Railways
I advise members that the Presiding Officer, at the request of the Scottish Executive, has this morning decided to take a ministerial statement on the HCI hospital at 12.30 pm. Section A of the business bulletin has been duly amended. Revised copies are available in the chamber.
The first item of business today is a debate on motion S1M-3229, in the name of Mr Kenny MacAskill, on railways in Scotland, and three amendments to the motion.
Our rail network clearly has significant and continuing problems. No amount of spin can mask the underlying substance. Post the Hatfield derailment—never mind post the Potters Bar crash—there are major problems. Even more recent incidents on the Scottish rail network are evidence of a rail network that lacks investment and suffers from poor management and, often, mismanagement. Railtrack is a failed organisation. It was belatedly put into administration by new Labour and its demise was long overdue.
Action must now be taken to ensure that a safe and able driver is in the engine of the Scottish rail network. It is time for a Government to govern, we might think. It is time for the accountants to be replaced by transport officials. It is time for a Scottish Executive transport department that is more than Strathclyde Regional Council roads department writ large.
When it comes to spin about the railways, the Executive has never been shy about coming forward. Four years ago, with the publication of "Travel Choices for Scotland", new Labour was talking up what it would do for Scotland's railways. In that document, prior even to the opening of the Parliament, new Labour indicated that it would
"fulfil our manifesto commitment to free the potential in the restructured rail industry for passengers' benefit. In this way we shall deliver improvements in terms of fares, and quality and reliability of services, across Scotland".
It pledged a bold new vision for our rail network to match the bright new dawn of the Liberal Democrat-Labour Executive.
The fine words and eloquence continue to this day. The latest Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning said just a week ago that
"Scotland deserves a railway that is fit for the 21st century and we should not settle for anything less"—
although passengers on the west coast main line may settle for a train between Carlisle and Glasgow this week. He went on to say:
"We also want a railway network that is safe and accessible and that supports a dynamic modern economy, meets social needs and enhances our environment."
That is excellent. Who could possibly disagree?
We need the substance to match the spin. Railtrack went into tailspin. That was the ignominious demise of an ignorant policy that an ideologically driven Tory regime imposed on the railways. We must go back to the drawing board. We have an opportunity to start with a clean sheet and to make a fresh start for railways in Scotland.
The rail network in Scotland is relatively small, as rail networks go. Over 70 per cent of rail journeys are made on services that are run by one rail operator. Over 95 per cent of rail journeys start and finish within the boundaries of our land. What could be simpler than to make an Executive department a transport department, not a regional council roads department writ large?
Mr MacAskill talks specifically about a devolved railway network. How would he fund such a network in Scotland, given the extent to which private investment underpins the train operating companies?
Mr Tosh is clearly missed on the Transport and the Environment Committee. Other members will be able to remind him that the likes of ScotRail said in evidence to that committee that the current funding method is byzantine, that it does not do us any favours and that we should ensure that funding goes directly into our railways through a publicly owned trust or ScotRail, rather than circumventively, by a back door, through Railtrack.
Eureka! An idea has come to mind. We will run our railways ourselves in our own country. That idea is so simple that we wonder why nobody has thought of it before. After all, just about every other country on the planet runs its own railways. Better late than never, the idea has dawned on the Scottish psyche.
That idea is no blatant nationalist propaganda. Who though of it and who articulated it? First, transport experts such as Strathclyde Passenger Transport. Malcolm Reed, a transport guru whom the Executive—rightly—holds in high esteem, has indicated that, unless we have control of our rail network, the investment will go south. SPT, which is a spawn of Strathclyde Labour, realises the need to seize control.
Secondly, the business community articulated the idea. Scottish Financial Enterprise—a pillar of the Scottish business establishment and hardly a nationalist fifth column—has produced a document that details the business community's need for a railway that is accountable to, and managed by, elected representatives in Scotland. It sees the business sense in operating to our own timetable.
The final group to articulate the idea was the train operators, such as the much-maligned ScotRail, which—to be fair—was until recently doing a very good job in difficult circumstances. I hope that the spot of local difficulty will pass and ScotRail will get back to its previous high standards. What did ScotRail say when it gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament? It said that the Scottish Executive could take over responsibility for the railway infrastructure, thus ensuring that it does not continue to lose out. The ScotRail submission continued:
"The Parliament or its Executive would act as an overarching Scottish Passenger Transport Authority coordinating the excellent work of existing bodies like SPT, WESTRANS, SESTRANS and other bodies such as the Highland Rail Partnership."
ScotRail is no narrow-minded nationalist organisation that seeks to build a Scottish totem. It is the Scottish arm of National Express Group plc, which is a multinational company with a multitude of portfolios in many nations. However, it sees the need for accountability, responsibility and control.
I assume that Mr MacAskill is the spokesman for the SNP, not for ScotRail. Does he accept that, within the devolved model for which ScotRail has argued, ScotRail would submit to United Kingdom regulation to ensure access for freight and intercity movements? Is the SNP now submitting to UK regulation?
Much of the regulation that deals with our railways comes from European Union directives. We acknowledge that safety matters will be dealt with at the EU level. There are safety and transnational matters that would obviously best be dealt with on a UK basis. They could be dealt with by a cross-border authority with two equal partners, not with Scotland as a subservient partner that has no say, never mind no budget apart from the pocket money that it is given.
No wonder it is sung:
"We boast—then we cower,
We beg
For a piece of
What's already ours".
We boast. Oh aye, we do that. To see that, members just need to look back at all the spin and all the eloquent statements by new Labour minister upon new Labour minister. Then we cower. "Run our own railways. Oh—we cannae do that. We're too wee." Then we beg for a piece of what is already ours. Cap in hand, off the Executive will go to the Strategic Rail Authority, seeking crumbs from the table.
Transport experts, transport operators and the business community see the need and know the benefit of running our railways. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Protestations about safety and cross-border traffic are inane. All over the European continent—never mind in different hemispheres—trains run transnationally and, in many instances, with greater safety than in Britain. However, we are told that crossing the border on the east coast or west coast main line is of such complexity that it is beyond the wit and competence of the Scottish Executive and its minions to operate and manage.
Tiny Luxembourg can run its railways, but the Liberal Democrat-Labour Executive cannot. Perhaps the minister could tell us why he is so incompetent and so incapable of doing what is taken for granted in small nations the world over. Is he the one who is incompetent and incapable—or is it his party or his party's colleagues? Is the problem his incapacity or is the problem congenital?
First we boast, then we cower, then we go cap in hand begging for a piece of what is already ours. Our rail network is suffering because it has been starved of investment. It is as clear as night follows day that all the major investment will go into the London and south-east network. The malaise will continue. The tragedy is that, for all that the Executive condemns the Tories, it would rather the Tories ran the railways than that the Executive itself took responsibility.
It is quite apt that Mr Tosh should mention safety. Just recently, we found out about the huge profits made by Jarvis, which is the firm that was responsible for track maintenance at Potters Bar and which was appointed as safety adviser to Network Rail. Sitting on the board of Jarvis and dining out as a corporate fat cat is Steven Norris. As a former Tory transport minister, Mr Norris is someone who is responsible for the privatisation of a public asset and the creation of the mess that became Railtrack. However, Lewis Macdonald and his colleagues in the Scottish Executive obviously think that Mr Norris is more capable than they are.
That might be the case, but not everyone in Scotland is as incompetent as Scottish ministers. If they cannot, others can. If they will not, we will. It is time to take control of the rail network in Scotland. It is time to take charge of our own affairs.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the ongoing problems for freight and commuters on the rail network in Scotland; welcomes the support within the transport and business community for responsibility for the rail network in Scotland to be devolved, and calls on the Scottish Executive to take full charge of the running and operation of the network in Scotland.
We recognise rail as a priority, but today's debate is about not only the rail industry in Scotland, but the devolution settlement within which that industry operates. We believe that devolution has brought new opportunities for Scotland's railways.
The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have a major role to play in addressing the consequences of the fragmentation and privatisation that occurred under the previous Tory Government. It is right that we should do that within a strategic framework that recognises the need for a coherent approach to the rail network in Great Britain as a whole. The extension of devolved powers that has already been achieved gives us the right tools to advance Scottish priorities within that framework.
Mr MacAskill has, not surprisingly, demanded further devolution. To set that demand in context, it is worth recognising the powers that have already been devolved. Before devolution, Scottish Office ministers had very limited powers over rail. Chief among those was the power to fund Strathclyde Passenger Transport to allow it to pay its share of the Scottish passenger railway franchise, which is operated by ScotRail. At the outset, the Scottish Executive inherited responsibility only for that part of the franchise. However, a package of measures to extend railway devolution was agreed in March 1998. Since then, especially over the past 15 months, Scottish ministers have acquired full responsibility for funding the Scottish passenger rail franchise. That transfer of powers and resources from the UK Department for Transport has more than doubled the Executive's railway budget.
During the debate in Westminster, Henry McLeish made it clear that the Executive's powers would be significantly greater than those that have in fact been devolved. Scotland now has the ability to give directions and guidance, but only as long as they do not conflict with those that are given by the Secretary of State for Transport. Did not Mr McLeish pledge significantly greater powers, which could not have been superseded by those of the Department for Transport?
Mr MacAskill clearly confuses two different sets of directions and guidance, so I am glad to have the opportunity to set him right and correct his misunderstanding. We are the sole issuer of directions and guidance for the Scottish passenger rail franchise. For cross-border franchises, such as those that are operated by Virgin and Great North Eastern Railway, we are one of two partners that can issue such guidance. The guidance that we issue on cross-border rail franchises must be taken into account alongside that of the Department for Transport.
The transfer of powers over the Scottish rail passenger franchise is now complete. A further transfer of resources was secured earlier this year, when we agreed to the reconfiguration of the existing ScotRail franchise in return for the consolidation of enhanced services into the franchise baseline. That means that Scottish ministers alone will issue directions and guidance for passenger services that begin and end in Scotland. We intend to do that from April 2004.
In addition, we appoint the chair of the rail passengers committee for Scotland and we have executive responsibility for freight facilities grants and, within scheme rules that are agreed across the UK, track access grants in Scotland. We are also able to award direct financial support for passenger rail services. As I have mentioned, we are also empowered, in partnership with the UK DFT, to issue guidance on cross-border passenger services.
That is not all. The Scottish Parliament has legislative competence for the rail responsibilities of Scotland's passenger transport authorities such as SPT. Following an order that was laid before both the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments within the past few weeks, the Scottish Parliament will acquire legislative competence for the promotion and construction of new railways in Scotland.
Far from being over-cautious about railway devolution, we have in fact taken forward an agenda that gives the Scottish Executive the lead on a wide range of railway matters. We have done that not to break up the British railway network, but to strike the right balance between the needs of rail travellers within Scotland and the integrity of the GB network as a whole.
The minister has set in train the logic of devolution in some areas, so why does he not follow it through with the completion of devolution and seek power over the funding of the railways? Why is coherence across the UK so important despite the fact that we are losing out on so much money?
Coherence is indeed critical. Far from being a process of creeping devolution, the logic of what I have set out is that we will continue to seek to achieve the correct balance between the needs of Scottish rail passengers—which will be met directly by Scottish ministers and so fall within the competence of the Scottish Parliament—and the integrity of the GB network. Achieving that balance will remain our guiding principle. Within that, our focus in coming months will be on getting the new Scottish passenger franchise right, rather than on seeking to revisit the devolution settlement the moment that it is completed.
Of course, we will continue to listen carefully to the views of other players in the industry. We listen to SPT, Scottish Financial Enterprise, the Rail Freight Group and those who are responsible for cross-border services. We listen to a range of views on the future ownership and management of the railway infrastructure in Scotland. The industry does not have a single view on that, but it has a shared ambition to secure the best result for Scotland's rail customers. We share that ambition.
On that basis, we will continue to work with those who have responsibility for the network as a whole to secure the best returns for Scottish travellers. We will work with Alistair Darling and the DFT. Above all, we will ensure that Scottish interests are fully represented and taken into account by Network Rail in the future management of the assets that presently belong to Railtrack, which is in administration. We will work with the Strategic Rail Authority on both infrastructure and service issues. In that context, I was pleased to welcome the SRA's new officer in Scotland at a rail industry reception that took place earlier this week only a few hundred yards from the chamber. Mike Connelly will work closely with my officials on the new rail passenger franchise. He will also no doubt ensure that the SRA is aware of our priorities in other areas.
We will continue to work with the Office of the Rail Regulator on the regulatory framework, with the Health and Safety Commission and with Her Majesty's railway inspectorate on rail safety, and with the British Transport Police on crime and security across the network. In our view, it would be absurd to break up those GB-wide regimes, which deal with regulation, health and safety and route crime on the east and west coast main lines. At the summing up of the debate, I will be interested to hear whether the SNP accepts the logic of GB-wide remits in all those areas.
The Executive's priorities are clear: to secure a long-term franchise from 2004 in the interests of Scottish passengers; to upgrade Waverley station; to take forward the best options for rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports; and to continue to support the development of key Scottish rail projects, such as the Stirling to Alloa and Larkhall to Milngavie routes, as well as the Aberdeen crossrail and the Borders railway. Those priorities will depend on working with a range of partners in both the public and private sectors. The projects will critically depend on our continuing our close working with the SRA and the DFT.
I urge the Parliament to support our priorities and our partnership approach. Members should reject any diversion that would reopen the devolution debate. I urge members to support the amendment in my name.
I move amendment S1M-3229.3, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:
"welcomes the Executive's proposals in the transport delivery report Scotland's Transport: Delivering Improvements as the first steps in meeting the objective of a bigger, better and safer railway, and calls upon the Executive to continue to work closely with the Strategic Rail Authority in re-letting the Scottish passenger railway franchise and in developing a rail freight strategy for Scotland and, with Her Majesty's Government, to ensure that Railtrack's successor company delivers improved safety, growth and unity of purpose across the entire network."
Unlike in previous SNP debates on rail, today we have some evidence that Kenny MacAskill has some expertise in rail matters—namely, in derailing the political careers of his colleagues.
I always welcome the opportunity to debate Scotland's railways, but the SNP again has nothing new to say and nothing practical to offer to Scotland's hard-pressed rail travellers. It is perfectly legitimate, as part of the Transport and the Environment Committee's inquiry, for ScotRail witnesses to suggest other ways to run the rail industry in Scotland, but the manner in which the SNP seized on, distorted and politicised those remarks shows that its concern is with constitutional niceties, rather than with improving rail services for passengers and business users.
On today's performance, the SNP remains as irrelevant as ever to the stoic commuters from Fife who travel into Edinburgh and those who are crushed into the short trains on the Glasgow to Ayr line. Instead of structural change, we need a period of stability in the rail industry and, above all, the restoration of customer confidence. That has been badly damaged of late, not least by the drivers' action earlier this year. According to "National Rail Trends", overall passenger journeys decreased by 2 per cent between quarter 4 in 2000-01 and quarter 4 in 2001-02, and we still do not have a fully operational service.
Does not Mr Mundell realise that stability equals decline for investment in the railways? When we last debated the railways, Mr Tosh was gracious enough to acknowledge that the SNP had brought coherent opportunities and considered policy ideas to the debate. Why does not Mr Mundell accept that and debate those ideas on their merits, rather than cheapen what should be a serious debate?
I accept that the SNP has brought opportunism to the debate.
At least there is some variety in the message from the Labour party. In December 2000, Sarah Boyack told us that the newly formed Strategic Rail Authority would
"remove the obstacles within the current arrangements in order to provide a safe, punctual and better service."—[Official Report, 14 December 2000; Vol 9, c 978.]
In October 2001, we were told that putting Railtrack into administration and ending its private ownership would solve all the rail industry's difficulties, and that, by the way, not a penny of public money would be paid to Railtrack shareholders.
In January 2002, the message had changed and we were told that that great guy, Stephen Byers—so unfairly maligned by the Tories and the press—would sort out the UK rail industry. Where is he now? I do not doubt that he is checking the political allegiances of people who have expressed views that are contrary to the Scottish Executive's transport policies.
Now, we are told that the renewal of the ScotRail franchise will solve everything.
Will Mr Mundell remind us what happened to the careers of those who were responsible for privatising the rail industry?
It is clear from opinion polls that people do not believe Labour's message that all the problems of the rail industry lie at the Tories' door. People understand that Labour has been in power for five years and has achieved nothing in rail. For example, not a single inch of new track has been laid in Scotland since 1997.
The constant talk about the new franchise is as meaningless a soundbite as anything that we have heard in the past three debates on rail. It is time that the Scottish Executive learned that the public will not be conned into believing that there is a single magical solution to the difficulties that the rail industry faces.
The much-hyped transport delivery report was not even the plan that we were promised. How can that meaningless document, which promises everything but shows a route plan to nothing, create any confidence that the Scottish Executive can deliver the franchise in the timetable that it has set itself? The draft directions and guidance to the SRA from Scottish ministers were widely criticised by the industry, which said that they were too vague and lacked the detail that is required to formulate a proper bid. Like the Scottish Executive, that document had no new ideas or vision. It contained no concrete plans for substantive investment in the rail industry.
The one point on which I agree with the SNP is that all that is unimportant when people can spin. This week is no different. The investment of £1 million in preparation for the Waverley station project was spun as if it was funding for undertaking the project. It was not made clear that no funding is in place for doing that. It is time for the Scottish Executive to produce plans for investment in the rail industry to make the improvements that passengers and rail freight operators badly need.
I move amendment S1M-3229.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
"expresses its concern that the Scottish Executive is presenting the renewal of the ScotRail franchise as a panacea for all the difficulties faced by Scotland's railways while offering no guarantees that it can deliver a new franchise within the specified timetable and calls on the Scottish Executive to focus on the immediate priorities for the development of Scotland's railways and as a first step to bring forward the detail of its financial contribution to the redevelopment of Waverley Station."
The debate is short, so I will keep my remarks brief. We agree 100 per cent with the motion that Kenny MacAskill has lodged on behalf of the Scottish National Party, which says that management responsibility for the railways in Scotland should rest with the Scottish Executive. It is a sad day when even ScotRail and Strathclyde Passenger Transport are more radical than new Labour.
I hope that the SNP supports our argument that ownership of the industry, whose management is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, must be in public hands. That is why my amendment is important. It strengthens the SNP's motion and argues fundamentally that the rail industry should be run on the basis of maximising service and safety, not on the basis of maximising profit.
In the five years before privatisation of our railways, there were, sadly, eight deaths on our railways under the guardianship of British Rail. That is eight deaths too many. However, in the first five years of privatisation of our railways, there were 68 deaths on our railways. Privatisation of our railways is synonymous with fatality, accidents and the poor maintenance of our track.
In evidence to the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Select Committee, the rail unions said that, before privatisation, 31,000 workers were employed to maintain tracks in Britain. After privatisation, only 15,000 workers are employed. That leads to fatalities. That is the problem with the ownership of the industry.
That is why I hope that the SNP will support my amendment and that perhaps some of the apparent socialists in new Labour who used to support public ownership will bring themselves to support it. We must send out a loud and clear message that the game is up for the privatisers in our public industries. No way, no longer, shall we allow essential public services to be run on the basis of maximising profit. It is time to put safety first. Safety will be put first only when the industry is in public hands, under democratic control and ownership and under the management and responsibility of the Parliament.
I move amendment S1M-3229.2, to insert at end:
"and commits itself to public ownership of the rail industry in line with the demands of the rail industry trade unions and the public as reflected clearly in opinion polls on a consistent basis, and further believes that the rail industry should be run on the basis of maximum safety and service, not private profit."
The collapse of Railtrack plc put the future management of the rail network well and truly on the political agenda, but the problems of the network in Scotland will not be solved, or even more easily solved, simply by putting Scottish politicians exclusively in charge of the network. The nationalists are correct to identify some support for that in the transport industry and some business circles, but those views do not have general support and there are strong arguments against them.
Establishing a Scottish company to own and operate the rail infrastructure in Scotland might seem to simplify the system, but it would mean further fragmentation. It would be an unnecessary complication and would cause further delays and uncertainties.
Some difficult questions would have to be answered. Would a Scottish body operate in the UK regulatory framework? How would it be decided what debts would carry over from Railtrack to a Scottish body?
I would be grateful if Nora Radcliffe expanded on her point that, somehow, the establishment of distinctive Scottish management of the rail infrastructure in Scotland would lead to further delays.
That would happen because disaggregation would take time and trouble. I will expand on that. Would a Scottish body have sufficient potential to raise capital from the private sector? Would we have a separate railway inspectorate? Would there be a separate rail accident investigation branch? If there were some form of vertical integration, what mechanism would ensure an absolutely fair allocation of capacity between all the network users—passenger-carrying and freight? There is no doubt that all those questions could be resolved, but is this the best way forward? It is much more sensible to see the rail network as at least a UK-wide entity, if not a Europe-wide entity. That need not preclude the network serving Scotland well.
Lewis Macdonald's amendment
"calls upon the Executive to continue to work closely with the Strategic Rail Authority in re-letting the Scottish passenger railway franchise and in developing a rail freight strategy".
Let us consider freight. Of the 6.24 million tonnes of freight that is uplifted in Scotland, more than half—56 per cent—is cross-border within the UK. A further 13 per cent is delivered outwith the UK, either through the channel tunnel or via a port, and 2.7 million tonnes of freight is delivered into Scotland from abroad. Freight operators require a strategic approach to rail that is not confined to Scotland and is not just UK-wide but international.
Does Nora Radcliffe support English Welsh & Scottish Railway, which wants to see the reinstatement of the Borders railway line as a central freight line through Scotland? That would be very useful, given the current problems on the west coast line.
I do not see any reason not to. I do not see that it is necessary to have a separate Scottish company to do that.
There must be consistent rail and shipping loading gauges and clearances for containers over a whole journey, from Coatbridge to Constantinople, or wherever. That consistency must be maintained along every metre of the route, or it is no use. EU directives will require inter-operability on all trans-European network routes.
Matters are not as simple as they might appear on the domestic passenger side either. Ninety-five per cent of rail traffic in Scotland may be described as solely domestic, but the remaining 5 per cent amounts to 2.6 million cross-border passenger journeys originating in Scotland and 2.9 million cross-border journeys into Scotland. Those are not inconsiderable numbers. Remember that many of those solely domestic passenger journeys will be on the Scottish part of a cross-border service. For example, my MSP colleagues travel back to Aberdeen on the GNER train from London.
The sensible option is to retain the railway network as an integrated whole. Liberal Democrats support the concept of a not-for-profit trust, with one company being set up for the whole of the UK network, with appropriate Scottish representation on the board. We have been advocating that since February 2001. The Strategic Rail Authority should remain just that, but with a beefed-up office in Scotland to enhance its capability to liaise with Scottish ministers and to oversee what is happening in Scotland.
The system of rail infrastructure management and maintenance may need to be simplified and made more transparent, but breaking it up into English and Scottish components would be a massively complex process that we do not need. The railways need us to focus on how there can be more engineers—rather than a different set of politicians—looking after them.
As someone who left Glasgow this morning at half past 6 and did not arrive in Edinburgh until 8.45 am, I very much welcome the debate, not only on my behalf but on behalf of all the commuters who face the journey every day. If the underground has not broken down, something happens on the motorway and there is only a half-hourly service from Glasgow to Edinburgh. I ask the minister when we will get the 15-minute service back, because its absence is why we are all constantly delayed. Our transport system, not only the railways, is in a state of collapse.
I support the SNP motion and congratulate the transport and business communities on supporting the motion. We must take control of the rail industry if we are to do justice to the people who have voted us into this Parliament.
Consider the record of successive Governments. First there was a right-wing Tory Government and now we have a right-wing Labour Government, in both Edinburgh and London. Neither can be proud of the transport system that it has introduced. Stability and investment have been required, but all that we have seen is fragmentation and underinvestment. Private profit has been put before public service.
Members will know that for some time I have been campaigning for the implementation of the Glasgow airport direct rail link and crossrail. My colleagues will mention other schemes, such as the Borders rail link. We desperately need those schemes to be implemented.
There is growing consensus in this country that the way forward is for the Parliament to assume complete responsibility for the rail network in Scotland. The Scottish Government should join that consensus. It should take the powers and ensure that Scotland gets a fair deal in funding.
We must have control of the Scottish share of the Strategic Rail Authority moneys. I wrote a letter to the minister on 15 May, but unfortunately I have not received a reply. Malcolm Reed, the director of SPT, revealed that SPT has consistently been awarded approximately 50 per cent less per capita than each of the six passenger transport authorities in England. Scotland cannot afford to lose out on that cash. Let us consider a couple of examples. West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority, which serves a population of 2.5 million compared with the 2 million people in the SPT area, was awarded £50 million for 2002-03; SPT was awarded £28 million. In 2001-02, the WMPTA was awarded £47 million and SPT was awarded £16 million. Is that what the minister calls equality? I asked him that earlier. Is that fair or is it the price to be paid for having a Lib-Lab coalition that has no ambition?
If we had control of our railways and our finances, we could build the crossrail north-south link and many others. The Executive claims to be committed to tackling urban congestion, but it is failing to take the steps that would reduce congestion. Once again, the Lib-Lab coalition is strong on rhetoric and weak on action. We need the powers that any normal nation has to build a nation and a rail system that is fit for the 21st century. We need those powers to give our people the safe, fast and reliable service that they demand. I ask the Executive to support our motion.
If Sandra White is looking for a fair deal for Scotland in transport spend, perhaps she will consider the report on the budget that the Transport and the Environment Committee completed yesterday. The report identifies the fact that transport expenditure in Scotland is considerably above the UK average. She should perhaps refer to that before making ill-informed comments in the chamber.
The debate signals a lack of imagination on the part of the SNP. This is the third time in eight months that we have debated the issue—the chamber has already rejected the SNP's proposals twice. The choice of subject says more about the SNP's internal problems than about any genuine desire on its part to engage in the future of the rail industry.
I welcome Lewis Macdonald's amendment, which draws the debate back to the issues that are important to the industry. It refers to the transport delivery report, which contains many proposals that will develop a bigger role for rail in solving the transport challenges that we face. If the SNP were serious and wanted its proposals to be carefully considered and analysed, the appropriate vehicle for that would be the current Transport and the Environment Committee inquiry. This debate is ill judged and ill timed.
I want to make some progress. I am limited for time.
Given that we are discussing the matter again, on the instigation of the SNP—[Interruption.] I appeal to the Presiding Officer to stop the barracking and ill-mannered behaviour from SNP members.
Will the member give way?
No. I will address the issues.
Kenny MacAskill has given the impression that there is universal support for the SNP's proposals. That is not the case. He talks about the role of freight, but the freight operators are among the strongest opponents of the SNP's proposals. In evidence to the Transport and the Environment Committee, Graham Smith of EWS said:
"Anything that breaks down artificial barriers and boundaries must be helpful. I would much rather retain a UK integrated network in Scotland, England and Wales than create unnecessary boundaries as part of an autonomous Scottish network."
What precisely does "integrated" mean in this context? Does it mean that Scotland gets investment or not?
Of course Scotland will get investment. There are clear indications from both the Scottish Executive and the Strategic Rail Authority about a range of investment projects in Scotland. I advise the SNP spokespeople to consider those documents before they come to the chamber to complain that Scotland will not get its fair share of investment.
At the same meeting, Jonathan Metcalfe of GNER stated:
"My preferred approach would be for a clear zone in Railtrack or Network Rail that focused on Scotland, with clearer transparency of funding. I would be cautious about separation."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee; 6 June 2002, c 3224 and 3243.]
Brian Johnson of Virgin Trains endorsed that view.
At a subsequent meeting, Kevin Lindsay of ASLEF commented:
"We do not want any further fragmentation of the railways ... I do not think that anyone could say that privatisation of the railway system has been a success, so to fragment it further would be a further disaster."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 12 June 2002;
c 3287.]
Those statements prove that the industry is far from united behind the SNP's proposal.
Will the member give way?
The member is in his last minute.
I will address the point that I think Tommy Sheridan wanted to make. Although Kevin Lindsay supports complete renationalisation of the rail industry, he welcomes the move towards establishing a not-for-profit company responsible for railway infrastructure as a step forward in the management of the industry.
The Presiding Officer has advised me that I am in my last minute, so I will come to a conclusion. Today's debate is a distraction from the rail industry's real problems. The real agenda is to improve safety, to enable the industry to expand and to enable it to play a bigger role in moving people and freight around Scotland. The framework that Labour has established—the Strategic Rail Authority and the new proposals for Network Rail—will allow those things to happen and allow Scotland to have the rail network and industry that it needs and deserves.
I point out to Bristow Muldoon that bringing together ScotRail and Railtrack in Scotland is not fragmentation, whatever else it may be.
I commute regularly from mid-Renfrewshire to Edinburgh.
Will the member give way?
I will take an intervention from Bristow Muldoon, even though he did not take one.
Will Colin Campbell clarify the SNP's proposal? He has spoken about bringing together ScotRail and Railtrack. Is he suggesting that we should have a privatised monopoly rail operator in Scotland, is he suggesting that we should have a separate railway in Scotland or does he not know what he is talking about?
We want to make the whole rail system accountable to the Parliament and to unify decision making here, instead of having two completely separate organisations that are required to spend an inordinate length of time talking to and negotiating with each other. A single management structure could take care of everything.
Speaking as a computer—[Laughter.] If I were speaking as a computer, I would be more efficient. As a commuter who regularly travels to Edinburgh by train, I have come across some of the utter absurdities that result from the system's being run by two separate organisations. I will provide an example that illustrates the problems at the level at which people encounter them. At Glasgow Central station, about 15 seconds before the departure of the train to Ayr, passengers may be informed that that train will now leave from platform 13, which is as far away as possible from the notice board. However, if people complain, they will be told by ScotRail officials that what has happened is the responsibility not of ScotRail, but of Railtrack. That shows how absurd it is to have two separate organisations involved in running the railways. Like the rest of the SNP, I believe that running regional networks—or national networks such as the Scottish network—as an entity makes far more sense.
On Tuesday evening, I attended a rail reception on behalf of the SNP. The plethora of organisations that are involved in running and using the railways were all represented at that reception. The proposition that services and infrastructure should be run together makes administrative and organisational sense.
Unfortunately, I was unable to take part in yesterday's debate on the Glasgow airport rail link. I do not want to revisit that debate in too much detail, but I note that Pauline McNeill referred to the fact that last week a £14 million car park was opened at Glasgow airport. I represented the SNP at that event. It is significant that we were informed that the car park would not be utilised fully for five years—unless a hotel were built next to it, in which case it would probably be fully utilised in three years. We are trying to encourage rail transport, but our plans for laying more track are late. At the same time, future provision for increased private transport is in place. That makes sense to the management of Glasgow airport and is a recognition of the inevitable, but at a strategic level—viewed nationally—the presence of the car park and the absence of a rail link send out all the wrong messages.
I take this opportunity to put on record my commitment to light rail transport. I hope that the transport options for Scotland as a whole will include a greater commitment to light rail transport, possibly sharing track with mainline rail transport. Light rail is more versatile, has the merit of lower capital cost and is proven to entice people from their cars.
My main concern is that, when decisions are made to lay track for links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, for crossrail or for any other project, the time that elapses between the decision's being made and the track's being laid should be as short as possible. Given the record of this Administration and its predecessor, I am not convinced that that is likely to be the case.
It has been suggested that we are indulging in a devolution debate. The devolution debate is over—the independence debate is on.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this morning's debate. Everyone agrees that transport is a key priority. That is why the biggest-ever investment in public transport—totalling £76 million—has been made to tackle congestion. Since the first award was made in 1999, more than £170 million has been made available. The rewards of that funding are being reaped.
Today we have heard that the SNP is not concerned with finding real solutions to the problems that face our transport systems. Once again, the SNP is seeking to chip away at the edges of the devolved settlement. We need a coherent strategy that advances Scottish priorities, through partnership working with the United Kingdom Government.
The Executive is working to improve railways in Scotland, through investment both by the Scottish Parliament and at UK level.
Marilyn Livingstone and I know full well what the railway system in Fife is like. Does she honestly believe that the investment that is being made in the Fife railway is satisfactory? Does she not think that we could do the job better here?
Everyone agrees that improvements to the rail service are needed. Like Tricia Marwick, I travel on the Fife network every day. I have written continually to the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning about the need for improvements to be made to that network. Perhaps that is why there has been investment of £312,000 at Burntisland, of £1.5 million at Kirkcaldy and of £477,000 at Kinghorn. I do not say that more investment is not needed. However, we also need to consider strategically the way in which we deal with rail. The Executive is doing that. Such a strategic view can be taken only if Scotland works in partnership with the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Executive is working to improve railways in Scotland. We need more investment and that investment is being made. We want the whole journey experience to be improved. Customers want a safe and reliable rail service. No one would disagree that the rail issue is complex. Today we are dealing with the legacy of Tory privatisation of the railways in the mid-1990s, regardless of whether the Conservatives deny that.
This morning we have heard a great deal about safety on the railways. I ask the minister to consider overcrowding, which is a concern on the Fife lines and, I am sure, on other networks.
The route map for the future of transport in Scotland is welcome. The Executive report "Scotland's Transport: Delivering Improvements", which has been presented to the Parliament, discusses developments over the next 15 years. I welcome the decision to increase the overall capacity of the Scottish rail network through the redevelopment of Waverley station, which will improve services from Fife. Work should begin on that project in 2004.
The Executive is showing that our vision for improving public transport in Scotland is the strategic way forward. It is important to note that that vision is backed by public investment.
I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on a constituency matter.
I welcome the recent announcement that the Scottish rail franchise will be enhanceable. That may be particularly helpful on the east coast main line, where my constituents would welcome the establishment of a local train service between Berwick-upon-Tweed and Edinburgh. That would entail opening a new station or stations in Berwickshire. We have the opportunity to promote such a development.
Railtrack informs me that three or four passing loops are required for freight on the section of line concerned. I hope that it will be possible to consider constructing a halt or station on a passing loop at, for example, Reston, where the local community is particularly keen on such a development. I appreciate that there are many technical problems to overcome—on track access and signalling, for example—but I do not believe that those are insuperable.
Will the member give way?
I applaud the work of the rail action group for the east of Scotland, which has successfully promoted the extension of train services in East Lothian and is keen to do the same in Berwickshire.
For example, a local station and a local service for Reston, instead of the present intercity service, would stimulate the development of east Berwickshire. That proposal is in the new Scottish Borders structure plan and would take pressure from south-east Edinburgh and East Lothian. It might also cut the costs of rail travel for my constituents. One constituent, Brian Patton, told me recently that the cost per mile of a day return between Edinburgh and Berwick is 11.75p, whereas the cost per mile between Edinburgh and Glasgow is 7.9p. We have an opportunity to make progress in this area and I welcome the enhanceable franchise, which will benefit those proposals.
I call Christine Grahame. You have three minutes.
I did not think that I would be called. Excellent.
If you do not want to speak, it is not compulsory for you to do so.
If I had not wanted to speak, I would not have endeavoured to intervene during Euan Robson's speech. I know that he is campaigning, as I am, for the reopening of Reston railway station. I hope that the minister will provide limited funding for a feasibility study into the operation and viability of a station at Reston. That is all that is required for that part of the railway line—it is not as though a lot of funding is required.
My second point concerns the Borders railway line. I refer to the leaflet "Have Your Say: Edinburgh's New Transport Initiative". Apart from the fact that I do not know whether people in the Borders have received that leaflet, I have other concerns about it. In its middle pages, it refers to rail schemes and mentions the
"Borders rail line from Edinburgh to Galashiels".
However, under the heading "‘Up-front' transport improvements", it says:
"Many publicly funded transport improvements will be put in place before 2006, and before any congestion charging scheme is introduced. These up-front improvements will include—"
The list in the leaflet does not include the Borders railway line. We know of the troubles with FirstBus in the Borders, so the omission of the Borders railway line from that list means that people who try to get into Edinburgh to work by private transport could be charged up to £2 a day. In the Borders area, wages are some £50 to £60 a week less than they are in the rest of Scotland. People are driven—"driven" being the operative word—to commute to Edinburgh.
I would like an assurance from the minister that efforts will be made to put money into the Borders railway line and to reinstate it before congestion charges get off the ground. There is no reason why the line cannot be operational before 2006. If the minister can spend £450 million on five miles of motorway, he can spend £100 million on reinstating a railway line in order to give people in the Borders access to jobs in Edinburgh and people in Edinburgh access to jobs in the Borders.
We now come to the winding-up speeches, each of which will be three minutes. I call Ian Jenkins first.
You took me by surprise, Presiding Officer—I did not realise that my speech would have to be so short.
We recognise the problems of the railway for commuters and freight operators. We also recognise that some potential stakeholders are uncomfortable with the present structure of the railway. However, as Bristow Muldoon said, and as he highlighted with extensive quotations, that view is not unanimous. As Nora Radcliffe indicated, the Liberal Democrats are in favour of a simplification of the system and of stronger scrutiny of Scottish rail matters. She also mentioned the not-for-profit trust for Railtrack.
It will come as no surprise that I want to mention the Borders railway, not just because I always like to punt the merits of that idea, but because the proposal helps to illustrate one of the issues behind the motion. The Parliament endorsed the principle of a Borders rail link from Edinburgh to Carlisle and, as Christine Grahame said, we have made progress on the proposal to take the line to the central Borders—whether to Galashiels, Tweedbank or Charlesfield. That type of development could perfectly well be wholly supervised in Scotland. Journeys would begin and end in Scotland, the way in which those journeys were organised would be handled in Scotland and scrutiny of the service would take place in Scotland.
That is not the whole picture, however, as we want to be able to travel by rail to Carlisle. A problem will arise if we take up the SNP's suggestion of establishing Scotland as a separate unit. A Scottish operation would stop short of the west coast and we would need to deal with people who would not be within our control in the way that those who worked for the Scottish operation that the SNP talks about would be. That would cut apart the network and the network needs to be seen as a whole.
Will the member give way?
The member is in his last minute.
I will give way.
No, Mr Jenkins. You are in your last minute. You had only three minutes.
Sorry, Presiding Officer.
I have made my point. The SNP's suggestion will lead to fragmentation, division and a cut in the network that would have to be tied up again. It would be uneconomical, a waste of time and, as Nora Radcliffe said, complicated. The SNP's suggestion is not on.
There is undoubtedly a consensus among the people of Scotland about the need for massive improvements to be made to our rail services, including the establishment of rail links to areas such as the Borders as well as to the airports at Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. However, extending the existing rail network is not the only issue. Existing services must be improved and electrification is one of the best ways in which to do that. Electrification offers huge advantages, such as shorter journey times and an end to the pollution that is caused by emissions from diesel engines.
Scotland is near the bottom of the European league, with only 23 per cent of our rail track being electrified. Nine years ago, a joint study by ScotRail and local authorities recommended the electrification of the line between Edinburgh and Glasgow Queen Street via Falkirk High. That is, or should be, Scotland's flagship line, as it links Scotland's capital city to Scotland's biggest city. Unfortunately, the service has recently got worse rather than better, with ScotRail's continuing failure to restore the quarter-hourly service. In the longer term, electrification would be the best way in which to improve that service, as it could cut the journey time from Glasgow to Edinburgh to 35 minutes. I give that as an example of a necessary improvement.
How do we achieve such essential improvements? The SNP motion calls on the Scottish Executive
"to take full charge of the running and operation of the network in Scotland."
Recently, even ScotRail has suggested that the Scottish Parliament should have more responsibility for the railways in Scotland. I go along with that, but the proposal for the Executive to take full charge of the running and operation of the network must involve public ownership. The privatisation of the railways has been an unmitigated disaster. There has been fragmentation, inadequate investment and deteriorating standards of reliability, punctuality and safety. Railtrack has had to be taken into administration and there are increasing demands by the general public for public ownership of the entire industry. Last week, The Guardian reported a recent ICM poll showing that 68 per cent of people were in favour of public ownership of the industry.
Under the existing franchise system, the Scottish Executive has only limited influence. I repeat: the proposal for the Scottish Executive to take full charge of the running and operation of the network must involve public ownership. Tommy Sheridan's amendment is a logical extension of the SNP's motion. I urge SNP members, and any socialists left in the Labour party, to vote for his amendment, in order to try to ensure that the people of Scotland get the first-class railway service that they deserve.
Andrew Wilson reminded the Parliament of my personal view that the railways might have been a suitable candidate for involvement in the devolved settlement. That remains my view. However, it is not my view that the constitutional arrangements that surround the railway industry are the most important of the issues that govern, affect or influence our railway network. The proper role for our railways is within a devolved, rather than an independent, context. I believe that what Colin Campbell said on that was quite wrong.
An important part of our rail service is the connection with cities south of the border. Our system is integrated with the UK railway system. It is important that the railway system is regulated on a UK basis. I emphasise for Kenny MacAskill's benefit that that is what regulations are about. We are not talking about European regulations on safety; we are talking about determining who gets access to the pathways and who gets the slots through. To that degree, it is critical—
That is the same with the roads.
It is not so hard to drive on the roads. People drive on at one end and come off at the other end. In a railway system, there must be agreement about who gets on, who goes off on to a loop, who is allowed to overtake, who is allowed to come in the opposite direction and when and where those things happen. Our intercity services will function only within a regulatory regime that applies to the whole United Kingdom.
I agree with everything that Mr Tosh has said about regulations, but would not those regulations be best served from a Scottish perspective, with someone at the table making our case rather than all the decisions being made in London? Incidentally, I remind him that that is precisely what happens in every other country on earth.
I have only three minutes and I think that that was an unreasonably long point. I agree that regulations need to be a matter for negotiation, but I think that we are better negotiating within a UK context. What leverage would we have over an English Government about a train running from London to Aberdeen? It is nonsense. This is the kind of area in which devolution can be made to work.
I am equally critical of the Executive amendment, which simply talks about renewing the passenger franchise. It will not be too difficult for the Executive to do that, as the policy context is already established within the overall UK approach. What is sadly lacking from the SNP motion and the Executive amendment is any grasp of the real issue, which is how we develop our railway industry and fund its progress.
This morning, we have not remotely talked about what the railway network is for and what purposes it will serve. Only David Mundell talked about development and increasing capacity and only Colin Campbell touched on the important interface between light rail and heavy rail as a means of resolving our urban transport problems. The debate has been about something that is going to happen anyway and about an obscure constitutional issue. It has not been about delivering railway services or railway expansion. I call on members to support Mr Mundell's amendment, because it grasps the important point that, to take the railway system forward, we must talk about capacity, regulation and investment.
As has been said in the debate, the Executive's priority is to get the best possible rail services in Scotland. We believe that the fundamental requirement for that to happen is for the rail industry to be enabled to enjoy a period of prolonged stability. That is why we support the balanced railway devolution settlement as it has been developed by the Executive and as it currently stands. We look forward to the establishment of a single network rail company for the entire rail network in Great Britain.
We have made clear the fact, which we do not apologise for, that our priority at this juncture is to deliver improved services for Scottish passengers when we take forward the new passenger franchise from April 2004. We have issued directions and guidance to provide the right framework for doing that. The Scottish rail passengers committee, Strathclyde Passenger Transport and others have very much welcomed the terms of the directions and guidance.
We are working daily with the Strategic Rail Authority; its new Scottish officer is based at the rail passengers committee in Glasgow. The SRA has expertise in letting franchises and will be responsible for letting all the franchises across Great Britain, including the one for Scottish rail passenger services. The authority will issue that franchise according to our directions and guidance. It has indicated a timetable for the Scottish franchise and is confident that it can be delivered.
We will formally issue directions and guidance to the SRA early next month. Expressions of interest will be invited this summer. A detailed service specification will be issued, with an invitation to bid in the autumn of this year. Shortlisted bidders will be invited to submit their best and final offers in the spring of next year and a preferred bidder will be announced in autumn 2003. The new franchise will be awarded in spring 2004.
Can the minister clarify whether the negotiations on the franchise and the terms of the franchise will generate the investment to create the high-speed intercity service to which Sandra White referred, or will that be an add-on? Will we be discussing development and infrastructure priorities as later investments through special purpose vehicles?
The service specification, which will be issued this year prior to the invitation to bid, will be founded on the existing level of service across the network. However, as several members have said, the franchise can be enhanced. Those who make bids will be invited to offer a price for the specified services and to suggest alternative services if they can provide them at a comparable cost.
The minister said that the franchise can be enhanced. Will he indicate how the Executive will respond to the recommendations from the central Scotland transport corridor study for major rail projects such as a new line linking Edinburgh, Livingstone, Bathgate, Airdrie and Glasgow?
We have said that we will consider carefully the entire range of recommendations from the central Scotland transport corridor study, but specifically those that relate to public transport, which clearly include the recommendation for reopening the Airdrie to Bathgate line. Obviously, we will have to examine those recommendations in terms of their value for money and whether they can be delivered. However, it is our intention to develop such projects in a way that allows the passenger rail franchise to specify that, when such infrastructure improvements are in place, the successful operator will provide a certain level of service on that new infrastructure. Not only will it be possible to enhance services on existing infrastructure, but, under the terms of a long, 15 to 20-year franchise, it will be possible to enhance new infrastructure.
I am glad that Mr Muldoon mentioned the Airdrie to Bathgate line. The question is when the development will happen. That is the point of the debate—if we have the control, we can speed up the implementation of changes and have the rail infrastructure that we need, including the Bathgate to Airdrie line, for which people have been crying out for years. We can do that sooner if we have control in Scotland. Does the minister not think that that makes sense?
There are a number of assumptions in what Fiona Hyslop has said, and I will conclude my speech by dealing with them. Andrew Wilson and others have implied that current arrangements cost Scotland in terms of infrastructure and investment, but they have failed to provide any evidence of that.
Our view is that a separate Scottish infrastructure company would require separate funding for upgrades to the east and west coast main lines and would mean that Scotland had to provide a significant amount of funding for upgrades to those lines north of the border. It would also mean that we would have to adapt to what is currently, as Railtrack Scotland made clear in its evidence to the Transport and the Environment Committee, a net loss-making operation. In other words, the track access charges that are raised in Scotland are not adequate to fund the necessary maintenance and repair work.
The argument about other European countries ignores the fact that the European Union is facing serious difficulties in ensuring inter-operability among the European rail networks. To go for a smaller and separate rail network at a time when the rest of Europe is seeking a more unified approach is clearly to go in the wrong direction.
We live in a single island and the case for a GB rail system is that it will greatly strengthen safety, growth and unity of purpose within the network. Our ambition is to provide the best possible rail service for the people of Scotland. We believe that we can best do that by acting on Scottish passenger rail interests and freight interests within the context of a GB rail network.
I now call Andrew Wilson.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. You will notice with interest, I am sure, that I appear as number 5 on the SNP's speakers list for the debate. I am not happy about the habit.
I thought that Andrew Wilson was number 8.
It could have been much worse.
This is a key debate about the future and the performance of Scotland, which lines up much as did the old debate between those who were for a Scottish Parliament and those who took the Tory stance against the Scottish Parliament. This time, however, the Tories, Liberals and the Labour party are on the same side, blocking Scotland's control of its own affairs. My view—and my contention and summation—is that the burden of proof lies as much with those who stand against progress as it does with those of us who want to prove that progress is possible. The status quo in so many aspects of our government, but particularly with regard to the railway, has delivered utter mediocrity and total underperformance.
The Labour-Conservative view is that the issue is the stability and coherence of the UK network. The minister made a classic reference to the integrity of the GB network. That point cuts to the chase of the debate, as that integrity, coherence and stability have delivered woeful underinvestment, a safety performance that would be unacceptable anywhere in the world, the collapse of private institutions that should be performing and a wholesale loss of confidence in Britain's and Scotland's railway network. In other words, the status quo has delivered transport decline and chaos. I contend that the combination of a complete lack of vision and confidence and an obsession with not recognising the need for Scotland to progress constitutionally is diminishing the case that the London parties can put and leaves them in an unsustainable position.
The SNP's case is simple. It starts with the observation that the situation with regard to the railways is not right. The minister must accept a fact of which even dogs in the street—not normally known for their knowledge of railway transport—are aware: the railways of Scotland are underperforming and the people who use them are greatly frustrated. In light of his comments, I point out to him that there is a proven record of underinvestment. In England, 25 cities are lined up to receive investment in light rail transport, whereas the number in Scotland stands at a terrific zero. The lion's share of investment will go south under any UK structure—those are not my words, but the words of Sir Alastair Morton, the outgoing chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority.
Does Andrew Wilson accept that the initiatives that are under way to address the public transport system in Edinburgh and the links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports may well involve investment in light rail infrastructure?
I am delighted to recognise that there is activity. I would be surprised if there were none. My point is that our share is totally disproportionate to that of other places in the UK. The reason for that is simple: the greatest volume of passengers is in the south of England—that is not a whinge but a recognition of reality—and anyone who wants a return on their investment will go where the market is. That is an inevitable part of life within the centralised UK.
Our options are to thole that situation or to do something about it. The best way of doing something about it is by taking control of our funding and trying to make the best of a difficult market context. Scotland inevitably loses out under the current system of investment, so we must devolve funding control to Scotland to enable us to target our own priorities. We must set up a not-for-profit public trust to run the railway network in the public interest and under public control, so that we can access investment and target it on Scotland's needs. The idea of a public trust was developed by the SNP; although it was initially condemned by Labour, it now appears to be the model that Labour wants to implement across the UK. However, our point is that investment should be focused on Scotland.
The thrust of our coherent, considered approach, which is backed up by research and academic opinion, has been welcomed by most reasonable people in the debate, even by those who might not agree with all its details. Strathclyde Passenger Transport has agreed with some of the principles, as have Scottish Financial Enterprise and ScotRail, as Kenny MacAskill said. What is the Conservative-Liberal-Labour case? It is the Tosh-Jenkins-Foulkes consensus that, if railways go over a border, they have to be controlled centrally. Do they appreciate that roads go over borders as well? I have travelled on a railway line between Belfast and Dublin. Such arrangements are possible. Countries co-operate with one another and negotiate for the best result for their situation. However, a country that is at the negotiating table has a better chance of getting a favourable result than one whose voice is represented by someone else.
I recognise that trains cross frontiers. [Applause.] I am sorry, but Mr Wilson is caricaturing everyone else's position in the debate. No one is saying that trains cannot cross frontiers. The point is that, in a devolved context, it is perfectly possible for Scotland to be able to negotiate pathways and routes. What leverage would an independent Scotland have in negotiations with the UK Government?
It would be possible for Scotland to negotiate pathways and routes in a devolved context, but our observation is that that is not happening. However, independence would empower Scotland at the negotiating table. That is a simple observation.
The fudge of the ministerial position is amusing, given the debates of the past couple of weeks. The minister appears to have swallowed wholesale the classic ministerial brief from the civil service against any policy idea: there is a correct balance to be struck; there are too many legal difficulties; the idea would be administratively complex. That is straight out of the annals of "Yes Minister". I think that Sir Humphrey stalks the corridors of the Scottish Executive in a way that Jack McConnell is less than comfortable with.
Nora Radcliffe's argument seems to be that, although she accepts that the railways are dreadful, it is too much hassle to do anything about them. That is unacceptable. If devolution is about anything, it is about Scots taking control of their own affairs. Our point is not about breaking up the union. We are asking why, if we trust Scotland so far, we do not trust it the whole way. We will still travel across the border in trains, but we will be empowered to ensure that our railway system is properly invested in, is properly looked after and gives everyone across the European network the chance to travel here in comfort.
There are people who say, "This far and no further," and there are those of us who will not accept the mediocrity of our current situation. The simple truth is that the Scottish Executive has to up its game. Scotland deserves better. The railway industry is critical to our economy and to our quality of life. We cannot wait any longer for UK institutions to deliver, because we have already waited and they have not delivered. Let the scales fall from a few eyes in the chamber. If we control the roads of Scotland, why do we not control the railways of Scotland? The issue is as simple as that. The burden of proof is with the opposition as much as it is with those of us who want progress. Right is on our side and we have the momentum.