Rail Improvements (Central Scotland)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-916, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on central Scotland rail improvements. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the Scottish Government's plans to electrify the Glasgow to Edinburgh and Cumbernauld railway lines; believes that this will have a positive effect on the commuting experience for people across Scotland, particularly those in central Scotland; recognises the importance of providing alternatives to the private car to reduce congestion and pollution and of opening up social and economic opportunities to the 32 per cent of Scottish households that do not have access to a car; notes the campaigns by various rail user groups calling for the introduction of a national railcard scheme which would provide discounted travel to all regular train users, and believes that such a scheme should be considered for introduction in Scotland.
I thank those members who have supported my motion, enabling it to be debated tonight. I would also like to thank the various transport authorities and rail companies that have met me or written to me before the debate. I also thank TRANSform Scotland for its interest tonight and for preparing a briefing for members.
I put on record my thanks to the members who have stayed behind to contribute to the debate. In particular, I look forward to any contribution from my colleague Chris Harvie. I always feel as if I should be taking study notes whenever he speaks.
My motion has two purposes. They are clear from the text, but I am happy to be up front and clear about them. This is an opportunity to welcome and discuss the improvements to the central Scotland rail network that are being funded by the Government, but it is also an opportunity to open for discussion the idea of a national rail card for Scotland.
The rail network has played a significant role in Scotland's history and it has an even more important role to play in our country's future. Rail travel contributes positively to a range of economic, social and environmental ambitions that the Government and the Parliament have for Scotland. The Government's stated purpose of sustainable economic growth will absolutely depend on our having an efficient and environmentally friendly transport infrastructure for moving people and goods around the country. Above all, a modal shift from private car to public transport is a necessity if targets in the economic strategy and in our efforts to tackle climate change are to be met. Accessible public transport is also important for improving social interaction, which links to the Government's targets on inequality. Indeed, the motion notes that 32 per cent of Scottish households do not have access to a car. For those people, travel of any kind means dependence on public transport.
Those challenges and targets help to explain why the Government's plans for improving rail services across central Scotland are vital. I was recently informed by a Scottish National Party councillor from Cumbernauld that the SNP was campaigning for the electrification of the Glasgow to Edinburgh main line in the 1930s. It appears that the SNP's persistence on the matter will finally pay off.
I welcome the Government's ambition to achieve a 35-minute journey time between Edinburgh and Glasgow. The electrification of the route will benefit the population in both cities and in the towns of central Scotland, many of which are in the area that I represent. The eventual electrification of lines to Cumbernauld will also be extremely welcome. Users of those services need and deserve a speedy, reliable service that links to other key routes. That our rail network is largely unelectrified—which is remarkable in the 21st century—works against any ambition for a speedy, reliable service.
I am sure that members agree that Scotland must not be left behind with regard to developments in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. Another motion that I recently lodged noted the launch of France's latest, all-new super-high-speed train, at a time when the UK has only just completed a small stretch of high speed 1 from St Pancras. Scotland lags even further behind the network serving much of the rest of the UK.
That is why I warmly welcome the Scottish Government's commitments to rail improvements in central Scotland. The Government recognises that that investment is a priority for the people of the region and knows the impact that it will have.
Once the infrastructure is in place, the challenge will be to ensure that it is well used. Many of the improvements will benefit and encourage the commuter market, which will help to attain the economic targets that I mentioned. I am keen, however, to find ways to ensure that Scotland's people get the most from investments in central Scotland's rail network. One major disincentive to rail travel is the fares that are charged—both the cost and the structure of the prices. There are savers, super-savers, apex, super-apex, cheap day returns, weekend upgrades—the list of options and alternatives seems to go on and on and presents a cluttered and confusing landscape. At present, some groups benefit from the simplifying effect of a rail card discount. There is a young person's rail card, which I remember from my recent past, a senior rail card, which other members might be able to comment on, and a rail card for young family groups. However, people who do not fall into those groups are left out and might be put off making a train journey by the cost and by the complicated ticket restrictions.
Only three respondents to the previous Scottish Executive's 2006 consultation on the rail strategy believed that the fare structure should not be changed. Research on behalf of the Strategic Rail Authority into a national rail card proposal found that, for seven in 10 potential rail trips—that is, those journeys that a person considers making by rail—the main barrier to choosing rail as the mode of transport was price. That is why the motion suggests that we should consider making a discount rail card more widely available in Scotland. If we make train travel more affordable, more people will be encouraged to take advantage of the rail improvements that the Government is bringing about. In turn, that would help to meet the various goals that a modern, efficient rail network can contribute to. It would be a social leveller and an environmentally friendly way of improving rail travel across the country.
Research that was carried out in 2003 and 2004 for Railfuture and the Strategic Rail Authority showed that a number of different combinations of up-front price and percentage discounts could be profitable. It is important to state that that proposal could be profitable for rail companies. Railfuture found that a UK-wide scheme could attract 2.7 million users of such a card and achieve an 11 per cent increase in passenger miles, with industry profits of £50 million.
Another possible model, featuring a card that would be priced at £30 and offer a 50 per cent discount, forecast a 25 per cent increase in passenger miles. We need look no further than the south-east of England to see a positive example of a rail card in action. The network rail card that is in use there turns a profit for the rail industry while encouraging greater use of the network that connects with central London.
In the course of preparing for the debate, I met various transport operators and rail companies. They indicated a certain amount of interest in the scheme and there was certainly no outright opposition. They all agree that we need to simplify fare structures and encourage more use of the rail network. I have talked about a rail card scheme in the context of possible profitability for the rail operators but, to be clear, I do not believe that that is in itself an argument for introducing such a scheme. The social and environmental purposes of a railway are the most important factors for us to consider in encouraging greater use of the network. Indeed, the treatment of the railway as a profit-oriented business rather than a national public service has in many ways led to years of underinvestment and decline. That decline is only now beginning to be addressed by the kind of improvements to which the title of the motion refers.
I have run out of time, so I conclude by saying that we should aspire to excellence for our rail network. The improvements that the Government is making play a huge part in realising that aspiration to excellence and a national rail card has a huge role to play in that regard.
I apologise for the fact that, due to another appointment, I will be unable to stay for the end of the debate, but I will read with interest the other speeches in the Official Report.
I thank Jamie Hepburn for bringing forward the debate. It gives me the opportunity to highlight some of the areas in which the Conservative group supports very strongly what the SNP minority Government is doing, but also to cast doubt on some of the things that he said and to indicate for future reference where we can offer support to the position that he set out, and where we can offer less support.
The member clearly set out that he believes that the function of the railways in general is to provide economic, social and environmental benefits. I accept that our railways provide social and environmental benefits but—as members would expect—as a Tory, I am concerned about the economic benefits. There have been, some might observe, one or two occasions on which the Conservative party has chosen to support the SNP minority Government on key issues. One of those very few occasions was when we were dealing with the proposal for the Edinburgh airport rail link. The Conservatives supported the SNP proposal that we downscale that quite significantly, in order to free up resources for other important projects supporting railway development—particularly in central Scotland—and, ultimately, for the electrification of the railway line between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
We are proud that we made that decision, because it was an important step forward, but we did so because we believe that the railways are of significant economic importance. They underpin our economy and our economic growth. Ultimately, good-quality economic growth is essential to everything that we wish to achieve, including the provision of good-quality public services. It is for that reason that I am keen to ensure that how we choose to price rail services in the future does not simply rely on some people being able to travel more cheaply than others and some people having to pay more.
I would like a system to be developed that is rather more complex than that and which mirrors, in some ways, the pricing policy that is adopted by the low-cost airlines. For economic reasons, I want to ensure that a high-quality, 35-minute service between Edinburgh and Glasgow is available at times of peak demand to serve the economies of those two great cities, by moving as many people as possible to and from their work so that they can productively generate resource within the Scottish economy. I would like the trains that currently run empty or half empty to be filled with all the people who can take the social benefits of a cheaper rail service.
For that reason, I am not inclined at this stage to support the concept of extending the availability of discount cards. I would rather that a policy was put in place that allowed very cheap fares to be provided at certain times of the day, which would let those who could benefit most take advantage, while ensuring that our economic well-being is the highest priority at the times when the trains are likely to be busiest.
Like Alex Johnstone, I congratulate Jamie Hepburn on securing this members' business debate on the very important issue of our public transport service in Scotland.
As TRANSform Scotland said in its briefing for the debate, there are huge advantages to the expansion of the rail network, particularly in relation to the environment. That is especially true of rail freight. The reduction in emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and various volatile chemicals that comes from using rail compared with even the most environmentally friendly heavy goods vehicles is to be hugely encouraged. It is vital to the economy that we move as much freight by rail as possible.
To be fair to the current Government, it is to be congratulated on continuing, or at least promising to continue, the work of the previous Administration in taking forward commitments to the rail network in central Scotland. There will be improvements in economic and social terms. The projected overall economic benefit of the Airdrie to Bathgate line will be about £700 million in that catchment area. What Jamie Hepburn said regarding the general value of increasing the quality of the service is perfectly correct.
Jamie Hepburn was also right to point out that there have been campaigns for many years—but not conducted exclusively by the SNP—on electrification. Electrification will speed up services and improve the range of travel options, particularly in central Scotland. If the scheme goes ahead, there could, according to my understanding, be as many as four different travel options through central Scotland. That is to be encouraged.
I am concerned about a couple of things, on which I hope the minister will be able to reassure me. There are some unforeseen consequences of speeding up the commuter element of the Glasgow to Edinburgh line. Improvements are now, finally, taking place. Jamie Hepburn and I were involved long and weary trying to get park-and-ride facilities put to ground at Croy. There are similar problems at Polmont, Falkirk High and Linlithgow stations, all of which are on the same line. There are major issues around attracting people to use the service. I use Falkirk High station regularly. Parking a car there after 7.30 in the morning is impossible.
I am given to understand that electrifying the Glasgow to Edinburgh line, shortening journey times and increasing the frequency of the service could have a detrimental effect on access for rail freight that uses the spur out of the port of Grangemouth, as there would be less time for rail freight to use the line. That could have a knock-on effect on the use of heavy goods vehicles. I ask the minister to give me some clarification or reassurance on that. Once again, I thank Jamie Hepburn for securing the debate.
Jamie Hepburn's two elements—of modernisation and cost—are closely linked, as I know from my experience in Germany. That is not just an academic experience, as Deutsche Bahn, the state-owned German railways authority, has run most of our rail freight in Britain since the end of June. Deutsche Bahn has also just taken over Chiltern Railways, which was, in some respects, the best-run privatised rail project. I have the feeling that we will have to get into close negotiations with Deutsche Bahn—and we may learn something from that.
We may learn that if a railway is operating efficiently, it is an extremely good means of paying for the rail vehicles. A stopped train, like a stopped bus or tram, is doing nothing and losing money. If the ways are made clear and the speeds are as rapid as possible, fewer vehicles are required to run the system.
Mr Harvie, could you move your microphone up?
Yes, sorry.
Had we a magnetic levitation—maglev—link between Edinburgh and Glasgow, it could wheech us to Glasgow in eight minutes, so only a couple of coaches shuttling back and forward would be required for the service. On the other hand, our railways did not have the good fortune of being blown flat between 1939 and 1945. We still have a railway line between Edinburgh and Glasgow that was built in 1840 and, apart from the absence of a rope-worked incline to Glasgow Queen Street station, it has not changed since then.
As Hugh O'Donnell said, the railway is used by passengers and freight. These days, the sort of wear that comes from a freight train is often totally different from the wear that comes from a passenger train, as one notices every weekend when one tries to go down to England and discovers that the first 70 or 80 miles have to be done by bus because the track is being improved. I am afraid that, as a veteran in such matters, I do not altogether believe in that improvement. The workmen are simply putting the track back where it was at the beginning of the previous week. We must think about segregating high-speed passenger traffic from freight traffic, which will increase enormously if Deutsche Bahn does the same thing in this country as it has done in Germany, where rail freight is increasing by about 10 per cent per year.
There is one final thing to consider: the notion of making transportation by all modes available by one ticket with one validation. In most of Germany there is what is called a Verkehrsverbund: the passenger buys a ticket that is available for every means of transport and might not even have to show it—that is, if they try to be a Schwarzfahrer, plain-clothes men are liable to lay hands on them and fine them €40 on the spot. That system means that the speed with which people get on and off trains or buses is remarkably rapid. A halt will last only seconds, so there is again the notion of speed. Recently, I went from Fairmilehead to Princes Street by bus and calculated that one third of the time was spent taking fares as people came on. We must have a much more efficient method of dealing with that.
We should consider the Karlsruhe method of amalgamating the tram that is planned for Edinburgh with interurban running through to Glasgow by, say, the Airdrie to Bathgate line. It is now practically standard on the continent—it is standard in France—to have trams that go right out into the countryside and trains that come right into the town. Our future Waverley station should be Waterloo Place and the interurban trams should come along Princes Street from the airport.
I join other members in congratulating Jamie Hepburn on securing the debate, which is on an issue of great importance to many people.
Since the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive agreed to proceed with the Airdrie to Bathgate line, I have missed my regular discussions about trains. I do not have nearly as much experience of these matters as some speakers and my comments may therefore be fairly parochial, but I hope that they will be relevant to the debate.
As members have acknowledged, three rail lines join Edinburgh and Glasgow. All of them run through, and have stops in, my constituency—the Airdrie to Bathgate line will once it is complete.
I remember dreadful experiences of the service from Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk High when I used to travel between Edinburgh and Glasgow. A service that ran every 30 minutes and did not operate at certain times on a Saturday was less than satisfactory. The line has improved much in recent years and now provides a service every 15 minutes for most of the day and has longer operating hours. I particularly welcome the late-night service that is provided during the Edinburgh festival. That kind of response to customer demand is important.
Today, most of the complaints that I receive about the service are about overcrowding. That suggests that the service has become a victim of its own success. Like others, I have pointed the problem out to First ScotRail on many occasions. I hope that the company is looking at how to increase carriage numbers at peak times. As Chris Harvie suggested, increasing the speed of trains might also help to address the problem.
Electrifying the line will improve the service, but I hope that such improvement will benefit everyone along the line, not just those who live in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Electrification must not speed up the journey time between those cities by reducing the service to those such as my constituents in Linlithgow—including the minister—who have made the line a success. The number and frequency of stops on the line must not be reduced. I hope that the minister can reassure me on that.
The minister would be surprised if I did not go into a little more detail on the Airdrie to Bathgate line. As he knows, some outstanding issues remain to be resolved, including the proposed stations at Blackridge and Plains. I understand that he has received a report from Transport Scotland on the Blackridge station. I need not remind the minister that the Scottish National Party promised—here in the Parliament and in the election campaign—to fund the station without any ifs, buts or maybes. Perhaps he can tell me when I will be able to reassure my constituents that the station will be delivered.
Mr Hepburn's motion calls for the introduction of a national rail card scheme for regular train users. Although I support the idea and do not want to let the minister off the hook, I can see that such a proposal might cause problems, not least of which would be identifying who is a regular user. I suggest to the minister that the price of train tickets is the real issue. Prices are too high, as Mr Hepburn said. I am interested in making the train more affordable for more people so that we can protect our environment, which is also mentioned in the motion.
We all agree that we want more people to use train services—electrified or not—but they will do so only if services are reliable and affordable.
I thank Jamie Hepburn for initiating the debate and for recognising the Scottish Government's commitment to improving the rail network. We certainly aim to make the network more attractive to more passengers by providing journeys of high quality and high reliability that offer a genuine alternative to the car.
Since coming into ministerial office, I have made more than 200 journeys by train and rather fewer than that number with the Government car service. I arrived at Parliament today on the 06:30 from Linlithgow. This particular minister is indeed a user of the rail network.
Let me address some points that members raised before I turn to my core statement. At heart, Jamie Hepburn's speech was a plea for a simplification of the fares structure. I must say that I have some sympathy with that, as the current structure can be quite difficult to navigate. For example, the over-55 discount that is currently available is an episodic promotion that continues until the end of March, but several of my friends who—like me—are over 55 were unaware of it despite the fact that they regularly use the train.
By contrast, Alex Johnstone wanted a more complex fares system. I was struck by a vision of what it might be like to arrive at Upper Tyndrum or Corrour station where one had to negotiate on an easyJet basis for the most discounted fare from that station on a particular day. I was less attracted to Alex Johnstone's proposal, but I think that the heart of his suggestion was the desire to drive up utilisation and we are all on track for that.
Hugh O'Donnell raised the issue of speeding up services for commuters. There will be additional connections between Edinburgh and Glasgow when the Airdrie to Bathgate line opens. On the main Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk line, we are looking at increasing the number of services to six per hour, two of which will be direct Edinburgh to Glasgow services, which are the ones that deliver the higher speed. We will also preserve, maintain and enhance the speed for the local connections at Polmont, Falkirk High and Linlithgow. I hope that taking direct, point-to-point traffic off those services will help to reduce overcrowding.
Christopher Harvie praised Deutsche Bahn. In my experience, it has the best database of timetable information, which covers the whole of Europe. I have used it on a number of occasions. I look forward to seeing how its ownership of EWS—English, Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd—makes a contribution.
Mary Mulligan tells me that I have the Blackridge station report in my in-tray. I have not got to that part of my in-tray, but I will certainly give the report close attention because I share Mary Mulligan's interest in making the service the best that it can be.
We are improving the Edinburgh to Glasgow routes and making improvements throughout central Scotland. The electrification of the core route via Falkirk, the route to Stirling and Dunblane and the Cumbernauld line will have a positive impact on commuters throughout central Scotland. Services will be more reliable, they will be quieter, they will have more capacity, and they will be generally more attractive.
However, we are doing more than electrifying services. We are also committed to boosting the number of services. There will be new services from Glasgow Central to Edinburgh and we will improve connections from the south and west of Glasgow and from Prestwick and Glasgow airports to Edinburgh. There will be at least an extra 200 seats per hour with a journey time of a little more than an hour.
As Christopher Harvie said, our rail network opened in central Scotland in 1840. It took off the front of the garden of a house that I used to live in, much to the regret of the person who owned it then. Passenger numbers are at their highest since the 1960s and the number of passengers who choose to use ScotRail services has grown by 24 per cent since the start of the franchise. That is excellent news. In the financial year to April 2007, we had 77.3 million passengers, and the upward trend has continued since then, with a 4.7 per cent increase in passenger numbers compared with the same time last year.
Freight, too, has increased. In the financial year to April 2006, 14 million tonnes of freight was lifted by rail in Scotland, including cross-border freight. That represents a 70 per cent increase in a three-year period. However, we can do better and we can do more. We have put in place gauge relief all the way up to Elgin, thereby connecting the central belt of Scotland, which is the subject of tonight's debate, to wider Scotland.
The performance of First ScotRail has also improved. In the past 12 months, delays have been 10 per cent lower than in the previous year. Performance for the industry as a whole has seen delays reduce by 6 per cent. The public performance measure is set to exceed 90 per cent for the moving target for the first time since October 2000.
People are making positive choices to use the train and we believe that they will continue to do so. I purchase my senior discount card for £20 each year and I get a third off fares. I am certainly prepared to discuss with the Department for Transport the idea of a card that is funded by use of the card. Of course, the idea may well have ramifications beyond the borders of Scotland.
We are funding station improvements, additional station stops, which benefit passengers, and increased opportunities for people to use the rail service. The additional evening service from Edinburgh to North Berwick is but one example.
Transport Scotland will continue its multimodal assessment of transport investment needs throughout Scotland. Longer-term options such as even faster routes will be considered in the strategic transport projects review alongside road and bus options, and the national planning framework gives our aspiration to electrify the whole network by 2030.
There is much to be proud of. I thank Jamie Hepburn for bringing the matter to the chamber for debate. I hope that members agree that rail in Scotland is delivering both for our people and for our economy.
Meeting closed at 17:40.