Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 8, 2021

Official Report 989KB pdf

---

East Kilbride Rail Line Dualling

I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-01675, in the name of Graham Simpson, on East Kilbride rail line dualling. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the reported announcement by Transport Scotland that the single track part of the rail line between East Kilbride and Glasgow is not now going to be dualled as, it understands, had previously been promised, and that the money will be spent elsewhere; sees this as a missed opportunity to persuade more people to travel by train; notes the view that improving public transport connections is vital if Scotland is to achieve a shift away from cars, and further notes calls on the Scottish Government to reconsider what it believes to be this short-sighted move.

17:30  

I thank all the members on all sides of the chamber who signed the motion that has enabled us to have this debate.

I start with a quote:

“the East Kilbride line is one of the areas that we have identified. I was there fairly recently, and the investigation works have started. The work involves not only electrifying the line but dualling it, which will provide it with much greater resilience and capacity to help to support the people who make use of the services. It also involves enhancements to East Kilbride railway station which, in my view, is unacceptable in its present form. That is why that work is one of the early actions that we intend to take forward.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 2 September 2020; c 34.]

Those were the words of the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, Michael Matheson, when I questioned him at the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee in September last year. That is the same Michael Matheson who described the service to East Kilbride as “inadequate” and not “up to scratch”. While posing in a hard hat on the line, he said:

“The combination of projects at East Kilbride and Hairmyres will transform the services into Glasgow in the next four to five years and is part of a major investment by us ... We want to make sure the line is able to cope with ever growing demand for rail services on this route and these are ambitious plans to take forward for the benefit of those who make regular use of the service on this line.”

One would think that all was well—and it was, until October, when Transport Scotland sneaked out the announcement that we are not actually going to get a dualled line between Busby and East Kilbride and that the line will be decarbonised, which may or may not mean electrified. The line from East Kilbride runs into Glasgow, through part of East Renfrewshire and then through the south side of the city. Going from East Kilbride, it is a single line until Busby, apart from a small loop at Hairmyres so that trains can pass each other. Only diesel trains operate on the line, and it is clear that, if we want to get to net zero, we need to tackle such lines.

We also need to encourage people on to the trains. One problem with a single-track line is that, if problems occur, as they do, the trains just stop. If they are coming from Glasgow, they usually go no further than Busby. That is why I, along with the former MSP for East Kilbride, Linda Fabiani, and others, have been pushing for years to get the line dualled and electrified. As members have heard, we got agreement for that, but it has now been torn up, with no consultation whatsoever.

The member makes an important point about reliability and resilience. That lesson has surely been learned the hard way on the Borders railway, which was curtailed with significant sections of single-track line. That now presents a huge problem for the reliability of the line, with massive delays as a result of those single-track sections, which resulted from Transport Scotland’s value engineering of the project.

Mr Sweeney is absolutely right—the Borders railway is in the same position.

The minister and I have spoken about the East Kilbride line, and I thank him for that. He will say that there is potential for the £40 million cost of dualling the line to spiral. However, there is such a risk with any infrastructure project, and it has to be factored in. It does not mean that the project should not be done.

Collette Stevenson, the new MSP for the town, has been quoted as saying that £100 million is still being invested in the East Kilbride corridor—I assume that she is referring to the entire line into Glasgow—which, in her view, is

“great news for the people of the town”.

It is great news for the town only if there is a guarantee of more trains; a guarantee that no hold-ups will be caused by there being only one line; and a guarantee of extra car parking at the new Hairmyres station rather than the reduced number of spaces that is now being mooted. I am afraid that none of that is being delivered right now, so it is not good news for the town at all, and it is not gesture politics to point that out.

East Kilbride is growing at a rate of knots; thousands of houses are being built on what was green-belt land to the south-west of the town. We should be doing all that we can to encourage the people who live in those houses to use the train, so we should be increasing the capacity and frequency of services. We should not be taking a short-term view based on current usage, because it will bounce back. I see the minister shaking his head, but it is a short-term view.

At one time, the line continued from East Kilbride to Hamilton. When East Kilbride became a new town in 1948, the line beyond the town was closed, and in the mid-1950s, the dualled section from Busby became single track. Diesel replaced steam in the 1960s, and in 2000 the Hairmyres loop was built, which allowed for a half-hourly service.

Of course, we are not the only place to have a single-track line and diesel trains. The Borders line, as Paul Sweeney mentioned, is the same. The line from Perth to Inverness is single track, and so is the far north line. There will be others that members may wish to highlight. All those deserve investment, too—it should not be a case of divide and conquer. If we are serious about cutting carbon emissions from transport, we need to persuade people that they are better off not driving.

East Kilbride could be a great example of what can be done, and the ambition should not end at dualling and electrifying the existing line. Right now, if someone wants to get anywhere in Scotland from the country’s biggest town—people from Paisley may disagree with that title—they have to go via Glasgow or drive. If we are to be truly radical, we should look to go beyond dualling only to East Kilbride. Why should we not extend the line again, maybe even to Hamilton at some point in the future?

I will end with the quote that I started with:

“The work involves not only electrifying the line but dualling it”.

That is a promise, and no amount of weasel words can wriggle out of it.

17:37  

I have made it clear that I believe that electrification and dualling of the East Kilbride line would offer the best outcomes. I have been saying that all along to those who have been in touch with me regarding the issue, and I am happy to have that on the record. I welcome today’s debate from Graham Simpson, and I look forward to hearing from other members as it progresses.

On 8 October, I was made aware of the Scottish Government’s plans to electrify the East Kilbride railway line. The press release on Transport Scotland’s website stated:

“By progressing with single track this allows funds to be reallocated to other decarbonisation projects such as Borders electrification.”

Other than confirmation that electrification was to take place, there was a lack of detail on what the improvements to station and passenger facilities along the two routes would be. I have had confirmation from the transport minister on what that work entails. It involves moving Hairmyres train station, and the creation of hundreds of parking spaces to accommodate future demands, where more can be added if required.

I welcome plans to encourage active travel and the commitment to electrification of the line, which will decarbonise our railway by 2035. However, I have heard from several constituents who feel that the town has been short changed, and that current plans to only enhance the single track do not go far enough to accommodate future demand.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, thank you. I would like to continue.

We can all understand that the pandemic has hit revenue but, if uncertainty about future use of the line is cited as a reason for changing the plans, it surely makes more sense to dual it. As the transport minister will be aware, my position is that if we are upgrading the line now, it makes sense to dual it now, thereby avoiding additional costs and disruption, rather than do so years down the line.

Constituents have queried how much dualling would cost, so I would appreciate a steer on that. The Scottish Government suggests that the geotechnical conditions between Busby and Hairmyres are challenging and that double tracking would require significant earthworks to be undertaken, carrying a high degree of risk. We can assume that that is true of any project of that size. However, I would appreciate confirmation of what survey work has been carried out to date, with more details on the challenges that have so far been found.

Can the minister confirm whether current plans can accommodate four trains per hour outside the peak period with the enhanced loop? I have not been swayed that longer trains are the solution to ease pressure, and Network Rail has not been able to give a direct answer on that.

I have asked a number of questions on the matter, and I would appreciate an update in the new year as developments progress. Ultimately, the enhancements are good for the town, and the plans will ensure a more reliable and greener service, which I am sure will offer locals a real alternative to using the car. I simply want the best for the people of East Kilbride, and I want the right decisions to be made to future proof the line.

17:41  

I am contributing to the debate because a large section of the line that we are discussing runs through my Eastwood constituency. I thought that I was doing quite well, with eight stations in my constituency. I now discover, however, that Stuart McMillan has 22 stations in his constituency, although quantity does not mean quality. Nonetheless, I have eight stations in my constituency, and the line runs directly through it.

It is important to consider some of the positives. First, I am delighted that the electrification of the line is a fundamental part of decarbonisation, and that it will make a significant difference to that in the years ahead. Secondly, I am grateful that, in response to representations that I made—and I make this point despite Collette Stevenson’s remarks just a moment ago—Network Rail increased capacity on the line from four carriages to six carriages during peak times. I know that constituents in Eastwood, as well as those in East Kilbride, I am sure, were happy to get a seat in the train, because many of them had found themselves standing during peak periods. The service that is on offer has definitely been enhanced.

However, the decision was made not to proceed with the dualling, from Busby, the last point of civilisation in Eastwood before one heads out towards Thorntonhall and East Kilbride. My constituency would quite happily annex Thorntonhall, were the residents there and the Boundary Commission for Scotland willing so to consider. Nonetheless, as we move through Thorntonhall to East Kilbride, we resort to a single track. I regret that, because all eight of those stations in Eastwood are historical; they were all there in the 1930s. They are all at what one would regard as one point at the north end of the constituency, not the south. Yet, the population, expansion and development of Eastwood and East Renfrewshire has massively been in a southwards direction, with virtually no public transport infrastructure at all. FirstBus has also been significantly reducing the bus services that are available there, so there is no option for many constituents, particularly those living in new housing developments, but to use their car.

I would have preferred and hoped for the dualling to continue, because I would very much like future consideration to be given to a spur from a dualled track to East Kilbride, which could swing round the back, towards the new developments in Maidenhill and up towards Whitelee wind farm, which would afford public transport access to the whole of the south side of the expanding population in Newton Mearns and Maidenhill. We should be looking to provide additional people with access through public transport options; that would be a long-term and worthwhile project. It will be almost impossible to achieve, however, if we only have a single track on the line.

I can see the minister sitting there, shrinking in shame at this development, particularly as, only a fortnight ago, the United Kingdom Government announced a £10 million investment in the Whitelee wind farm, with carbon capture, allowing for some 250 bus journeys a day to be made between Glasgow and Edinburgh on a completely decarbonised basis. The UK is investing in the future of decarbonised transport, while the minister sits there and cuts the options.

The only people who should be shrinking with shame on the issue of rail investment are the Tories, given what is happening south of the border. While the Scottish Government is investing heavily in rail and rail infrastructure, the United Kingdom Government is imposing swingeing cuts on rail.

As the minister knows, the UK Government would be only too delighted to assist in transport projects in Scotland, if only Scottish Government ministers would get off their high horses and sit down to have those conversations.

Nonetheless, I think it important that the commitments that were given are honoured to make any future additional rail transport options feasible. I know that many of the improvements that have been made are positive, but this decision is a retrograde step that, given long-term population expansion, people—and, indeed, the Government—will come to regret.

17:45  

I thank Graham Simpson for bringing this debate to the chamber.

Upgrading the East Kilbride line has been a long-standing objective of campaigners through the decades. As we have just heard from Jackson Carlaw, the line serves growing populations across the south side of Glasgow, East Renfrewshire and East Kilbride. However, although those communities have changed dramatically over the years, the railway itself has not, and passengers have raised with me their frustrations with an increasingly dated railway. For example, I have met commuters on Thornliebank station platform and heard at first hand their concerns about the frequency of services, breakdowns and, at that time, excessive overcrowding.

The adoption of Network Rail’s electrification enhancement proposals was set to be a game changer, with sections of double track or loops between Hairmyres and Busby stations facilitating more trains to East Kilbride. The decision to take forward those enhancements was welcomed by the community served by the line; it was the flagship of the Government’s rail decarbonisation plan; and the Transport Scotland and Scotland’s Railway websites were peppered with references to double tracking on the East Kilbride line to facilitate a more frequent service and more double tracking at the single-line section between East Kilbride and Busby.

Make no mistake—the working assumption of the Scottish Government and its partners on the ground was that the electrification of the East Kilbride line included dual tracking after Busby. Moreover, the assumed dual track would have made it possible to improve the frequency of services to four trains per hour not just at peak times but beyond that. It is astounding that Scotland’s largest city and Scotland’s second-largest town are still connected by a two-train-per-hour service for so much of the day. The failure to improve rail links between two of our largest settlements represents a failure to improve rail links for my constituents in East Renfrewshire and everyone else in between.

The project would also alleviate pressure on Glasgow Central station by reducing platform occupancy times, which would bring benefits to the whole city region. The customer outcomes from upgrading the line as set out by Network Rail include greater punctuality, quicker journeys, more seating capacity and, crucially, more trains.

However, the Scottish Government has now chosen not to implement Network Rail’s proposals in full and, by its own admission, is limiting the network’s capacity to provide more trains on cost grounds. There is nothing too impossible, nothing too difficult or, indeed, nothing unaffordable about double tracking the East Kilbride line, and the Scottish Government is choosing to divert funds elsewhere rather than future proof the line. Such short-term financial decisions are to the long-term detriment of the suburban rail network, and the move will not deliver modal shift but further entrench car dependency.

The Scottish National Party has to come clean: it has no plan to build back services to pre-pandemic levels, never mind improve them. That is why it will not disown the discredited Docherty report and why it is raiding the budget for the East Kilbride line. The Tory Government’s decision to scrap the eastern leg of high-speed rail 2 was met with opposition across the north of England. In the words of Andy Burnham, levelling up

“means bringing forward your best solution, not a cut price solution.”

However, that is precisely what the SNP transport minister is doing in the west of Scotland. This is a cut-price solution, not the best solution, for our communities, and it is a betrayal of the passengers who have endured overcrowded and inadequate services for years and the local economies that are counting on rail improvements to boost their recovery.

My constituents in East Renfrewshire, where the line is already dualled, need double tracking after Busby just as much as the people of East Kilbride or Glasgow, because it is only by extending the double track that we can secure for the future the full benefits of Network Rail’s original proposals. Those proposals would mean more trains that would be quieter, quicker, greener and more frequent and could meet the aspirations of the passengers whom I met in Thornliebank and many more like them in Busby, Clarkston, Giffnock and all along the line.

The Parliament should stand united in telling the Scottish Government to get dualling back on track, and that is why Labour is calling on the SNP-Green Government today to reverse the decision to drop dual tracking and to upgrade the East Kilbride line in full.

17:50  

I thank Graham Simpson for bringing the issue of East Kilbride rail line dualling to the Parliament for debate. As has been mentioned, given that the East Kilbride line travels through East Renfrewshire, it is obviously of significant interest to those of us who represent the area as constituency or regional MSPs.

Ensuring that public transport infrastructure is fit for the 21st century is key to encouraging modal shift and getting people to move away from cars to meet the Scottish Government’s targets to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent, to cut our carbon emissions and to ensure greater access for those who do not have access to a car.

Given my interest in the sections of the track that run through East Renfrewshire, I highlight that, in debates on improving the line, comments are sometimes made about the comparatively high levels of car ownership in areas such as East Renfrewshire, which are relatively prosperous. However, 15 per cent of children in that community live in poverty. That is hundreds of families. When assumptions are made about areas with high levels of car ownership, those assumptions are to the significant disadvantage of the families that are left behind, which are further marginalised.

I have campaigned for improvements on the line for a while. In fact, two years ago, I secured an additional £5 million fund for improvements to the Milngavie and East Kilbride lines. Unfortunately for East Kilbride, that fund was, in the end, used entirely for a specific £5.5 million upgrade project on the Milngavie line. That was entirely justifiable, given that that has consistently been the worst-performing rail line in Scotland; in fact, before the pandemic, it regularly saw fewer than one in four trains arrive at Milngavie station on time. However, both lines share the need for much more substantial infrastructure improvement. They both require dualling if they are to have the frequency of service that we need to drive modal shift and the level of reliability that is required to make them a viable and attractive alternative to cars.

As was noted, single-track lines or single-track sections of lines across the country have consistently presented obstacles to wider capacity and performance improvements. Some of those are historical legacies from a century or more ago, and many are the result of a deeply misguided programme in the late 1980s and early 1990s whereby twin-track lines had one track removed for financial reasons. Some are the result of more recent decisions that have, I believe, again been made on a financial basis.

I welcome the £100 million-worth of improvements that have been and are being delivered on the line, including improvements to make Giffnock station more accessible to my constituents. That is a necessary step towards decarbonising Scotland’s transport infrastructure. As transport is the one area in which emissions have consistently risen, electrification of the rail network is essential if we are to meet our emission reduction targets.

That is why it is disappointing to hear that the long-proposed dualling between Busby and East Kilbride will now not proceed, despite past commitments. I know that that view is shared by my Green colleague for Central Scotland, Gillian Mackay. She wrote to the minister to highlight her dismay at those reports. She rightly noted that protecting and improving services is key to restoring confidence in public transport as we come out of the pandemic, and she noted that regions across Scotland should not need to compete for funding for essential upgrades. Apparently, the money for dualling the line had been reallocated to electrification of lines elsewhere.

In response to Gillian Mackay’s letter, the minister said that one of the reasons for scrapping the dualling is the level of anticipated demand after Covid. I find that to be a troubling rationale, because it suggests that Government policy making should be led by external forces rather than used as a tool to proactively drive up the use of public transport. If the justification for reduced capacity is that fewer passengers are returning to the railways, that outcome is being guaranteed by providing them with inadequate capacity to return to and failing to deliver the improvements that have long been needed. That is precisely why the co-operation agreement between the Greens and the Scottish Government includes £5 billion of investment in our railways across this parliamentary session.

We should be making it easier, not harder, to use public transport, as we are doing for buses, with our free travel scheme for under-22s, and we should be investing the money that is needed to meet the scale of the challenge that we face in cutting our transport emissions. Scotland needs to deliver a more effective and more attractive transport network that draws more people on to our railways, and there is no reason to leave East Kilbride behind in that agenda.

17:54  

Greater Glasgow has the second-largest urban railway network in the United Kingdom, but it is fair to say that it is less than the sum of its parts. If we are to invest in it seriously, we must commit to a vision of a 15-minute service in all parts of the city. Shifting to that turn-up-and-go frequency would unlock true modal shift and move people on to the railways.

I do not know how many members frequently travel by rail. When I wake up in the morning and try to figure out whether I will miss my connection from the subway to the railway service by one minute, which would mean waiting half an hour for the next train, that is a significant deterrent to deciding to take the train rather than the car, particularly if I have to get to an appointment under time pressure.

Glaswegians make such decisions and calculations every day of every week. Because services in our transport system across the greater Glasgow region are so infrequent, the system is not up to metro-level standard, which is why it is not being fully utilised and why we are not reaping the full benefits of the great legacy of infrastructure that was built in the 19th and 20th centuries, even despite the 1960s Beeching cuts.

We need to look seriously at how to build the commitment. The strategic transport projects review that is coming up will look at the idea of a Glasgow metro. Surely a key and critical component of such a metro is connecting East Kilbride—the sixth-largest settlement in Scotland, which is in the greater Glasgow region—to the urban centre of the city region, which is Glasgow city centre, in a way that means that people do not have to look at their watches but can turn up at the station and see a train arriving within 15 minutes to take them to where they need to go.

I recognise the member’s argument, which is why the proposal for a Clyde metro system takes account of the several local authorities that are involved. Does he accept that rail is only one component and that there will be other components to achieve what he looks for? I am not speaking specifically about East Kilbride, but there might be light rail or enhanced Glider-type bus services. A metro scheme will take in a raft of transport modes.

I recognise that. For example, there is a proposal to convert the Cathcart circle to light rail, which would unlock capacity at Glasgow Central station. East Kilbride could be a candidate in the future for light rail conversion, which could increase frequencies and fully unlock the line’s potential. However, we would still need the reliability of dual tracking to do that—even tramways need dual track. Even if the system used light-rail rather than heavy-rail vehicles, the same principle would apply—we need dual tracking to provide the through ways and the reliable service.

It is one thing to model on a computer a frequency of four trains per hour, but we know from the bitter experience of the Borders railway that, in reality, the service is not as reliable as that. As Ross Greer showed in relation to Milngavie, we have a similar constraint on that part of greater Glasgow’s network.

We need the commitment to dual tracking. The risk is not just about the earthworks required in building a dual-track system; it is about the service’s lack of reliability. That will deter people from choosing to take the train when they are hard pressed at 8 o’clock in the morning and thinking about whether they will get to work on time if they miss their connection by two minutes. They would then have to stand at a platform, possibly in winter, for half an hour to wait for the next train, rather than getting a train within seven or eight minutes, as people would in London. At any point in the day across London, it is par for the course to turn up and get a service within a few minutes.

We need such ambition for Scotland’s largest city if we are to unleash the economic potential of the greater Glasgow region. A measly attempt is being made to quietly downgrade the East Kilbride line proposal after the great bombastic statements from the then Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity about how it was not up to scratch and dual tracking was needed. That is being done surreptitiously, without true scrutiny and without any clear publication of the justification. Given how difficult it is to get railway upgrades done and to get business cases approved, to quietly downgrade a proposal seems like a double standard.

We need to apply the same level of scrutiny to the justification of the downgrade; the case has not been presented. I ask the minister to please have more ambition for greater Glasgow. This is a one-way bet—let us dual track the East Kilbride line and unlock the greater Glasgow region’s potential.

17:58  

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, and I thank Graham Simpson for raising this important debate.

Here is a simple test: is the Government prepared to improve the everyday lives of the people of Scotland to a level that matches its COP26 summit rhetoric? Is it prepared to speak through its actions, not just with its words? Or with the banners now folded, the flags taken down and the sounds of protest which filled the streets of Glasgow now fading, is the Scottish Government going to make the climate catastrophe not better but worse?

We were told at the weekend by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy that tomorrow’s budget will be

“a stepping stone towards a fairer, greener Scotland”.

She did not leave it there. She went on:

“That is our social, economic and environmental imperative.”

So, the question that the Parliament is asking of the Government is this: where is that imperative when the transport minister is happy to slash Scotland’s rail services across the board by 10 per cent? Where is that imperative when the planned double tracking on the line between Busby and East Kilbride, which is at the centre of Transport Scotland’s decarbonisation action plan, faces cancellation?

At the very point when we need ambition, we are given managed mediocrity. At the very point when we need vision, long-term thinking and investment in public transport, the people are offered short-sighted cuts and Government indifference.

I read with interest the transport minister’s recent interview in Holyrood magazine. I say to him that he cannot tell us that he has seen the light about rail transport in Scotland and then close his eyes to it in South Lanarkshire. He cannot tell us one week that

“We should be very clear rail is devolved; it is for us to decide what Scotland’s railway will do”,

and tell us the next week that it is somehow out of his hands. So, I say to him that we need the same toughness to resist these cuts and to boldly invest in the railway as we see in the fight over where decision-making power lies in the railway.

This is about how we organise the future, but it is also about what future we want to organise. Earlier this week, I read an open letter to MSPs from Kevin Lindsay of the train drivers’ union ASLEF in which he calls for action in tomorrow’s budget to reduce passenger fares, invest in freight and reject the proposed cuts to services. He is right.

In recent weeks, we have seen a report, supported by all four rail unions—the RMT, the TSSA, Unite and ASLEF—in which they argue for the expansion of Scotland’s railways, not their contraction, and call for the transport minister to reject the Docherty proposals and the Abellio plans to axe 300 trains a day. The unions’ clear demand, and my unflinching message to the minister and to the Government—including to its Scottish Green party members—is this: reinstate the dualling of the East Kilbride line; drop the plans to axe ticket offices; and ditch the proposals to cut jobs and to undermine workers’ terms and conditions. Once and for all, do the right thing and reverse these cuts—your cuts—to Scotland’s railways.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer, it was remiss of me not to refer members earlier to my entry in the register of members’ interests. Earlier this year, I received a financial donation from a rail union, the RMT.

Thank you, Mr Greer; that is now on the record.

18:03  

I genuinely welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate on the East Kilbride rail project, not least because it provides an opportunity to clear up one or two misunderstandings.

I am sure that, like thousands of rail passengers along the East Kilbride to Glasgow rail corridor, Parliament welcomes the commitment to the full electrification of the East Kilbride line—we have heard members welcoming that. I hope that that clears up Graham Simpson’s question about full electrification.

This exciting project will not only further our ambitious plans to decarbonise Scotland’s railways by 2035 but deliver a sustainable travel option for rail passengers from East Kilbride and its surrounding communities—one that will use cleaner, greener trains and meet anticipated demand well into the foreseeable future.

We all recognise the need for wider decisive action to meet the challenges of the climate emergency. The substantial overall investment in the East Kilbride line that we have announced, which will rise to at least £120 million, will deliver not only electrified services but significantly enhanced station and interchange options for the travelling public. Those will make rail services more attractive and accessible and will encourage a modal shift from the polluting car to a fully decarbonised rail corridor.

I will address the issue of dualling. I agree that dualling was talked about, but it was never a specific requirement for the route. What was required was a project that would meet peak passenger capacity into the foreseeable future in a decarbonised way.

Dualling was certainly an option that was considered in the business case development process, but the cost was prohibitive and it simply did not offer value for money or represent the best use of scarce public finance resources, when it was possible to meet expected demand with the approach that is being taken.

I want to make this clear: there is a bit of a myth that Network Rail’s proposal was vetoed by Transport Scotland. However, the proposal that came to Transport Scotland for approval was a joint proposal from Network Rail and ScotRail, based on the evidence that they had before them.

My question is a simple one, although I do not know whether the minister will be able to answer it. Can he define what he means by “the foreseeable future”?

I will come on to talk about the modelling that is done. We know that passenger usage has shrunk during the pandemic and that it will return to some extent—and maybe to a greater extent. What will be delivered on the line will encourage further usage. The modelling takes account of growth; indeed, that was the whole point of it.

The plans that we have announced, together with the significant benefits that will be delivered, will cost less than dualling would have cost, will deliver value for money and will deliver for passengers and the environment. I respect Richard Leonard’s demands for all sorts of investment in rail, but if he is going to call for more services, more stations, investment in infrastructure and reduced fares, he also has a duty to say where that money is going to come from. I am afraid to say that it is so typical of the Labour Party not to do so in the chamber.

I am listening very carefully to what the minister is saying. Does he not accept that dualling the East Kilbride line was not just an idea, but a promise that was made by Michael Matheson? If it does not happen, how do we get the resilience that we do not have right now, with trains sometimes stopping at Busby? How do we get more trains if the line is not dualled? How can that be achieved?

I will respond to that in a moment, but I want first to explain the process that has been and is being undertaken across Scotland’s railways just now.

We have identified projects—in order—that will be part of the decarbonisation agenda. Ground work is then carried out—indeed, that is currently happening on the Dunblane to Aberdeen stretch—to give us a better understanding of what lies underneath and to the sides of our railways. With the elderly rail network that we have in Scotland, we have no record of what it was built on. As the Borders railway project unfolded, for example, more and more mine workings were discovered. Inevitably, there will be outcomes for delivery that might well be at odds with what had been anticipated, but we still have to ensure that we deliver outcomes such as passenger capacity that everybody is looking for. That is what we are setting out to do.

Right now, peak time demand on the East Kilbride route remains lower than the ScotRail national average at only 34 per cent of pre-pandemic levels. Of course passengers will return—that is what we want and what we want to encourage—and the joint industry passenger modelling for the route and analysis of changing travel patterns across Scotland give us confidence that the capacity that will be provided by the cleaner, greener trains, which we expect to roll into service from late 2024, will be more than sufficient to meet both current and forecast peak demand. For one thing, the carriages on electric trains are significantly bigger than current rolling stock.

I will address Graham Simpson’s question about resilience. He will know from our previous conversations that, in addition to the single-tracking issue, we are working through potential enhancements to signalling, which is one of the issues with Busby, and further track infrastructure in the form of loops. That will allow us to address the points that Mr Simpson rightly makes. That development work is on-going and I expect Network Rail to report back before the next stage of the business case process early next year. Given the genuine interest and concern that have been expressed tonight, I am happy to commit to arrange a briefing for all interested MSPs at that point, so that they will have the opportunity to interrogate the detail of the overall package in the final proposal.

I would argue that our significant investment in this critical route demonstrates our continuing commitment to decarbonising Scotland’s railway. East Kilbride is only a part of the proposals. We are already targeting Barrhead; work on the Borders railway is coming up; and the Fife circle is next on the agenda. Indeed, the Levenmouth rail connection is being developed with electrification in place. Moreover, as we speak, teams are out doing ground-work assessment on the rail link from Dunblane to Aberdeen, and I am pleased to say that, according to the last report that I received, no issues had been identified.

It takes time to plan these major infrastructure projects, and it is important that we do the preparatory work to ensure that we do not meet any problems when we carry out the work on the ground. Picking up on an earlier question, I point out that, in addition to the costs that we knew about with dualling, the risk assessment that was carried out due to the nature of the work highlighted a stretch of the line that would have involved the removal of roughly 14m of earth and various other things—and, of course, once that material is taken out, it has to be disposed of. However, the question is what we find at that point, and the risk assessment gave us a degree of concern in that respect.

I go back to my earlier point about the outcome, which is to deliver capacity on a clean, green line, and that is what we intend to do. As I have said, I am more than happy to invite all interested MSPs to a briefing early in the new year and give them the opportunity to ask any questions that they might have and to interrogate the final proposals.

That concludes the debate.

Meeting closed at 18:11.