I spoke directly to ScotRail executives. I have said to ScotRail representatives in the past, "Why not come to Ladybank some morning, join a train with me and see for yourself how bad it is?" I am still waiting for them to find time in their busy diaries to do that, but I at least got an opportunity to speak to them on that new train and to raise the concerns of Fife commuters.
I got some assurances from them that we are to get some improvements. They told me that all the Turbostars were finally in place for the Glasgow- Edinburgh service, and that better trains, which would improve the service and reduce the delays in the morning, were in the pipeline. Sadly, the last few journeys that I tried to make were subject to delays, overcrowding and cancellation.
The improvements that ScotRail keep promising us do not materialise. Frankly, the people of Fife have had enough; the train service is not good enough. We have had enough and it is time that ScotRail and Railtrack did something about it. I am critical of their management, but, to be fair to them, they have to pick up the pieces from many years of significant under-investment. I see that Nick Johnston is the one member still on the Conservative benches. The Conservatives were not known to be friends of the railways.
In the immediate run-up to privatisation, there was a block on new investment in trains. As Helen Eadie will confirm, Fife Council had orders for new trains waiting to be filled as part of the improvement to Fife rail services. The trains could not be built because privatisation was coming up and no orders were allowed to be placed. That was absolutely ridiculous. We are still waiting for the new trains that Fife Council tried to order around six years ago. It is a disgrace that that is the case, but it is a result of the freezing of investment in the rail service at the time.
It is also a disgrace that, yet again, there has been a surprise rise in the value of Railtrack profits, as I learned today from Ceefax which, unlike Alex Salmond, I watch during the day rather than at midnight. Railtrack will be allowed to make even more profit. That is not what they should be doing, which is taking less profit and investing more in the railways, improving services, signalling, track and stations. Those things need to happen now—not profit for Railtrack.
I want to see big improvements in the rail service in Fife in future years. Only 1 per cent of journeys made in Fife are by rail, and that is not enough; the figure should be significantly higher. In particular, there should be more opportunities to travel to Edinburgh and Dundee from Fife. I want there to be more services to fill the current gaps at Ladybank, Cupar and Springfield. I want there to be improvements at stations and better information systems for passengers, particularly at unmanned stations. I also want there to be new stations at Wormit and Newburgh and, ultimately, a restoration of the St Andrews rail link.
The immediate priority for ScotRail must be to get its act together by providing the people in the north-east and the rest of Fife with a reliable, punctual and comfortable rail service to replace the unacceptable, unreliable and overcrowded services that we suffer at present.
I thank Tricia Marwick for initiating the motion and Helen Eadie for following her lead in exposing the horrendous service from ScotRail and Railtrack. I take Iain Smith's point, surprisingly enough. There was a lack of investment in railways before privatisation but, since privatisation, most services
have improved. I used to travel often to Newcastle and the Great North Eastern Railway service on the east coast line is superb. There is no reason why ScotRail cannot give that level of service.
I was going to declare an interest but I do not need to any more because I have stopped travelling by train. I travel in from Kinross every day, a journey that over the past four weeks has averaged an hour and a quarter. This morning I left home at quarter-past 7 and got into the Parliament building at 5 minutes to 9. I have three choices: bus, car or train. I can get the bus door to door at £5.30 return; it is a good service but it meanders round by Dunfermline. I can drive, park all day, and drive home again, which costs the Parliament £42 a day. I can drive to Inverkeithing, which takes 15 minutes and, if I am lucky, get a train within half an hour. If I am very lucky, I will be in Edinburgh within 20 minutes, and that costs the Parliament £23.60. Sometimes I even get a seat.
My personal assistant's experience of trying to get the train from South Gyle is that she often misses not one or even two but three trains because of the terrible overcrowding. She often refuses to get on trains, even when the guard has opened the doors, because she feels that it is dangerous. There was a report in The Scotsman the other day of a train, I think on the Falkirk line, where a door burst open and the guard had to stand in the door to stop passengers falling out. That is not acceptable in 1999.
As a Conservative, and so by definition a fair- minded person, I contacted ScotRail and Railtrack. As other speakers have said, ScotRail's response was that the
"state of the Edinburgh-Fife rail service has been because late delivery of new Turbostar trains for Edinburgh- Glasgow" delayed
"the elimination of the 40-year-old and increasingly unreliable Class 117 units used on the peak-hour Edinburgh-Fife services."
I am not a trainspotter so that means little to me.
"Meanwhile we were also experiencing unusually high levels of long-term sickness at Edinburgh, and in the midst of our worst period there was a particularly bad train failure on 22 October resulting from an unsolicited brake application."
I do not know what an unsolicited brake application is. Maybe someone was so bemused by the overcrowding that they pulled the communication cord. I do not think that is a satisfactory explanation. If they cannot run the service, they should move over and let in someone who can. That is what privatisation is about. I hope that they move over.
Those in Railtrack had this explanation. They
"have employed a team of six to travel on the Fife circle monitoring the delays and to speak to drivers about problems on journeys."
Now, that will make a difference.
"All factors of the journey are investigated including fleet failures, pinch points, passenger delays at stations, and time in the timetable."
They also gave me a list of improvements but I do not want to steal Sarah Boyack's thunder. To save time I will not read them out. However, I welcome Railtrack's investment of £1.5 million to reopen a key, strategic missing link in the rail network, the route from Stirling to Dunfermline via Alloa.
"Parliamentary Powers need to be sought to permit the running of trains, or otherwise the route could be lost for rail use."
That is under way at present. Fife Council says that it will use increased borrowing powers to buy additional rail services to provide 300 extra seats in peak evening and morning periods.
I hope that these investments lead to an improvement in service because, if not, the Executive's transport policy is in tatters and its hope of moving traffic from road to rail is fruitless. I would rather spend an hour in my nice, warm car, even in a traffic jam, listening to music or dictating letters, than stand on a cold, dirty, draughty platform waiting for a train that never arrives.
I am pleased to support this cross-party motion. The Fife rail service is paramount for the economic, social and environmental well-being of my constituency. In common with the rest of Fife, Kirkcaldy needs and depends on a rail service that is reliable, punctual, accessible and meets people's needs and that has safety as its first priority. Indeed, safety must be first, second and third on ScotRail's and Railtrack's agenda.
Since being elected in May, I, like Helen Eadie and Tricia Marwick, have travelled on the Fife line. My mailbag supports our frustration with and concerns about this appalling and inadequate service. As someone who has begun commuting only recently, and as a regular user of the rail service between Kirkcaldy and Edinburgh, empathise with the feeling of frustration felt by constituents and members.
Too many trains are overcrowded. It is commonplace for large numbers of adults to be crushed like sardines—that is the only way to describe it—into corridors, with many people not able to board the train, and for arguments to take place at the door about who will board and who will not. Too many trains are cancelled without any explanation. Recently on the Kirkcaldy to
Edinburgh line, a class 117 train, which I believe is older than me, had serious engine failure, resulting in smoke being emitted from the engine area and penetrating the saloon. My constituents thought that the train was on fire.
According to the response to that incident that I received recently from ScotRail, the engine blew— in layman's terms—because those trains are well past their useful life. However, they have to be used on the Fife service in order to provide a "sufficient"—that is the word that ScotRail used— number of seats and capacity. I do not think that members would agree with ScotRail's use of the word "sufficient"—it is not the adjective that we would have used.
We want to encourage use of public transport. I support the minister's transport strategy and we are already seeing evidence that it is working. However, ScotRail must recognise commuters' needs and put in place a sustainable development plan for the line.
We must not forget that in many constituencies—including mine—an increased number of stops and stations is required. I hope that there will be an increase in the number of stations in Kirkcaldy, with stations at Dysart and, perhaps, Sinclairtown. Car parking is another major issue—the car parking at Kirkcaldy station is absolutely diabolical. If one arrives after quarter to 9, one cannot park anywhere near the station, which deters people from using public transport.
I, too, have written recently to ScotRail's managing director, Alastair McPherson, who, in his reply, acknowledged the problems and told me about his plans to introduce new rolling stock. Many members are aware of the delays to those plans, but he stated that the introduction of new stock was imminent. Although we look forward to that, I am concerned that it will amount to the cascading of second-hand stock. The Fife service must be seen not as a second-class service but as a major one. In addition to new rolling stock, we need increased capacity, which, we are told, there will be in 2000—but when?
I asked Mr McPherson to join me on a journey between Kirkcaldy and Edinburgh, and he has agreed. I look forward to putting these points—and others that have been raised today—to him.
I conclude by echoing the words of the motion. We call on ScotRail to announce and implement an action plan to ensure that we have reliable, punctual, safe and—important for my constituents—affordable rail travel.
I will be brief, as I do not want to repeat what every other member has said, although I could do so easily, as virtually every word of my speech has already been said.
I pay tribute to both Tricia Marwick and Helen Eadie for obtaining this debate. Regional members are not known for receiving as much constituency correspondence as constituency members receive, but I have had more correspondence on this issue than on any other. I went through that correspondence this afternoon and noted complaints of cancellations, overcrowding, delays, no new rolling stock, stations with little shelter— such as South Gyle—and less seating. There has been a particular deterioration since the autumn, aggravated, of course, by the delayed introduction of the newer rolling stock, which, as Tricia Marwick rightly noted, will amount to the cascading of castoffs freed up by the introduction of faster trains on the Glasgow to Edinburgh line.
The Fife rail link is a crucial commuter route, but ScotRail is not treating it as such. As Iain Smith said, only 1 per cent of all journeys made in Fife are train journeys. We must strengthen the role of rail in Fife, leading towards an integrated transport system. I do not think that anyone disagrees with the minister's integrated transport strategy. However, we want to see her strategy implemented.
I commend the minister for sending me last week what I think was the first e-mail I have ever received from a minister. It was on the subject of the Forth road bridge, about which she had just attended meetings, and the measures to reduce congestion on the bridge.
On Monday, I was briefed by the Fife police constabulary, which emphasised to me the crucial need for a reduction in congestion on the Forth road bridge. That will not be achieved until there is a decent rail service. Nick Johnston was right to mention the importance of reopening the Stirling- Alloa-Dunfermline link, as that will help by removing freight from the Forth rail bridge and so freeing up the bridge for passenger services. Railtrack could have made more infrastructural improvements if it had not directed resources to the urgent renovation of the Forth rail bridge. Those renovations may have been necessary; I am not in a position to make that judgment. The fact is that Railtrack diverted resources that could otherwise have been used to fund infrastructural improvements on the Fife line. The reopening of the Stirling-Alloa-Dunfermline line as a passenger link would also be of some advantage.
I have covered some of the points that I wanted to make. I endorse what all other members have said in this debate. This is a cross-party motion. As a fairly regular speaker in this chamber, I do not think that I have ever heard the same views being expressed so strongly by members from all
parties. The views that we are expressing are the views of the people of Fife. There is a need for urgent action by both ScotRail and the Scottish Executive.
I am grateful to both Tricia Marwick and Helen Eadie for initiating this debate. It is unusual to achieve such unanimity throughout the chamber and to have so many members present for a members' business debate. That reflects the frustration, the irritation and the anger that exist in Fife. I have been made aware of the postcards and letters that Helen Eadie has received, some of which have been diverted to my office.
I ask the minister to take on board the fact that, although I am not opposed to her reference to unanimity throughout the chamber, I do not agree with what Mr Nick Johnston said about the success of privatisation. I hope that my presence here does not in any way suggest that I support privatisation. Privatisation is one of the problems in the delivery of the rail service.
The unanimity that I was assuming was the fact that all members want a dramatic improvement in the quality of rail services to Fife and the rest of the country. I am sure that there are details—of which privatisation is the major one—on which we will disagree. However, the overall objective of improvement must be one on which we all agree. I want to express my concerns, as a minister, that the rail industry is not meeting the needs of Fife commuters or the needs of Fife leisure travellers. We must sort that out.
I am well aware of the growing complaints, and I know that, although we are trying to persuade and encourage people out of their cars and on to buses and trains, the Fife rail service is not a good advert. That does not make my job as a minister any easier. Understandably, the prospect of being squeezed like a sardine in old rolling stock, as several members have pointed out, does not entice people further. If rail services in Fife are to make a full and increasing contribution to integrated transport and give people a real choice, the service will have to improve dramatically. Companies know that, as I have met them and told them so. I have told them of the Executive's objectives and of the daily complaints that I receive from individuals in Fife. They know that there is concern.
It is important to emphasise that this is not just about ScotRail, although ScotRail is the major carrier of people from Fife to Edinburgh. Other companies include GNER and Virgin. A lot of the problems at Inverkeithing station, in particular, occur when trains that are owned by those companies do not arrive either from Dundee or Aberdeen. People who had expected to catch those trains are left stranded and ScotRail is expected to take up the excess. Therefore, although ScotRail has many shortcomings, GNER and Virgin must share the responsibility.
I used the term companies advisedly. The problem is not with only one company.
People read the Official Report of the debates that we have here and so the message will come across loud and clear. I expect that every rail company will read the Official Report of this debate to find out which members have contributed and to read the points that we have made. This is therefore a useful debate.
It is very much in ScotRail's interests in particular—because of its franchise—for it to read the Official Report and listen to what we have been saying. That company is number 2 in the UK—behind only the Isle of Wight Railway Co— which is a position that it will want to retain. I do not think that it would want to slip down the league of rail companies, particularly given the observations that members have made on some of the other rail companies. That would dent its pride, but also hit its pockets and those of its shareholders. There are very compelling reasons, based on self-interest, for ScotRail to want to improve its service.
ScotRail is also a net beneficiary by several million pounds a year from incentive payments that it receives from the shadow strategic rail authority, because historically it has exceeded its punctuality and reliability targets across most of the Scottish network. The situation in Fife is not one that the company will want to allow to continue.
The contract that governs the ScotRail franchise guarantees £1.3 billion of public funding for the seven years of the franchise. In 1998-99 alone, public funding helped to support 2,000 services a day, providing 59 million passenger journeys over the year. Money is going into the rail service; we need that money to be matched by decent services. In Scotland, we spend just over £200 million. For that, we want to get secure investment that is based on a contractual commitment to increase the quality and level of services.
That is linked to the amount of money that goes to Railtrack in the form of access charges. Under the terms of its licence, which is the responsibility of the Office of the Rail Regulator, Railtrack is obligated to invest to improve the rail network. If we are to have an efficient railway that meets the
needs of the customers, whom all members here represent, Railtrack must increase the investment that it currently plans to make.
There is some evidence that benefits are beginning to come through—Nick Johnston said that I would probably want to refer to one or two of them. Increased expenditure is coming through on other routes—the Edinburgh-Falkirk-Glasgow and the Aberdeen-Glasgow-Edinburgh routes. As members have pointed out, that is intended to free up other routes for refurbishment, including the Fife line. We should expect faster, more comfortable trains with increased seating capacity, to improve what is currently a substandard service. People would not get those improvements if the Government were not underwriting them. The challenge is to ensure that they are of the right quality and the right standard. That is a very good objective.
Part of the problem is that ScotRail's commitment to improving services has been let down by the inability of suppliers to meet delivery dates, as Tricia Marwick mentioned. That is the consequence of having a trainbuilding industry that, after privatisation, received virtually no orders for new trains. Now huge numbers of trains are being ordered and the industry has not been able to cope. We will have to ensure that that is tackled, because it is not acceptable for Fife commuters to pay the price.
We know that investment is only part of our toolkit for improving performance and for ensuring that the railways meet passengers' needs. The UK transport bill that is being considered at Westminster will enhance the powers of the strategic rail authority, which will mean a more effective strategy for Britain's railways. It will give this Parliament and Scottish ministers the powers to direct and guide the strategic rail authority for the services that are currently operated by ScotRail.
Those powers are coming to us at a critical time in the development of rail services in Scotland. This is a time of expansion. The experiences of people in Fife are due partly to failures in the system, but partly to the fact that people want to use the trains rather than to drive and to have to dictate their letters while driving—I am sure that that was a slip of the tongue by Nick Johnston. We want to make it easier for people to make that choice. My hope is that today's debate will put rail services firmly on the agenda and let people know that the Parliament is committed to improving the quality of rail services.
Sir Alastair Morton from the strategic rail authority has made it very clear that the performance of the train-operating companies that bid for franchise replacements will be a major consideration when those bids are assessed. The performance of rail companies now will affect the extent to which they run rail services in the future. They all know that, and that is critical.
In Fife, our problem is that the level of service that we get is not reflected in ScotRail's figures. The appalling nature of the service in Fife is hidden because ScotRail also runs services in Glasgow, Falkirk and so on. would like ScotRail to carry out a survey, particularly on the peak-hour trains from 7 o'clock to 9.30 in the morning, and from 4 o'clock to 7.30 at night, and to measure the effectiveness of that service. If ScotRail does that, we will get a better service in Fife. At the moment the failings are hidden because ScotRail prefers it that way.
That is an interesting point. The levels of reliability that ScotRail is trying to achieve are up in the high 90s. If there are regular problems in Fife, that will feed through to those performance figures. Leaving aside the publicity that MPs and MSPs have given to the problems of Fife rail services, the problems will show through in the figures and will be an issue when the franchises are replaced if ScotRail cannot tackle them.
Will the minister give way?
No, I am about to wind up.
Helen Eadie has been one of the key people arguing for investment in Fife rail facilities. Improvements have been made in the rail services between south Fife and Edinburgh, such as the construction of Dalgety Bay station and of Queen Margaret station in Dunfermline.
We must tell people listening to—or reading— this debate that improvements will be made. From the middle of next year, 300 additional seats will be available on trains in peak hours. That is earlier than the requirements of the franchise demand. However, I know that members who have made speeches today will not be satisfied until their trains are not overcrowded or late. That will be the test of the improvements.
Another issue that was raised was access to rail stations—Marilyn Livingstone made that point most effectively. It is important to have good car parking facilities, as well as good bus timetables that link in with train services. The bus service from Inverkeithing to the airport is critical to the future of access to integrated transport. It is also important to have decent places for people to sit at stations, and decent cycle access. The whole quality of the rail experience must be improved.
Investment in Fife's rail services since 1997 amounts to £6.5 million, in addition to the support that the Scottish Executive provides through ScotRail. We need to get value for money and ensure that people experience the benefits of that.
Everybody else has declared an interest, so I will finish with my declaration of interest. As a representative of Edinburgh Central, I am all too aware of the problems that we experience when people from Fife and other places feel that they are forced into their cars. This is not just a problem for Fife commuters and residents; it is one for the central belt of Scotland as well, and we must tackle it collectively.
I thank Tricia Marwick and Helen Eadie for securing this debate. The test will be delivering the services in the coming months.
I apologise to Scott Barrie, Maureen Macmillan and Tommy Sheridan, who indicated a wish to speak in this debate—unfortunately, time was against us.
Meeting closed at 17:47.