Rail
The next item of business is a statement from Keith Brown on rail. The minister will take questions after his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions during it.
14:42
Rail transport is vital to Scotland’s success as it supports economic growth, strengthens connections and provides sustainable alternatives to road and air travel. The Government has invested record levels in rail, opening two new passenger lines and seven new stations, providing 38 new trains and increasing train services by 10 per cent. Since 2004, intermodal rail freight traffic has grown substantially and passenger numbers have increased by 30 per cent. We are determined to build on that success and ensure that our railways meet the needs of the people of Scotland.
Rail must form a key part of a fully integrated transport system. Rail passengers are also cyclists, bus users and ferry passengers and it is essential to everyone that journeys are joined-up. We have an opportunity to make that happen in 2014, with the new contracts for rail passenger services and a new funding agreement for Network Rail.
The “Rail 2014” consultation showed the importance that the people of Scotland attach to rail services. It attracted more than 1,200 responses, which are being published today, and I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. I am also grateful to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee for its scrutiny of the issues, and I have today written to the convener to set out how we will pursue its recommendations.
Rail services in the United Kingdom are provided through a private sector model. Although the Scottish network is funded entirely by the Scottish ministers, the structure of rail remains reserved. We have written to UK ministers several times, most recently in February and May, making it clear that we could achieve better outcomes for passengers if Scotland had overall responsibility for rail. I am disappointed that, so far, UK ministers have chosen not to respond. A yes vote in 2014 will enable us to rectify the situation and create a more fully integrated transport network.
In setting out the way forward for Scottish rail services from 2014, I will focus on three areas: the structure of our railways and the requirements that are placed on the rail industry; the future of the franchise; and the benefit to passengers.
I am pleased to announce a £5 billion programme of investment in Scotland’s railways between 2014 and 2019. That will support the delivery of franchised passenger services and enable Network Rail to operate, maintain and enhance the network over that period, which will continue the delivery of the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme and the Borders railway. We will announce further progress on EGIP shortly. Network Rail will also be required to advance a series of strategic enhancement projects, including work on the Highland main line and the Aberdeen to Inverness rail improvements project, as detailed in our infrastructure investment plan.
We are working to future proof the network. Organisations across Scotland have come together to make the case for high-speed rail. We will continue to drive forward work on that while ensuring that EGIP and the other network improvements are compatible with our approach.
We are establishing separate funding streams to provide for future growth. A £30 million fund will support strategic freight enhancements, while £60 million of investment will improve journey times and punctuality, and £10 million will develop future projects, alongside the £30 million that has been announced for new and improved stations. A further £10 million fund will accelerate the closure of level-crossings, to make our railways even safer.
Our requirements and funds are set out in our high-level output specification and the statement of funds available, both of which are being published today. We will issue new guidance to the Office of Rail Regulation on how we expect it to best represent Scotland’s interests.
On taking forward the franchise, we agree with the rail unions and others that privatisation has led to too much fragmentation and additional costs. The rail industry has for too long been distracted by internal arguments over responsibility. We will therefore expect the ScotRail franchise holder and Network Rail to work together to develop a deeper alliance, which will be a significant step towards greater industry integration. The industry should focus on passengers, providing better services and enhancing resilience and operational effectiveness. We expect that deeper alliance to generate annual savings of up to £30 million.
Passengers have made it clear that they value a single focused contract for services across Scotland. We therefore intend to let the next ScotRail contract for 10 years, with a potential break point after five years, to encourage investment and ensure that the franchisee focuses on improving performance, increasing passenger numbers and enhancing the rail experience. We will welcome bids from a wide range of operators, including not-for-profit operators.
When we consider the future of rail services, the Caledonian sleeper stands as a unique and cherished service for rail users to and from Scotland. In December, we announced our contribution to the £100 million-plus of transformational investment in the service. To get the best from that investment and ensure that the Caledonian sleeper remains a unique, valued and high-profile service, we intend to let a separate franchise for it of up to 15 years.
The Caledonian sleeper is more than just a train service; it is sometimes part of a holiday, it is a business office and it can be a hotel. The sleeper is special to passengers and to Scotland. Users should be clear that the improvements will be made in the term of the next franchise. A separate longer franchise, coupled with more than £100 million of investment, will give this historic service the 21st century future that it deserves. The specification of both franchises will be published at the turn of the year.
Of course, our passenger rail network’s primary purpose is to enable travel connections for work, services and leisure. We are determined that passengers will feel the benefit of the new arrangements. Rail fares will be attractive and affordable, and we intend to expand fares regulation to protect those in rural areas, as well as commuters. We will look to the next franchisee to increase passenger numbers through innovative fares packages. That will build on the Stranraer promotion, under which fares will be reduced by 65 per cent. We need the franchisee to use available capacity on off-peak and lightly used services.
We are fully aware that people want joined-up journey options, so we will require bidders to develop plans and proposals for the actions that they can take to link with other forms of transport—bus, bike and ferry. It is sensible to ensure that buses arrive in time for trains and vice versa. To support that, we will expect comprehensive smart ticketing across the network by the end of the franchise.
In line with the digital strategy, which the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment laid out, and in response to business and passenger demand, we will look for wi-fi-type facilities to be available across the network by 2019. In preparation for that, I was delighted to launch the pilot wi-fi programme earlier this week.
Members may recall that, during the consultation, there was discussion about antisocial behaviour and the consumption of alcohol on trains. We had a substantial number of responses on that issue. We will take forward with the franchise holder and British Transport Police more measures to ensure that antisocial behaviour is driven out of our trains.
The ICI committee quite rightly stressed the importance to passengers of trains running to time. We will set a minimum performance level and punctuality targets that will increase over the period. We will also require the industry to publish right-time information for all routes so that we can all see to the minute how services are improving. The industry will also be expected to work with passenger representative bodies to ensure that new performance regimes and information meet their needs.
I draw the attention of Parliament to the issue of indemnity clauses, which the trade unions have regularly raised concerns about. We have decided to review the clauses with a view to developing an alternative approach that is fair to both operators and the workforce.
The response to the “Rail 2014” consultation demonstrated not only the importance that communities place on the railway but their willingness to play a part in it. We want to see that enthusiasm harnessed and promoted. Therefore, we will encourage the creation of local community rail partnerships and will require the industry to work with them to establish facilities and services that address local needs.
We have created a comprehensive package of measures that, working with the rail industry, employees and passengers, we believe will deliver high-quality rail infrastructure and services that are responsive to Scotland’s needs and represent good value for money, while supporting our businesses and communities, promoting tourism and offering real alternatives to road and air travel. Scotland deserves a 21st century railway and this Government will see that that is delivered.
The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement, for which I intend to allow about 20 minutes.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, which represents the end of a protracted climbdown after a much-criticised consultation that proposed ending cross-border services, withdrawing sleeper services and closing large numbers of stations. Those proposals met with opposition not only in the chamber but in communities and from trade unions. We welcome the Government’s change of heart on those proposals.
However, the statement raises further questions. Since devolution, further powers on railways have been devolved to this Parliament. If the Government feels so strongly that more powers are required, why did that not feature as one of its six key demands for the Scotland Bill? The Government seeks to award the next franchise for 10 years. If a private company wins that franchise, is it not the case that that is how our rail services will be run for the next 10 years, whatever the constitutional settlement?
There is another inconsistency in the minister’s statement. Given that he criticises the fragmentation of delivery of rail services, why does he want to create a new, separate, 15-year franchise for sleeper services? That proposal, too, has been met by significant concern from trade unions.
The statement is very light on detail on future fare levels, which were consulted on as well. What will the minister do to prevent big hikes in fares in the future? The statement refers to innovative fare packages, but what future level of fare increases does the minister believe will be reasonable?
I thank the member for the various questions that he asked. First, it is worth pointing out that the extensive consultation that we undertook, which included a number of options, stands in stark contrast to the lack of consultation by the current and previous United Kingdom Governments on the franchises for which they have been responsible. For example, I think that the east coast rail franchise consultation started only this year, even though the contract is to be let for the coming year.
It is quite difficult to climb down from a consultation. We had a genuine consultation in which we asked people for their views as part of a genuine and open debate. Perhaps Richard Baker’s previous allies in the former Administration were strangers to that concept.
I do not know whether Richard Baker picked up this point, but I said during my statement that there will be a break in the 10-year franchise after five years. Things may well change during that time. I am sure that Richard Baker will be aware that a number of different things will apply in 2019. For example, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will come into full effect then, and there are issues to do with the leasing of rolling stock. There could also be significant new constitutional opportunities for a Government of Scotland to take measures to improve the rail service. I would have thought that Richard Baker would welcome that point.
Richard Baker made the point that there will be fragmentation as a result of having two franchises. We were accused of the same thing in relation to the northern isles ferry service—it was said that unbundling the service would be a disaster. What do we have? The same operator operating both services quite happily. It is entirely possible that that could happen here.
This represents a very good deal for passengers across Scotland. It substantially improves the situation that we had under the Labour Party. Richard Baker should not chide us for not having pursued more vigorously the issue of the franchise constraints, because we have done that—we have written to UK ministers repeatedly, but they have not even bothered to give us the courtesy of a response, and they have not listened to us. We have to operate within those constraints. If he thinks that the features are constraining, then perhaps he will be voting yes in 2014 so that we can eliminate them.
I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement, which I read with a degree of relief after some of the tweets that have circulated in recent days. However, some of the answers that the minister has provided have raised more questions than the statement. What does the minister mean by a 10-year franchise with a five-year break? I believe that 10 years is the minimum that is required to encourage a new franchisee to make the investment that is necessary to achieve the passenger comfort levels that he mentions. However, in answer to the previous question, he appeared to make it clear that he can break that contract after five years, which would undermine any attempt to encourage a new franchisee to invest.
I also want to ask the minister about the decision to franchise the sleeper service separately. I understand why a long franchise on that service will be beneficial, but the franchise that it creates will be the smallest of its kind anywhere in the United Kingdom. Does he believe that it can maintain its stability beyond the period of that initial investment and across a full 15 years? I have concerns.
The minister says that he will look at indemnity clauses. I have always seen them as a protection for passengers against industrial relations upsets that could disturb the economy of our nation. Will he guarantee that, if he replaces them, the replacements that he brings in will again protect passengers?
There is a great deal more detail to emerge about the investment and infrastructure. One of the most important issues that are raised in the letters that I get in my mailbag and are raised elsewhere in the country is the desire to see new stations opened across the country. The most recent debate in the chamber on that matter was about Reston station in Berwickshire. Does the minister support that project and other similar ones?
I have not seen the tweets to which Alex Johnstone referred. Obviously, he is a better twitterer than I am. What I announced was that the 10-year franchise will have a break after five years; that is what the word “break” means—the franchise can be broken after five years.
I understand Alex Johnstone’s point about the length of the franchise and the need to encourage investment. However, it is worth looking at the issue more widely. Some of the franchises that are held south of the border are extremely short. One is as short as one and half years, and there have been improvements to more than 50 stations on the line where that franchise is held, so there is no obvious or direct correlation between the length of a franchise and investment. Of course, the issue of rolling stock is dealt with almost separately—it was designed to be done that way so that it could then roll over to the next franchise holder. I do not deny that there is a relationship, but we believe that it is important to have that five-year break to take advantage of other opportunities that might exist.
The separate franchise for the sleeper will give it a real focus. The sleeper is a distinctive service, with a different customer base from the rest of the network. As we know, it is receiving its own capital investment of £100-plus million. It is important that we treat it differently, and the franchise holder has the opportunity to develop it over time. If the franchise holder does that, as I expect that it will, then the answer is yes, we believe that it will be a stable franchise in future.
I do not know why previous Governments introduced the indemnity clause. I understand the point that it protects passengers but, to our mind, there is an element of one-sidedness about it. There is no incentive for people to avoid the dispute if they know that it will not come at any cost to them—that is an issue that we want to bear in mind. As the member asked us to do, we will seek to protect passengers interests, but we will also want to listen to the workforce and the trade unions. That is the right thing to do.
I have mentioned that seven new stations have already been built, one of which is in my constituency. It has been tremendously successful, with more than 400,000 people using it in its first year, which was substantially in excess of the 80,000 predicted. As I said in my statement, we have made available around £30 million to encourage proposals for new station developments, but that will be in the hands of local communities and developers—they will have to come forward with those proposals. In many cases, they will want to contribute towards the cost of that station. We will have to assimilate the cost of the running of the services through the station, but we will work in tandem with local people, communities, and developers, who will also have responsibility for doing the necessary studies to prove that the option is viable. Given that, we will wait to see what is brought to us rather than tell people where stations should be.
Members who wish to ask a question should be aware that time is extremely tight. I recognise the importance of the statement and the fact that questions need to be asked. To allow me to get in as many members as possible, please ask only one question and do not give a preamble. Minister, I would also be grateful if your answers are succinct.
I thank the minister for his statement and welcome what he said, particularly about the recently announced reduced rail fare pilot scheme in Stranraer. What progress has been made to ensure that adequate community transport links are co-ordinated with national services to allow rail passengers who visit the south-west of Scotland to take advantage of the Stranraer reduced rail fare pilot scheme? How will that scheme be promoted nationally as well as to other potential similar schemes as part of our next franchise?
Local organisations are working with Transport Scotland to ensure that there is adequate co-ordination of community transport links in the Stranraer area to allow people, businesses and attractions to make the best use of the fares promotion. It goes in tandem with what I have said about buses, cyclists, and ferries, which I know are also important to the member. We want to have much more integration and to move towards a timetable that makes sense to people who have to use more than one mode of transport.
In his statement, the minister said that rail fares will be attractive and affordable and that he intends to expand regulation to protect some passengers from fare increases. How far will that regulation go, and what steps will be taken to protect passengers who are on low and fixed incomes?
I have mentioned already that we want to look at rural areas in particular. If members look at the work that the cabinet secretary has already undertaken on the Stranraer pilot scheme, perhaps they can get an idea of our intentions. It is quite clear that there is substantial extra capacity on lightly used and off-peak services. We want to ensure that the fares are attractive enough to get more people on to those services, because that will increase funds coming in.
We have a very good record on regulating fares. We have had a substantially lower increase than south of the border by regulating those fares to a lower standard in relation to inflation. We will maintain that good record, but we will also look for further opportunities, especially through pilots such as the one in Stranraer, to get more people on to the railways.
How will any new franchise arrangements facilitate additional passenger services where there is capacity for them, as there is at stations in my constituency?
The railway services that are provided for passengers will be based on the current level of service and the timetables that are in operation now. As I have said, we will specify the franchise in much more detail at the turn of the year. The contract will include the flexibility to provide new services as required, including in the member’s constituency.
The minister’s statement mentions the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme. Is that project on track to be delivered by 2016? Will the electrification of the Cumbernauld line be completed in time for the Commonwealth games, as promised in the games bid document?
On the specific issue of the electrification of the Cumbernauld line before the Commonwealth games, yes, we are proceeding with that.
On EGIP, it is right for us to take into account the possible implications of high-speed rail. We have to ensure that we have a credible and worked-out proposal to make to the UK Government. As I said in my statement, we will take some time and come back with a fuller explanation of what we are doing with EGIP.
The member can be assured that the electrification of the Cumbernauld line is going ahead.
The minister has given a welcome commitment to offering real alternatives to road travel in rail travel and enabling travel connections for work services and leisure. With that in mind, can he say how those commitments might improve the situation that is being endured by my constituents in Monifieth who, as the minister knows, are served by only two trains a day on weekdays?
The member will know that First ScotRail undertook a review of calling patterns between Dundee and Aberdeen in consultation with both the Tayside and central Scotland transport partnership and the north-east of Scotland transport partnership. However, the proposed changes from the 2011 review are still being worked through. We intend that railway services provided for passengers will provide roughly the same level of service to the same timetables that are currently in operation. However, as I said to Jamie Hepburn, the contract will include the flexibility to provide new services as required.
It is important that fares remain affordable, but they are often too expensive and complicated. Can the minister confirm that intercity fares will not be deregulated to allow the new franchise holder to slap passengers with inflation-busting fares increases?
The member should know that the vast bulk of intercity fares are regulated by the UK Government, not by the Scottish Government. There is a direct correlation between fare levels and the funding that is available. Had it not been for the substantial cut to our budget by the Government that he supports south of the border, I am sure that we would have gone even further on fares. As I said in my statement, the general philosophy is that we want to make the railways as attractive to people as possible. We want to get more people on the railways, thereby increasing the revenue that goes to the franchise holder. With that additional money, we can improve services further.
I very much welcome the statement and the support for community rail partnerships, in particular. Can the minister provide any further detail of the application process for the new station investment fund? Will the current scope of a Scottish transport appraisal guidance 2 study provide sufficient information for an application from, for example, Reston or East Linton?
As I mentioned in my answer to Alex Johnstone, when the £30 million was announced it was made clear that it would start from April 2014 and go through to March 2019—the period that we are talking about just now.
I know that there are some well-developed proposals, including the one for East Linton, which the member mentioned. It is only right that, if people want to get on with undertaking a STAG 2 study to get more detail, they should do so, so that they are ready to go ahead with the proposal as soon as we are. Officials are working on exactly what the criteria for that should be, but it is likely that—as I have said before—well worked-out proposals with developer contributions and local authority contributions are most likely to succeed.
Can the minister clarify that he intends to remove the outrageous indemnity clause, which uses public money to undermine workers and disrupt industrial relations? Does the fact that the Government welcomes not-for-profit bids mean that there could be a restructuring of the railways on a public ownership model?
I have made clear the restrictions that we currently have to operate under in terms of the franchise. It was surprising to find out that we cannot have a Government-controlled railway in this country but we can have a railway in Scotland that is controlled by the Governments of other countries. That is the result of the previous Labour and Conservative Governments’ views.
The indemnity clause that the member finds objectionable—I understand the point that she makes—was a creation of former Administrations at Westminster and not of the Scottish Government. We think that there are possibilities for doing that in a way that is much better and fairer to the workforce. As I have said, we will review the situation to achieve that.
I welcome the £10 million to accelerate the closure of level-crossings. When will the Ardrossan trials of mini-barriers on open level-crossings be completed and what are the roll-out plans for the Highland open level-crossings?
Dave Thompson will know that the pilot that has been run by Railtrack will come to a conclusion shortly. I hope that the cabinet secretary or I will be able to join him at the Ardrossan pilot at that time. It is right that we are waiting for that. Network Rail is the expert in the area and, if the pilot provides us—as we hope that it will—with a cost-effective way of reducing the number of level-crossings and increasing the safety of our rail network, the £10 million to which he refers will, I imagine, be superbly used to do that. I know that the subject is of particular interest to the member because of the preponderance of level-crossings in the Highlands.
The minister tells us that there is too much fragmentation but then proposes more. He also tells us that we cannot expect wi-fi across the network until 2019 or smart ticketing until 2024. Is that a joke? Does he have the real statement in his other pocket, perhaps?
I have explained the point about fragmentation. The “deeper alliance” to which I referred—typically, Patrick Harvie ignored that—is a way in which we can have much more integration in the network. There has already been a move towards an alliance, but we are proposing a deeper alliance. For example, when the franchise holder and Network Rail are working on stations, they can use one logo, which will make it straightforward for people to get the right information. They can also work more coherently together, which has not been happening since the railways were privatised. I would have thought that Patrick Harvie would welcome those steps instead of, as usual, taking a pot shot on other issues. He should welcome the extent to which we are integrating our railways, as far as we are able—we would like to go further, but we are not allowed to do so by the Westminster Government. The move will be a vital step forward towards providing a much more joined-up service to the passenger and, in the case of the sleeper service, a much more focused and attractive service.
I welcome the minister’s comments about the commitment to build new stations. Will the minister consider creating a new station or platform at Dalcross, which would provide welcome integration for air passengers and be a major boost to tourists visiting the Scottish open at the nearby, world-class Castle Stuart golf course?
The member will realise that the issues of Dalcross and Kintore stations are being considered seriously, and we expect information to come back to us on those matters. Initially, at least, if such projects are embarked on, they would be outside the £30 million fund that I mentioned previously and would be dealt with as part of general line improvements.
Beyond that, if communities across Scotland believe that they should have a railway station—I can think of one or two such communities that have been mentioned in the past by a member who is sitting very close to me—we will listen seriously to them, provided the proposition is viable and, following a procedure such as the STAG process, it is felt that a rail service is needed there, rather than, for example, a bus service. We will be able to do more if other people contribute towards the necessary work. We are aware that some developers are willing to do so as part of a community gain provision that is attached to a larger development, and councils and regional transport partnerships can also contribute.
I confidently expect more new stations to be built in the course of the next franchise, just as we built seven new ones during the course of this franchise.
Constituency MSPs for Airdrie and Shotts, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, Falkirk East and Falkirk West have all campaigned for new stations in Plains, Abronhill, Bonnybridge and Grangemouth. Can the minister advise whether any of the £30 million funding will go towards building those new stations to fulfil the promises that were made to communities across central Scotland?
My previous answers make the point that funds will be available for those proposals if the proposals are genuinely community based and well worked out and enjoy the support of councils, RTPs and developers to the extent that they will take on substantial elements of the cost, which I believe is the case in relation to Plains. If that is the case, there is more chance of their being successful.
All of the places that the member mentioned can of course put forward proposals, but decisions will be made on the basis of trying to get the best deal for the taxpayer and the passenger. To that end, fully worked-out proposals that enjoy local support—such as the support that North Lanarkshire Council has shown in relation to some of the stations that the member mentioned—will be supported.