Chamber and committees

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute, albeit briefly, to today’s debate on the legislative consent motion on the Railways Bill.

As colleagues know, the bill represents a significant reshaping of how rail services and rail infrastructure will be overseen across Great Britain. The Scottish Conservatives recognise that many of the revisions before us are technical in nature and that they follow extensive engagement between the two Governments. However, we also recognise that the bill will not alter the Scottish ministers’ existing powers over ScotRail and the Caledonian Sleeper or the funding and specification of rail infrastructure in Scotland. It is clear that, in several respects, the bill will strengthen formal consultation duties and will provide a clearer framework for interaction between the Governments. Those are sensible steps.

However, our party has a long-standing commitment to a rail system that grows instead of restricts choice, competition and freight capacity, which brings me to the principal issue that prevents me from supporting the LCM today. My concern is focused squarely on the future of open-access operators and freight services. Those operators, such as those running commercially on key inter-city corridors, have been a vital source of innovation, lower fares and improved customer experience. Likewise, freight operators depend on fair and transparent access to the network to support economic growth, decarbonisation and supply chain resilience.

Evidence that was considered by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee made it clear that open-access operators remain unconvinced that the new arrangements will protect their ability to compete on a level playing field. The committee also heard that, although assurances have been offered at United Kingdom level, operators still fear being disadvantaged in a system in which Great British Railways becomes the dominant operator and the main decision maker on access.

We should not underestimate the value of open access to Scotland. Those services bring genuine choice to passengers and reduce pressure on taxpayer-funded operations, and they help to strengthen cross-border links that matter to our economy and our communities. Any framework that risks weakening that model, whether unintentionally or through lack of safeguards, must be approached with caution.

Similarly, on freight, Scotland has ambitious growth aspirations, but growth depends on confidence that freight paths will be protected, that investment will be worthwhile and that decisions affecting Scottish freight will be taken transparently and in the interests of the wider network. The bill includes duties relating to freight, but I remain unconvinced that those duties alone will offset the increased centralisation of access decisions.

For those reasons, although I acknowledge the Scottish Government’s satisfaction with the amendments that have been made thus far, I do not believe that the bill in its current form provides sufficient certainty for operators, passengers or freight customers who rely on open and competitive access to our railways.

The Scottish Conservatives cannot support the motion, but, equally, we recognise the technical nature of many of the provisions and the importance of continued co-operation around rail reform.

17:58

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute, albeit briefly, to today’s debate on the legislative consent motion on the Railways Bill.

As colleagues know, the bill represents a significant reshaping of how rail services and rail infrastructure will be overseen across Great Britain. The Scottish Conservatives recognise that many of the revisions before us are technical in nature and that they follow extensive engagement between the two Governments. However, we also recognise that the bill will not alter the Scottish ministers’ existing powers over ScotRail and the Caledonian Sleeper or the funding and specification of rail infrastructure in Scotland. It is clear that, in several respects, the bill will strengthen formal consultation duties and will provide a clearer framework for interaction between the Governments. Those are sensible steps.

However, our party has a long-standing commitment to a rail system that grows instead of restricts choice, competition and freight capacity, which brings me to the principal issue that prevents me from supporting the LCM today. My concern is focused squarely on the future of open-access operators and freight services. Those operators, such as those running commercially on key inter-city corridors, have been a vital source of innovation, lower fares and improved customer experience. Likewise, freight operators depend on fair and transparent access to the network to support economic growth, decarbonisation and supply chain resilience.

Evidence that was considered by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee made it clear that open-access operators remain unconvinced that the new arrangements will protect their ability to compete on a level playing field. The committee also heard that, although assurances have been offered at United Kingdom level, operators still fear being disadvantaged in a system in which Great British Railways becomes the dominant operator and the main decision maker on access.

We should not underestimate the value of open access to Scotland. Those services bring genuine choice to passengers and reduce pressure on taxpayer-funded operations, and they help to strengthen cross-border links that matter to our economy and our communities. Any framework that risks weakening that model, whether unintentionally or through lack of safeguards, must be approached with caution.

Similarly, on freight, Scotland has ambitious growth aspirations, but growth depends on confidence that freight paths will be protected, that investment will be worthwhile and that decisions affecting Scottish freight will be taken transparently and in the interests of the wider network. The bill includes duties relating to freight, but I remain unconvinced that those duties alone will offset the increased centralisation of access decisions.

For those reasons, although I acknowledge the Scottish Government’s satisfaction with the amendments that have been made thus far, I do not believe that the bill in its current form provides sufficient certainty for operators, passengers or freight customers who rely on open and competitive access to our railways.

The Scottish Conservatives cannot support the motion, but, equally, we recognise the technical nature of many of the provisions and the importance of continued co-operation around rail reform.

17:58

On the subject of public money, the entire premise of the climate plan is that the renewable investment that is outlined happens only because of subsidies from bill payers across the UK.

I want to speak about transport. The SNP Government has committed to reducing car kilometres by 4 per cent and has said that at least 90 per cent of all car sales must be of electric vehicles by 2030. Can the cabinet secretary tell me how much those proposals will cost the average driver and, importantly, how the Scottish Government will ensure that the drive to net zero will not disproportionately impact motorists?

The cabinet secretary has outlined some of the safeguards in the current regulatory framework. A massive data centre proposed in Edinburgh would be similar in size to—and occupy as much land as—the entire ground at Murrayfield stadium. Will the Scottish Government make representations to ensure that a full environmental impact assessment is carried out? That is what communities are calling for, considering the planned diesel backup generators, the impact on air quality and the location of the site on greenbelt land within the Gogar special landscape area.

As Martin Whitfield knows, we support the majority of the proposed changes, but I raise a specific concern about proposed new rule 6.3.4A, which states that the Parliamentary Bureau must ensure that a committee’s members are not all of the same sex. Does he accept that that rule will inevitably result in some women being pressured to join more committees than men and working harder for the same MSP salary? Does he think that that will be in line with equal pay laws?

As Martin Whitfield knows, we support the majority of the proposed changes, but I raise a specific concern about proposed new rule 6.3.4A, which states that the Parliamentary Bureau must ensure that a committee’s members are not all of the same sex. Does he accept that that rule will inevitably result in some women being pressured to join more committees than men and working harder for the same MSP salary? Does he think that that will be in line with equal pay laws?

As Martin Whitfield knows, we support the majority of the proposed changes, but I raise a specific concern about proposed new rule 6.3.4A, which states that the Parliamentary Bureau must ensure that a committee’s members are not all of the same sex. Does he accept that that rule will inevitably result in some women being pressured to join more committees than men and working harder for the same MSP salary? Does he think that that will be in line with equal pay laws?

As Martin Whitfield knows, we support the majority of the proposed changes, but I raise a specific concern about proposed new rule 6.3.4A, which states that the Parliamentary Bureau must ensure that a committee’s members are not all of the same sex. Does he accept that that rule will inevitably result in some women being pressured to join more committees than men and working harder for the same MSP salary? Does he think that that will be in line with equal pay laws?

As Martin Whitfield knows, we support the majority of the proposed changes, but I raise a specific concern about proposed new rule 6.3.4A, which states that the Parliamentary Bureau must ensure that a committee’s members are not all of the same sex. Does he accept that that rule will inevitably result in some women being pressured to join more committees than men and working harder for the same MSP salary? Does he think that that will be in line with equal pay laws?

No, Mr Mason, the Scottish Conservatives could not condone or endorse that—as I think you knew before you put it to me—because it is totally mad, to be frank. [Interruption.]