Chamber and committees

That would not be appropriate, particularly as we are about to move into procurement. However, I think that everyone has heard what you have had to say, and I am sure that there will be a lot of sympathy towards that from many people.

Yes, that is part of our requirement.

Any investment in rail is good for the rail industry. From here, I will go to speak at lunch time to the Railway Industry Association, which represents a number of Scottish companies and international companies that are based in Scotland. Our approach to rail is looked on with envy from other parts of the UK, because we have had a constant pipeline—whether of track or train—in procurement and, obviously, there are supply companies in that firmament. As part of our contribution to the economic wellbeing of Scotland, we very much want that area—and jobs, apprentices, the skills base and everything else within it—to progress. That is all part of how we see the rail industry in Scotland.

The rail industry and rail provision in Scotland are not just about providing passenger transport, core though that is: they are also about the economic, social and environmental impacts. We look at things in the round in that context, and we are working closely with rail unions in that regard.

In relation to operation for Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh, it is important that the lines for those four cities are all supported.

I understand that 25 trains are being replaced—someone has helpfully indicated to me that that is the number.

The operation of track and train is still fully determined and fully decided by the UK Government, under the Railways Act 1993, and issues still have to be referred to, approved by or agreed by the UK secretary of state. The real problem that we had with the Conservative Government’s rail reform legislation last year was that even had we wanted to make decisions about franchising or other areas, we would have had to seek permission from the UK secretary of state. This is about making more permanent the powers that we have.

I will continue to have that discussion with the UK secretary of state as the UK Government’s second major piece of legislation on Great Britain rail reform comes through.

On that note, I look forward to—

That is an important question. I have been asked in the committee before about replacement of high-speed trains. We have taken the decision that ScotRail can go forward with procurement. It is going to run an open competition for replacement of trains, so it is not possible to say what type of trains they will be. That will be set out when it runs that competition. The requirement will be for trains of an intercity type to serve long-distance travellers, with corresponding levels of passenger comfort and amenities.

On timing, the procurement will start, in relation to the issue of contract details for the procurement, in the next few weeks. As a result of the procurement, there will be determination of what type of trains they will be. We certainly want to achieve carbon reductions. The extent of electrification that is required, for example, will be determined by the outcome of the procurement exercise. However, it is important to reassure you that the cost of infrastructure to support the replacement is part of our financial planning, so we have worked closely with the Exchequer and finance officials to ensure that the potential capital requirements are understood.

As I said, the type of train will be determined in the outcome of the procurement exercise. Any modern train will be cleaner and greener than its predecessor, so I say to members who have asked questions in the chamber about the comfort and experience of passengers that those things will also be improved.

I give the commitment, as I have done in my correspondence with the committee, that we will keep you updated on progress, which will give you some indication of the timeline. However, we are at the start of the process; I thought it important to come to the committee and let you know that the process has now started. We will keep you updated, which will give you the answers that you probably want as to when, where and so on, but we need to let the procurement exercise start.

We either deal with where we are now or we determine that we want to try to cause a fight about the principle of decision making on the issue. It is the case that rail legislation remains reserved. That is why I am referring to the main piece of UK legislation that is coming and our opportunity to have full devolution through it. While UK rail legislation remains reserved, I have the opportunity to ensure that what is a temporary system of public ownership becomes a permanent system of public ownership. I am going to take it; I think that it is important that we take that opportunity.

I could have just said, “Well, that’s it. It’s the summer recess—they can get on with it at some point in the future and we’ll try to get some changes down the line,” but you know that when you have an opportunity for UK legislation—or, indeed, Scottish legislation—to deliver the policy output that you want, you take the opportunity. That is why, while UK rail legislation remains reserved, I want to make sure that the Scottish interest is protected, and the Scottish interest is protected by our recommending that Parliament approve, with legislative consent, the opportunity to make sure that the temporary public ownership of rail becomes permanent.

I will bring Bill Reeve in on that. However, our investment in Network Rail using the current system—remember that CP7 is the first control period that we are going into with public ownership—has gone up substantially. We have a pipeline of activity and works, so the investment is in place.

You are probably trying to get at the displacement of funding from the private companies and how the Government accounts for that. I can give you evidence on what we have done. We are the trailblazers in that area because we have done it for the past two years. I cannot speak for what the new UK Government will do: that would be speculation. From our experience, it should be positive, but I cannot give you firm commitments because I am not responsible for the UK Government’s decisions on the matter.

I ask Bill Reeve whether he can enlighten us about the private train operators’ investment.

There is indeed, and, to be fair, it started under the Conservative Government with the proposal to integrate track and train. Scotland has already done that. We work very well with Network Rail and ScotRail and that work provides efficiencies in investment and planning. I visited the control centre and discussed the multiple storms that we had last year and how we react when there are major weather-related disruptions. The integration of track and train is a positive step forward.

Members will be aware that the previous UK Government seconded Alex Hynes into the Department for Transport to work on the rail reform legislation. I gave evidence on that and I shared my evidence with the committee. That legislation is a step forward for England and Wales but I have concerns about how it might operate in Scotland. The incoming UK Labour Government has picked up the baton on that, and our understanding is that it will take forward a more substantial piece of legislation, which will be the formation of Great British rail. That is the legislation that the committee should take a close interest in. I certainly am, as cabinet secretary, because we do not want to see complete centralisation that would undermine the progress that we have made in integrating track and train.

We want to operate and co-operate with that in a positive way. I communicated some of my concerns to the then chair of Network Rail, Sir Peter Hendy, who is the new UK Minister for Rail, so he should be familiar with them. The issues and concerns that I expressed when I gave evidence to the UK Transport Select Committee just before the close of the UK Parliament still stand.

We have yet to see the substance of that legislation. Given the level of co-operation that we have engendered to date, I hope that there will be a practical way forward to ensure that my concerns will be addressed. Obviously, there is more to do. The bill is short and sharp; it is about bringing rail into public ownership at the end of each franchise.

More substantive rail reform legislation is still to come, and we will need to keep a close eye on that when it is published. In advance of that, I hope that the relationships that we have built to date, at both official and ministerial level, will stand us in good stead so that we can try to make sure that our interests in Scotland are protected.