Chamber and committees

I think that we can all agree on the importance of rail to the Scottish economy and Scottish business, such as in the transportation of whisky and fresh produce, as well as on the importance of rail to the future decarbonisation of transport. Rail also plays a key role in Scotland’s social development. Our railways have long been a backbone of our communities, linking people to work, education and leisure while offering a critical environmental alternative to car travel.

Rather than simply celebrating past achievements, however, the Scottish Conservative amendment calls for a forward-looking strategy that will ensure that the needs of the public and the wider economy are met.

It is vital that the Scottish Government ensures that value for money and passenger satisfaction remain at the forefront of railway delivery in Scotland. The Scottish National Party promised an improved ScotRail when it nationalised the rail service more than three years ago, yet, under the SNP, public transport has become unreliable and far too expensive. Ticket prices and the number of complaints have soared, while the number of services and the number of passengers have plummeted. Indeed, there is not a single mention in the Scottish Government motion of the stark fact that our rail services have never quite got back to offering anything like the same level of service that they offered pre-Covid.

This is part and parcel of today’s debate. The motion that the SNP has lodged looks back. I want to look forward to the future.

Winchburgh is a perfect example of a place that would benefit from a train station; I have been pushing for that in this Parliament for some years now. Winchburgh is a vibrant and growing community in West Lothian, and it desperately needs to be connected to the rail network. The establishment of a new railway station would enhance connectivity, ease traffic congestion in West Lothian and the west of Edinburgh, and support our ambitions to provide sustainable transport solutions. There will be 4,000 new families living there, and they will need that connection.

A new station in Winchburgh is essential. It is not only a necessity to alleviate mounting congestion but critical for the Scottish Government to meet its failing net zero ambitions. That is also true of investment in the Almond chord line, because, if investment was made there, it would make Edinburgh Gateway station, in which £41 million was invested, look like less of a white elephant. The Almond chord line would connect services from Fife to the west of Scotland and, with all the new houses that are being built in west Edinburgh, I know that commuters are crying out for that to be considered.

However, there is no future plan today. In the debate, we are celebrating stations that have come into service, but there is no detail on what stations will come in the future. The Blindwells development in East Lothian will result in 10,000 new homes, but, despite the east coast main line running through that stretch of what is an ever-expanding commuter area, there is only one train per hour. The homes are being touted as commutable to Edinburgh, but it seems that going by car will be far more preferable to taking the train. Residents are buying homes there because they are in easy reach of Edinburgh for social and leisure activities, but they will have to drive. We need to help those people to make the decision to use public transport.

The Scottish Government motion makes no mention at all of new rail building for those vital new communities and homes. Instead, there are dire warnings about threats to the Scottish ministers’ powers. When she closes the debate, perhaps the cabinet secretary might outline what will be done to accelerate badly needed investment in our rail infrastructure, instead of displaying the customary foot dragging that slows up so many practical and cost-effective schemes such as Winchburgh and the Almond chord.

We need investment in the train fleet, which is ageing, and our assets, which are in need of renewal. The future development of our railway is currently hindered by its ageing 19th century infrastructure—we cannot hide from that; it is a fact—and the ageing ScotRail fleet. Joanne Maguire, the director of ScotRail, has said:

“We have got another challenge with ageing—that’s our fleet. We have one of the oldest fleets in Britain.”

On key intercity routes, the reliability of the InterCity 125 fleet has been a persistent disappointment and has led to overcrowding and service disruptions. Rural lines face equally significant challenges. Iconic routes such as the west Highland and far north lines remain plagued by outdated infrastructure and limited amenities, despite our scenic railways holding immense untapped potential.

The Scottish Government is committed to spending in excess of £6 billion on new road capacity on corridors from Perth and Aberdeen to Inverness, yet no similar ambition exists for parallel rail routes. The Highland main line has been left with infrastructure that the Victorians would recognise, while an Aberdeen city deal promise that £200 million would be spent on faster line speeds north of Dundee has been reneged on.

It is vital that the SNP outlines how it plans to future proof the rail network. We have heard about the importance of the supply chain from organisations that are concerned about boom and bust in the investment cycles. The sector faces real uncertainty due to the boom and bust that is part of the cyclical nature of rail infrastructure spending. Businesses want to see a consistent long-term plan so that they can invest in this country, but, as I said, instability hinders long-term planning and discourages new talent from entering the industry.

I have also heard that skills shortages are an issue and that workforce retention is challenging. A notable portion of the rail workforce—9.4 per cent in the past year alone, especially from supplier firms—has exited the industry, and that is causing a critical loss of expertise. Without a steady pipeline of projects, companies struggle to invest in the staff recruitment and training that are needed.

In her opening remarks, the cabinet secretary mentioned the crucial nature of growth in rail freight. That is a strategic priority, but rail faces challenges with cost competitiveness when compared with road transport, especially following the abolition of a key freight support grant for 2024-25. Capacity constraints on critical cross-border and internal routes are hampering growth in rail freight.

There are also challenges with asset renewal. In addition to the cost of the trains themselves, there is significant inflation to contend with, and the supply chain disruptions are challenging.

I have just clocked the time, so I will conclude. We must focus on putting passengers first, cutting waste in bloated quangos, tightening spending rules and focusing every penny on delivering a safe, reliable and modern railway that delivers value for money for taxpayers, commuters, businesses and our economy.

I move amendment S6M-18763.1, to leave out from first “welcomes” to end and insert:

“urges the Scottish Government to ensure that value-for-money and passenger satisfaction remain at the forefront of railway delivery in Scotland; notes that the cross-party support for the removal of peak rail fares was made possible thanks to a Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party motion that called on the Scottish Government to remove them; recognises the importance of rail to the Scottish economy and business, such as in the transportation of whisky and fresh produce, and agrees that rail is important to the future decarbonisation of transport; notes that new railway developments should be linked to future centres of population growth, such as at Winchburgh, and calls on the Scottish Government to outline how it plans to deliver upgraded rail links in existing towns and villages, and connect those that do not have a rail link; recognises that future development of the railway in Scotland is hindered by aging 19th century infrastructure; calls on the Scottish Government to outline how it plans to future-proof the rail network, and urges the Scottish and UK governments to outline how they will work together to deliver private investment in the rail network.”

You have mentioned lines from east to west, but will you comment on the need for the Almond chord in order to revitalise and bring back to life the lemon of a station that is Edinburgh Gateway, which is largely unused?

That is great. My next questions were around the implications that we should be aware of in relation to MSP candidacy. I would probably ask for more information and more detail on that, because, as somebody who would be both an MSP and a candidate, I can say that that is complicated enough at the best of times. How easy would it be for us to grapple with that? Is there anything that the committee needs to reinforce for the future?

Mr Highcock, the EMB has raised concerns about the proposal to reduce the period of dissolution from 28 to 20 working days. You said:

“in the view of the EMB, this would be an unacceptable change which would place the delivery of elections at severe risk … To limit the timetable to 20 days would leave insufficient time for postal ballot papers to be produced, dispatched and returned.”

Have there been any discussions between you and the Government since May 2024 that have reduced some of the concerns that you set out previously?

Therefore, are you confident that the issues with the postal ballots have been resolved and that there are suitable measures in place?

I did not, because the budget is not about one specific thing; it is about a collection of things. There were many things in the Government’s budget that we would never prioritise ahead of other things.

I am pleased that the SNP has U-turned on peak rail fares. We have seen all the SNP’s tweets and other social media posts congratulating itself on reversing its own decision. I am glad about the decision. However, sadly, some passengers will still miss out, despite the sudden SNP U-turn, as is always the way when we scratch underneath for the detail.

Those with a club 50—or over-50s—rail card cannot get a discount with that card until after the old peak time. We have had lots of numbers today, so I will give just one example. On a 9.15 am service from Waverley to Queen Street, they will pay £16.80, but, at 9.30 am, it will be £13.40. People with other rail cards can get that discount, so why is it not the same for everyone?

I want to make sure that the detail is provided and that everyone can benefit from there being no peak rail fares. We have also heard that consumers paying the anytime fare, no matter what time of the day they travel—I am getting a bit mixed up with my notes here. I apologise, Presiding Officer.

Mr Doris said that it is not just about affordability but about services being accessible and reliable. We know that cheaper rail fares in Scotland will contribute to our net zero goals and better connectivity, so we need to encourage people to leave their cars at home. We want them to choose rail travel, because we know that it reduces congestion, lowers emissions and will support our climate targets.

Although encouraging a shift from the car to the train is a worthwhile goal, it does nothing to address the underlying issues that Scotland’s rail system faces overall—the unreliable services, the frequent cancellations and the underinvestment in key routes. We heard some of the specifics from Mr Doris, including the need for Sunday services at Maryhill. We need greater frequency rather than one train an hour.

Consumer Scotland research shows that 11 per cent of consumers feel that lack of safety is a barrier to adopting more sustainable travel methods. It is not just about fares but about accessibility, reliability and passenger safety.

Police Scotland figures, which were obtained by the Scottish Conservatives during the summer, have revealed that assaults and threats at bus stations have soared by 65 per cent in one year. The number of police call-outs to assaults at Glasgow’s Buchanan bus station rose by 85 per cent, while the number of call-outs to Dunfermline bus station increased by 133 per cent. Does the cabinet secretary believe that that is acceptable? What action is being undertaken to ensure that hard-working commuters feel safe?

I thank Mr Doris for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is great to be back after our summer recess and to talk about something that people care about so much.

Nicola Sturgeon promised passengers that Scotland’s rail service would improve under Government ownership, yet things are manifestly worse than they were under Abellio. Public transport has become unreliable and far too expensive. Taxpayer subsidies, ticket prices and the number of complaints have all soared, but the number of services and the number of passengers using them have plummeted.

It was the Scottish National Party’s decision to reintroduce peak fares on ScotRail trains last year. That was a disastrous decision, because it punished hard-working Scots, who paid hundreds or thousands of pounds more simply to commute to their work.

Our party, the Scottish Conservatives, campaigned against that. Despite being defeated in the Parliament last September on a Scottish Conservative vote on the issue, the SNP at that time refused to budge, claiming that abolishing peak fares permanently was unaffordable. We have always campaigned to permanently scrap peak fares, because we want to ease the burden on hard-working Scots.

If the CPG on deafness was to include visual impairment, there might be an obligation on the organisations that attend the CPG on visual impairment—such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Royal National Institute of Blind People—to attend the other CPG as well, and it might also put more pressure on small charities and people who are interested. I know that the CPG on visual impairment is doing some specific work with Stuart McMillan, its convener, which I have been involved in through my work on floating bus stops. We are aware of their impact on deaf people and people with visual impairments.

I am really concerned by the prospect of expansion, and I recommend being a bit more firm, convener.