Plenary, 25 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, October 25, 2001

Official Report 748KB pdf

---

Railways (Investment)

Good morning. The first item of business is a Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-2344, in the name of Andrew Wilson, on railway investment, and one amendment to that motion.

It is always with a due sense of the inevitable response that any SNP member suggests anything in any debate in Scottish politics, especially in the Parliament. It is a great failure of our culture that if one party says white, the other will immediately say black, irrespective of the argument. I often say that, had James Watt been a member of the SNP, the Labour party would have condemned the steam engine as a dangerous anti-horse device. Such an approach to politics is both pointless and tedious.

I believe that the Government is absolutely sincere about its intention to improve Scotland's railways through investment. This morning, I take the opportunity to call on the First Minister to keep the Minister for Transport and Planning in her post. Rumours abound in Holyrood of a potential ministerial reshuffle and Ms Boyack's name is always at the top of the list. I say that she should remain in position. Changing the face of Labour ministers is less important than giving the ministers the power to deliver the job that they set out to do.

At present, there is much upheaval in the railway industry, but there is a good sense of partnership in the industry. It is for us in politics and in the governing sector to ensure that we deliver that same partnership. When it comes to railways and the economy, the national interest is far more important than petty party politics. The present opportunities are too great to be missed. Sacking ministers is pointless when what is needed is to change the structure to empower the ministers to deliver on railways. The minister has neither financial control nor proper policy control over Scotland's railways. I want her to have the same control over railways as she has over roads. Only then will we get a properly balanced approach to transport policy.

Our motion sets out a balanced and constructive request for the Parliament to re-examine the powers at the minister's disposal and to develop an independent Scottish focus on the ownership of, and investment in, the track. I am disappointed that the Executive has lodged its usual self-congratulatory and complacent amendment. There is something curious about an amendment from two ministers that not only welcomes those ministers' own work but calls on them to do things. Perhaps if they simply got together privately and did something, there would be no need for such a daft amendment. The amendment is slightly embarrassing from the ministers' perspective.

The key contention on which the SNP argument rests is that Scotland will inevitably lose out on investment if it is part of any United Kingdom structure—be that public or private, the Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack plc or a new trust. Not one penny of the £7 billion or so in the planned rail modernisation fund is guaranteed for Scotland. Despite the fact that transport is devolved, we do not even get our Barnett formula share of that money, because capital investment in the railways is not included as comparable expenditure. Without reform, no investment in Scotland's railways is guaranteed. We need to act to change that. That is not a grievance, and I do not complain or moan about it; it is a simple recognition of reality.

The investment priority at UK level will naturally always be the south of England, because that is where the greatest volume of passengers is and where targets can most readily be met. In that sense, Scotland will always be peripheral to UK transport-centred decisions. Even the Strategic Rail Authority has admitted so, in private and in public. Only the other week, before the chairman of that rail investment body resigned in disgust at the performance of UK ministers, he said that unless structures changed and investment improved, there would be no investment north of the Watford gap. That situation cannot be sustained. Given what the head of the SRA has said, ministers must tell us today how they can guarantee new investment.

We offer our solution to the policy problem of a lack of investment and a structural constraint within devolution. We have worked with academics and others to produce our idea for a Scottish public railway investment trust and yesterday circulated a briefing note for members' perusal. It is vital that Railtrack assets in Scotland are owned in the public interest and on a not-for-profit basis. Our idea was developed along the same lines as our earlier proposal for a Scottish trust for public investment, which—incidentally—was derided by Labour politicians who are now suggesting exactly the same model for the UK. There needs to be a change of culture, so that there is an up-front acceptance of ideas, instead of people condemning the ideas first and looking at the detail later.

Only a trust that is focused on Scotland will give us the assurance that we can get investment into Scotland, but that trust must also be backed up with the proper devolution of UK rail capital investment. Until such investment is guaranteed, we cannot make balanced choices between road and rail or decide on our priorities for new investment across the transport sector. Sarah Boyack was criticised by Professor David Begg, her former party colleague, and by others, for prioritising road over rail. My defence of the minister is that that will inevitably be the case until the minister's financial policy control over rail is the same as her control over roads. The problem lies not with the minister, but with the structure of devolution.

My proposals would be simple to deliver. I appeal for the same unity of purpose across the parties as the industry and passenger organisations have demonstrated. On 16 October, the minister said:

"By returning the rail network to some form of public ownership we have the chance to secure more direct investment in our railways and government will have a greater say on how that network develops."

I agree. However, we need to ensure that that applies equally to Scotland as it does to the rest of the UK.

It is worth noting that the UK Government's policy on the railways appears to be in something of a mess. This week, Mr Byers outlined to a House of Commons select committee his ideas for a not-for-profit trust; at the same time, the BBC was running a statement from the same minister that he was still open to offers from anyone for Railtrack plc. That proves that Mr Byers would accept another private company, perhaps even a German bank, buying Railtrack's assets. It is absurd that we should allow the problems of the past to continue. We in Scotland cannot sit back as the policy mess in the rest of the UK unfolds. Even if there is a UK trust, we need a trust in Scotland to focus on securing investment. For the UK Government to return the railways to simply another form of private ownership is unsustainable.

Andrew Wilson made the point that Mr Byers is still open to offers for Railtrack, but the administrator is legally required to take the best offer for the shareholders. That is a statement of open fact. Ministers have no alternative in that respect.

With the greatest respect, it is for the administrators to say whether they are open to offers, but the UK minister was arguing that he was open to offers. He was quite happy to consider passing on Railtrack assets to another private sector controller. We cannot afford to throw public subsidy into the dividends or asset base of private or foreign-owned companies. Railway-owning companies should be kept in the public interest on a not-for-profit basis. The public will not forgive us if the new body repeats the mistakes of Railtrack. Even if the railways are taken over by a UK trust, we are not guaranteed the investment that we need.

When we launched our idea, I was condemned immediately by London-based Labour politicians, one of whom argued on the radio that the idea was unworkable, despite his having admitted to me seconds earlier that he had not even read what we were suggesting. Such an approach to politics is absurd and tedious. Special mention must be made of the buffoonery of the Minister of State in the Scotland Office, but before I do that I shall accept an intervention from Murray Tosh.

The logic of what Mr Wilson is saying would surely also apply to the rolling stock leasing companies and the train operating companies. If the availability of public funds for private companies is unacceptable, is Mr Wilson calling for the total integration of the entire railway industry, not simply Railtrack, into his trust? Does he differentiate between parts of the industry?

Of course I differentiate. That is what I have set out. Murray Tosh's attempt to continue his case for total privatisation of all levels of the railway industry has failed. Silence is the best thing that the Conservative party could bring to any debate about the railway industry, because it is the failure of Conservative policy that has left us in the mess that we are in today.

The Minister of State at the Scotland Office, George Foulkes, rushed to the airways with the daft suggestion that Scotland could not possibly have an independent approach because the railways do not stop at the border. That argument is absurd and represents the bankrupt politics of the 1970s. Has no one told George Foulkes that the roads do not stop at the border either, but Sarah Boyack has total control over them? Has no one told him that railways tend to run across borders in most countries in Europe? Has he not been told that there is a railway that runs between Britain, Belgium and France and which is a joint partnership between Belgian and French publicly owned companies and a private UK company? Indeed, has no one told him about the recent investment in the Dublin to Belfast line?

Will the member give way?

The member is in the final minute of his speech and cannot take an intervention.

We must look forward and not attach negative criticism to an idea just because it comes from the SNP, or simply be opposed to any argument for more power for Scotland. Even with the constraints of devolution within the United Kingdom, the minister should be comfortable with arguing that she should have greater control. The solution that is workable and which guarantees the public interest is investment in the railway industry on a not-for-profit basis. We cannot guarantee investment unless we go down the road of full devolution of powers for the minister. We must keep Sarah Boyack in the role to which she has become accustomed. Do not sack her for internal Labour party purposes. We need stability in the railway industry.

David Begg said:

"We don't want historians to look back on the birth of the Scottish Parliament as the period when Scotland's transport infrastructure fell badly behind England."

I agree. It is the structure of devolution that makes that a risk. We need to act now, in the national interest. I urge members to support our motion and reject the self-congratulation of the Executive amendment.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the desire of the Minister for Transport and Planning to increase investment in Scottish railways; notes that with the collapse of Railtrack plc there is an opportunity to introduce an innovative system of ownership and management for Scotland's railway network that takes advantage of the good partnership that exists across the railway sector in Scotland, and calls upon the Scottish Executive and all interested parties in Scotland to work together in the Scottish national interest to (a) re-examine the financial and policy powers at the disposal of the Scottish Ministers with respect to railways investment and (b) develop an ownership and investment vehicle for Railtrack assets in Scotland that maximises both public accountability and investment in Scotland's railways in the public interest and on a not for profit basis.

I am grateful to the SNP for picking this week to debate railways—the week that sees the biggest-ever set of awards for public transport in Scotland. We need mature debate and discussion about the way forward. It is not self-congratulatory to say to passengers that there is, and will continue to be, more investment in our railways.

Andrew Wilson ignored the key issue of investment under the old Railtrack, which was that Stephen Byers was faced with a request for a blank cheque for the railways. If we take the west coast mainline as an example, we see that costs rose from £2.3 billion to £7 billion. That is why we need a new Railtrack and better financial control and management.

I want to use this morning's debate to discuss the opportunity that has been brought about by Stephen Byers's announcement on Railtrack, in the context of the work that the Executive is already doing. I also want to set out where we go from here. It is just over a year since the Hatfield tragedy and what followed was chaos for the travelling public. There have been debates about the mess that we inherited from the Tories, but now we need to move forward and set new structures that can deliver the basics: safety, maintenance and better management of our railway infrastructure. The old structure lasted for only five years. That is why it is vital that the new structure and the company limited by guarantee stand the test of time. We do not need a back-of-an-envelope scheme—the railways are too important for that. We need a framework for strategic investment that meets our priorities for an integrated network.

Since the Labour Government was elected in 1997 and the Scottish Parliament was established, there has been record investment in our railways in Scotland and a new vision for the railway network. That has meant new stations at Dalgety Bay, Queen Margaret in Dunfermline and Howwood in Renfrewshire. We have seen new rolling stock and new safety measures at stations, with better closed-circuit television. Just last month, I gave the go-ahead to the Larkhall to Milngavie proposal—a £26 million project with financial support from the Scottish Executive and Strathclyde Passenger Transport.

Of course, we would all like improvement to happen faster. That is why I have allocated record sums from our public transport fund this week, acting on the representations that I have received from members from Fife, Glasgow and Ayrshire. This week's investment in new rolling stock will enable the SPT to deliver more seats on trains on the Glasgow to Ayrshire routes and the Glasgow to Stirling routes. There will be more park-and-ride facilities at Falkirk, Larbert, Stirling and Dunblane. My commitment to Fife Council that we will work with it to deliver new rolling stock will bring benefits for the hard-pressed commuters of Fife.

We are also building for the long term with rail studies now in progress on the Borders railway line. Work is also in progress on the central Scotland railway capacity study to address issues such as access at key points on the network in places such as Edinburgh Waverley and between Bathgate and Airdrie.

This week I gave the go-ahead to Dumfries and Galloway Council to work with SPT on better access to the existing network and to Dundee City Council to consider options for new stations to the west of Dundee. We need to do the basic groundwork if we are to take decisions on further development of the network and to help us identify and prioritise opportunities for investment by the private sector.

Our consultation on the ScotRail franchise saw people sign up to our vision for the railways of Scotland. We take a strategic approach to the network that sees railways as a key way of tackling the congestion problems in our cities, with environmental benefits and a real choice for drivers who are stuck in traffic jams. We want better access to the network—better trains that are accessible to all. There is an emphasis on safety for the network as a whole and for the individual safety of passengers.

I want to set out what the new landscape that has been opened up by Stephen Byers offers us. We have an opportunity for greater transparency.

Will the minister give way?

No, thank you.

There will be an end to the perverse incentives in the railways and to the obstacles that made developing railway projects tortuous. That is the problem that Andrew Wilson identified that we need to address. There will be better management and financial control of the railways. Clearly, there is an opportunity here, but only if we grasp it.

We need to ensure that we get better value for taxpayers and passengers. The Tories' botched privatisation of the railways had to come to an end. We need to ensure that the basics are in place and that there are high safety standards and effective investment in maintenance.

I agree with the minister. Can she guarantee that Stephen Byers will not agree to sell Railtrack's assets to a private company, whether domestic or foreign?

Stephen Byers has been absolutely clear that the stakeholders that depend on our railways must be involved in the new structure. That includes the trade unions, the passenger interest and the freight interest. The critical thing is to ensure that the new structure is driven by the people who need it.

The last thing that the railways need is more fragmentation. We need a UK rail framework so that Scottish passengers get the high safety standards and reliability of services that they deserve. Our developing rail freight industry and cross-border services need UK-wide regulation. That is why the new company limited by guarantee is a big opportunity for us in Scotland. Devolution has brought more powers to Scotland through the McLeish settlement. The challenge is to ensure that the new company limited by guarantee reflects Scottish interests, both in the way that it operates and in what it delivers.

The rail industry in Scotland has a reputation for partnership and co-operation. There is scope for better integration, but we need to get the details right. The last thing that the industry needs is another failed quick fix. That is why I met representatives of the rail industry in Scotland yesterday and will meet them individually over the next few weeks. I met John Spellar last week to discuss our interest in ensuring that Scottish interests are taken into account fully in the structures that are set up.

The Scottish Executive has been working hard to deliver Scottish rail projects. However, Railtrack's announcements last month put back implementation of several key projects. That is why, last week, I also met John Robinson, the chair of Railtrack, to make clear just how important those projects are for Scotland. I also made our position clear to the rail administrators, Ernst and Young.

The Scottish Executive's priorities are absolutely clear. We must ensure that we have proper and full input to the restructuring of UK railways, that Scottish enhancement projects go ahead and that we make progress on the ScotRail franchise process. I want to ensure that we continue to deliver record investment in Scotland.

I move amendment S1M-2344.1, to leave out from "with the collapse" to end and insert:

"it has been a difficult time for the railway industry since the tragedy at Hatfield a year ago and welcomes the steps that the Executive is taking to meet the needs of Scotland's rail users; calls upon the Executive to continue its programme of record investment in the railways and its work to make sure that projects for enhancements to the rail network go ahead, building on the good partnership that exists across the railway industry in Scotland; also notes the recent placing into administration of Railtrack plc and the opportunity that this presents to re-examine the organisation of rail services across the UK; welcomes the Executive's commitment to work closely with Her Majesty's Government to ensure that Scotland has a full and proper input into the restructuring of the UK rail industry, and calls upon all concerned to develop an ownership and investment framework for Railtrack assets that maximises both public and national interest."

When I wrote to my friend and colleague, David McLetchie, three weeks ago, indicating that I would not be seeking re-election to the Scottish Parliament in 2003, I also indicated my desire to stand down from the transport brief as soon as alternative arrangements could be made. I anticipate therefore, that this is my swan-song as transport spokesman. [Members: "Aw."] I am not looking for sympathy or appreciation. I simply want to point out that what I will say today is my own reaction to today's debate and to the briefing paper that we all received and that, if I say anything sensible or fair, it should not be seen as in any way binding on my successor.

I thank Andrew Wilson for the briefing note that he supplied to all members. That was an interesting innovation and it seemed perfectly fair that he should set out his stall in advance and try to convey a somewhat different tone from that to which we were used from SNP transport spokesmen. Previously, we had indignation from the first second from Kenny MacAskill, while Bruce Crawford's indignation usually started half an hour before the debate. It was quite refreshing to find Andrew Wilson attempting to start on an intelligent, consensual and rational basis. We were really excited when, in the middle of his speech, Andrew Wilson said that he was not moaning or complaining about things. That was the most startling innovation of all. If that sets a new tone for the SNP, we will all be very happy with it.

In his paper and his speech—although the speech was not as good as the paper—Andrew Wilson raised a number of worthwhile points. It is clear from the paper that Andrew Wilson understands the role that aggressive regulation appears to have played in precipitating the downfall of Railtrack. We all understand the inherent problems in Railtrack and the degree to which fragmentation, buck-passing, poor management and all the rest of it undermined the company. I agree with the Minister for Transport and Planning that we have to concentrate on where we go from here.

The SNP's approach in the debate also appears to recognise the interrelationship between the UK as a whole and the Scottish part of the network. The paper contained nothing that indicated that the SNP was opposed to a UK regulatory framework, nor did I pick up such opposition in Andrew Wilson's speech, so this year's debate has moved us on from the last time that we debated this issue at the behest of the SNP.

Andrew Wilson suggests that if we take a not-for-profit approach at UK level, we ought to consider such an approach in Scotland. I understand why the nationalists would propose that, but I do not view it as incompatible with devolution. That approach should not be rejected out of hand, but should be carefully considered. Ultimately, that approach may not be what we all want, but sorting out the current situation and working out what the fallout will be will take some time, so if the approach seems to be a sensible way of dealing with the Scottish industry in a UK context, nobody should rush to judgment and to throw it out simply because the SNP proposed it. Andrew Wilson referred in his paper to the possibility of restoring some kind of vertical integration in the Scottish industry. That should be considered sensibly as well.

I was disappointed when Andrew Wilson got carried away in his speech with rhetoric about the evils of private finance. One aspect of railway privatisation that has succeeded, although it was set back by Hatfield, is the substantial investment in the industry such as the £1 billion investment in rolling stock that is being announced by Virgin today. Private capital has brought a lot to the railway industry. The train operating companies brought flexibility, marketing ability and an orientation towards serving customers that did not exist in British Rail. One of Railtrack's difficulties was that it was slow to provide the infrastructure for the passengers and the services that the private train operating companies brought to bear. We would be careless to throw out what private capital has brought to the industry without due consideration for the partnership that could exist between the new Railtrack and the train operating companies.

I understand that the Minister for Transport and Planning will feel that she is in control and can deliver the required level of investment, but Andrew Wilson's concern about how we deliver a Scottish share of the available UK funds is a concern that I have had from the beginning. I do not see the institutional mechanisms that are required to deliver that share. I assume that all the things that Professor David Begg has said in recent times mean nothing in terms of his still being the minister's friend, but he has expressed that concern. Many authoritative, fair and reasonable people have wondered how we can guarantee investment in Scotland at an appropriate level for projects such as Borders rail, for which the case is not a capital return or major economic benefit to the Scottish economy but, in essence, a social argument and concern for the local economy. There are concerns about how our potential rail projects will feature in comparisons with crossrail and London, which will suck in £2 billion or £3 billion and involve investment on a scale that we cannot match.

I do not know whether a Barnett approach is best, but as part of the debate we should examine how we reorder our railway industry, and the relationship between ministers, the Barnett formula and this Parliament in legislative and executive terms.

I realise that I am pushing my luck, Presiding Officer, but I will finish shortly.

Andrew Wilson said that a characteristic of this debate was that as soon as the SNP said one thing, the Labour party immediately said the opposite. He then said that he wanted the Minister for Transport and Planning to stay in office. I am sure that he was looking for the opposite. I actually agree with him, but I mean it. At this time, Sarah Boyack's authority in and knowledge of this area is an asset to the Parliament, and the Executive should consider that in handling the Scottish aspect of the issue in the months to come.

The minister's speech was a bit platitudinous. I realise that the minister could not say much in six minutes—neither can I—but she was briefed yesterday by the leaders of the railway industry. I hope that she will brief MSPs regularly. I hope that there will be a debate, that we will all come to that debate without our ideological preconceptions—right or left—and that we will all try to talk through how we might better organise the provision of railway services in the years to come in Scotland, and make that a monument to the achievements of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive.

If Sarah Boyack's position was in danger before the debate, she must now be extremely worried, because the Conservatives and the SNP have called for her to stay. That must be a worrying position to be in as a Government minister. As a former minister, I know that I would have felt much safer if they were calling for my resignation than if they were calling for me to stay.

I welcome the debate. Because of the collapse of Railtrack, there is an opportunity to look afresh at how rail services in Scotland are managed. However, although the SNP plans are a welcome contribution to the debate, they lack vision. That is not surprising, because the SNP's last great idea for the railways was to use £137 million of the Scottish Executive's money to buy a huge stake in Railtrack, which at today's prices would be worth nothing. That would have been £137 million of our money down the drain, rather than invested in our railways. That is what Kenny MacAskill, the previous SNP transport spokesman, suggested just one year ago that we should do. That is the extent of SNP brilliance on this issue.

The big problem with the SNP's approach is that it forgets to consider how important investment in railways south of the border is for the future of the railway network north of the border. What is the point of us spending a vast amount of money on upgrading the west-coast main line from Glasgow as far as the border if there is no similar investment south of the border down to London and the other places that we need to access? There would be no point. The example of roads was given.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I have only five minutes and do not have time to take interventions.

On the M74, one drives down a three-lane motorway, but at the border one comes to a dual carriageway, because the English will not invest in the bit of the motorway network that is in England at Carlisle. The same could happen to our railways. It is extremely important that we have a say in the UK rail strategy and in how UK rail investment is used in Scotland. It is important that we have a say in, for example, the upgrading of our bridges and track to meet European standards for freight. There is no point in upgrading our facilities in Scotland if that does not happen south of the border, because where will the freight go when it reaches the border?

It is important that we have a say in ensuring that we have links to the channel tunnel. It is important that some of the £7 billion investment that has been talked about is used in England to ensure that we have full access to the rail network through the United Kingdom and Europe. It is probably better that we have that say as part of the UK than that we separate ourselves as the SNP always wants us to do.

The Conservatives have great difficulty talking about railways, because they know that it was their shambles of a privatisation of Railtrack and the railway network that got us into the situation that we are in now. In the run-up to railway privatisation there was huge underinvestment in our railway network, which got worse as we got closer to privatisation. In the final year before rail privatisation, ScotRail had only £2 million to invest in Scotland's railways, which is barely small change for the railway network. Fife Council agreed to invest in new trains and stations, but we could not go ahead with that ahead of privatisation because we were not allowed to order the trains. We were prevented from doing that.

There are similar problems with the franchising arrangements. I correspond regularly with ScotRail about the quality of the rail service in Fife. The answer that I get back is that until ScotRail has sorted out the franchise, it cannot commit to long-term investment in the rail network. Obviously, we welcome the additional rolling stock and platform improvements that the Minister for Transport and Planning announced this week—it is welcome news for the hard-pressed rail passengers in Fife—but the nature of the privatisation of the system and the fragmentation of the railways makes long-term planning in our railway network more difficult than it was.

The Conservatives can say nothing about the railways. Under the Conservatives, rail fares rose by 60 per cent between 1989 and 1997, while investment in the railway network did not.

The collapse of Railtrack gives us an opportunity to re-examine the structure of the rail industry. A case can be made for a Scottish solution—for Scottish track to be managed by the main rail operator in Scotland. The case for that proposal needs to be examined so that we can decide whether it is the most sensible way forward for Scotland's rail industry. However, it is not the only option. It would be foolish for us to rush into a solution to deal with a problem that has resulted from a failed privatisation. We should not rush into a solution today that may not deal with the longer-term problems. Let us take our time. I agree with the suggestion in the motion that we get together to discuss this proposal and to consider all the options. However, it would not be sensible to rush into a solution at this stage.

The Liberal Democrat manifesto for the general election suggested some significant changes to the rail industry, some of which will be made as a result of the collapse of Railtrack. We suggested that a sustainable transport authority should take over from Railtrack the responsibility for investment, to ensure that priority is given to investment in lines such as the east coast and west-coast lines, including links to Aberdeen. We need to have a fast rail service from Aberdeen to London.

In our manifesto we suggested that Railtrack should continue to be responsible for the management and maintenance of the track and infrastructure, but on a not-for-profit basis. That is now likely to happen. We also proposed a separate rail safety body and accident investigation units for the rail service.

Those are important changes. I hope that the collapse of Railtrack will give us an opportunity on a UK basis to consider the issues that I have raised. I hope that it will also allow us in Scotland to examine how we can maximise and improve our rail services.

We have only nine minutes available for open debate. There will be three speeches of three minutes each.

Murray Tosh will be missed. He made a wonderful speech, which I enjoyed thoroughly. However, he should travel on some of the trains on which I travel. They are not serving their customers in the way in which he suggested. They are sometimes quite disgraceful.

I want to talk about the idea of a rail service, rather than a rail business. The key word is service. That does not exclude managerial accountability. If we put the failure to develop a rail service together with the infamous Beeching cuts, we will see where we went wrong. Business was seen as the cure-all, but in fact it was a disease that led to the collapse of investment in the rail infrastructure—with tragic consequences, as we know.

The demise of Railtrack gives us an opportunity to be radical: to put in place a means of ownership of the infrastructure that takes the profit element out of the service. A rail service that includes a profit element is, in any event, a contradiction in terms. The establishment of a Scottish public railway investment trust—SPRINT—or of local investment trusts for community ownership would allow us to remove that profit element. A national trust would place control in the hands of this Parliament, bringing rail into line with Scotland's roads—no more, no less. Crucially, it would open the door to an integrated transport system for the nation. It would give us access to the billions of pounds of SRA funding that are Scotland's by right, but which we will not get. There is no doubt that the bulk of SRA funding will stay south of the border, where congestion and population pressure will dominate the divvying-out of resources. There will be an emphasis on quick returns, not on the social and economic requirements to which Murray Tosh referred—for example, those of the Borders. The benefits of projects in such areas are longer term and sometimes more subtle.

As members would expect, that brings me to the Waverley line. A petition calling for the reinstatement of the line from Edinburgh to Carlisle received 17,000 signatures, and in a debate just over a year ago the Parliament gave unanimous support to it. However, we have not received a commitment in principle to the funding of the line. The M74 extension that was mentioned—5 miles of three-lane carriageway—has cost more than £200 million. That is equivalent to the cost of 90 miles of track serving 180,000 people, for whom the loss of the Waverley line had dire economic consequences.

In the last minute of my speech, I want to refer members to what was said in 1968:

"It is no secret that the Secretary of State for Scotland himself argued in favour of keeping a service and had to suffer being over-ruled by his cabinet colleagues."

Westminster does not have the vision to restore the Borders railway line. I dream of that and I think that Sarah Boyack dreams of it too. She can make that dream come true. Giving £1.7 million to Hawick for bus shelters and a wee bus service is not the realisation of a Borders dream.

As someone who worked in the rail industry for 13 years, I should say that many of the events of the past couple of years have caused me a great deal of sadness. I am thinking primarily of the tragic deaths at places such as Southall, Ladbroke Grove and Hatfield. However, my sadness at the way in which the rail industry has operated over the past two years relates to far more than just the issue of safety. It also relates to the way in which Railtrack has financially mismanaged the rail industry. In criticising Railtrack, I recognise that the company has many dedicated and professional staff. We must work with those people to rebuild the infrastructure company once it has been reformed.

The demise of Railtrack provides us with a great opportunity to repair some of the damage that was caused by the fragmentation of the rail industry. Before Murray Tosh spoke, I intended to support Andrew Wilson's suggestion that a period of silence from the Tories would be very welcome, but Murray spoiled that by making a conciliatory speech. If the Conservatives take that approach consistently, they may have something to contribute, but I suspect that they will not.

Privatisation caused great damage to the industry, because it atomised it. Overnight it turned profitable sectors such as that in which I worked—InterCity—into operations that required subsidies. It made a few lucky people millionaires but resulted in the chaos that we have witnessed over the past couple of years. We need to move forward from the current situation.

We have an opportunity to redevelop the industry and to reshape a major component of it—the infrastructure company. We should welcome that opportunity and the debate to which it will give rise. We have the opportunity to develop a railway system that operates the highest safety standards and maintains the infrastructure to a level that builds confidence among passengers in the reliability of services. We have an opportunity to develop the expanded rail network and capacity that we need if we are to deal with congestion on the roads.

I turn now to Andrew Wilson's proposal. It is a welcome departure that Andrew has floated his idea in advance of the debate. I hope that over the coming months he will take the opportunity to contribute to the debate about the future of the industry. However, the proposal demonstrates the SNP's tendency for snap solutions and a knee-jerk approach. Being an SNP policy guru must be a very easy job. All that one needs to do is develop a separate Scottish model for every policy that comes along.

I still speak to many people in the industry. I speak to people in the trade unions, the Strategic Rail Authority, the companies and the Rail Passengers Committee Scotland. Each of them has a different view on how the industry should be reshaped. However, none of them is calling for more fragmentation. The industry does not need that; it needs more cohesion and a united focus on safety. Safety matters to Scottish travellers, whether they are travelling in Yorkshire or in Scotland. Andrew Wilson suggested the formation of cross-border railway organisations. That is not impossible, but if we want to manage safety cohesively it makes more sense to have an organisation that covers the entire United Kingdom.

As I have limited time, I will bring my remarks to a close. In the week in which the Minister for Transport and Planning announced major new funding for public transport, we have been given an opportunity to improve the railway network for the next generation. We should take that opportunity and influence the way in which the rail network is developed. However, we should not sprint towards instant solutions.

I congratulate my colleague Andrew Wilson on his innovative proposal. I hope that members from all parties will vote for the motion.

We have heard members refer to the difference between the railways down south and the railways up here, but we have not got to the nub of the problem. The nub of the problem is that in Scotland we do not have control of the development of and investment in our railways. Andrew Wilson's proposal would solve that. I hope that members have read the proposal thoroughly. If so, they will realise how much work went into it.

Christine Grahame referred to moneys that have been spent in her area. The minister also made great play of moneys that have been announced to fund transport throughout Scotland. Let me take the example of Glasgow, which has received £7 million. Money has been spent in Glasgow on bus corridors, closed-circuit television in buses, upgrading bus shelters and providing four or five new items of railway rolling stock. With great respect, that is not what Glasgow needs. For 30 years, Glasgow has been crying out for a decent railway link to integrate the city centre and for a direct link to Glasgow airport. Under the minister's proposals, we will never get those things.

Liberal Democrat and Labour members said that investment had to be made down south before it can be made up here. Let us consider some of the moneys that have been spent down south. More than £2 billion has been spent on the Jubilee line; £255 million on the Limehouse Docklands link; more than £1 billion on the channel tunnel link; and £440 million on the Heathrow express. Those are staggering figures. In the Glasgow area, only just over £20 million has been spent. The people of Scotland and the Scottish National Party are not asking for too much—we are asking for fairness across the board, but we will not get that if we do not have control of vital investment and development links.

The Parliament grasped the nettle on care in the community and the Sutherland report. We went ahead and did something on that. Why do we not grasp the nettle now and produce a proper integrated transport system for Scotland?

Please make wind-up speeches as tight as possible.

I pay tribute to the paper that was drawn up by Andrew Wilson, which is a worthwhile and relevant addition to the debate. Like Murray Tosh, I take the view that the SNP's suggestion does not have to be viewed in the context of independence; the idea is possible in the context of the developing federal system or equally in the unitary system that we had, although whether it is desirable is another matter that I will come to shortly. It is unfortunate that people such as Sandra White have misrepresented the statements that were made by other members. No Liberal Democrat member has suggested—

I will not take an intervention, because Ms White has had her shot.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr Brown was not in the chamber to hear the speech from his Liberal Democrat colleague so how can he make assumptions about it?

That is not a point of order, but allegations of misrepresentation should be considered carefully.

The suggestion that was made by Sandra White was that the Liberal Democrats, in particular Iain Smith, had proposed that investment should be made first in the south. That is incorrect and a complete misrepresentation of what Iain Smith said. He said that investment should be balanced throughout the United Kingdom in accordance with the requirements of the whole country.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not, because I have only four minutes to proceed on the matter.

You have three minutes, I am afraid.

It is appropriate that I apologise to members and to Andrew Wilson for not hearing his entire speech. I arrived late as the result of the late running of the Glasgow-Edinburgh train, which is a regrettable recurring feature of that line. That feature suggests that the problems of the railway industry are not confined to track structures, but go across a number of other areas.

I bet that you had to stand, too.

Quite. I would like to deal with the issues in Glasgow. Sandra White was right to mention the Glasgow airport link and the crossrail link, which would avoid the 10-minute hassle between Glasgow Central station and Glasgow Queen Street station.

I offer only lukewarm support for the Executive amendment. The Executive should consider sponsoring a national conference on the matter. Knowledgeable members such as Bristow Muldoon, Andrew Wilson and Murray Tosh have made a number of good speeches on the background to the matter. It is appropriate to bring their ideas together at a national conference sponsored by the Executive. That would develop the matter further, as it is important that we get it right. Opportunities are on offer and we cannot afford to repeat the history of bad organisation and disaster areas, particularly with Railtrack, in the rail industry.

The debate has been too short to get into many of the issues. We still need to receive clarification on many matters and I hope that the minister will find an opportunity in the near future to take the Parliament into her confidence about how she believes the new not-for-profit approach at the United Kingdom level will operate in Scotland. We must have a sense of the time that is required to establish the new organisations and of how it will be possible to raise the necessary capital for the work that is committed and in the system and the work that remains on the agenda for future delivery.

The ability to raise the money might be the weakness of the SNP's suggestion of a separate or distinct Scottish trust. I should not say "separate" given the word's emotional overtones and undertones. There must be a way of analysing how we will raise the money and whether it will be possible to do so from the public sector balance sheet if the Government guarantees the returns.

We also need to know whether the investment is going to be more or less expensive as a result of the new institutional arrangements. We need to find out about a huge area. It is not realistic to ask for definitive answers yet, because so much is in flux, but we need to have a sense fairly soon of where the Executive is going with the franchise. It seems that the two-year franchise extensions that we heard about a few months ago as a good thing were simply a stalling device to put off substantive decisions until after the Government did what it has clearly planned to do for some time. We need some certainty about where we are going with the franchise. We also need some certainty about where we are going with the major investments in the east and west-coast main lines as well as in the domestic infrastructure.

I sympathise with many of Mr Wilson's points, but I find his motion too restrictive. I do not like a lot of the Executive amendment, which is a bit self-congratulatory. However, it ties down less and leaves more flexibility so, on balance, we will support the Executive amendment.

I, too, will be sorry to see Murray Tosh leave the Conservative front bench, particularly given his rational approach today. He is wise not to bind the rest of his party to that line for the future. We can only hope that some of them will choose it.

On the wider issue, it is clear from today's speeches that the past 12 months have been a period of great difficulty and uncertainty for the rail industry and its users throughout Britain. However, the next few months will be a period of opportunity that must not be lost.

The past year has been dominated by the consequences of the tragic accident at Hatfield, but the past five years have been dominated by the consequences of a disastrous privatisation—as was expressed so eloquently by Mr Muldoon, from his own experience. Hatfield might have marked the beginning of the end for Railtrack, but the seeds of failure surely lay in the structure of the company from its creation. It has taken those five years for that structure to unravel. It will take time to create the right structure to put in its place. We welcome debate on what that structure should be, but we do not believe that the right response is to repeat the mistake of the Tory years and further fragment the railway industry into smaller pieces.

Andrew Wilson asked us to debate his proposal on its merits. I read the document that he circulated and recognised some merits. When I read about an infrastructure owner working in partnership with all the stakeholders and operating outside the public sector on a non-profit basis I thought, "Good idea." It is just a shame for Andrew Wilson that Stephen Byers thought of that first and on a larger scale.

There are other differences, but in the final analysis the most distinctive feature of the SNP's proposal is the least original. Whatever the problem, the solution always appears to be the same: to break up Britain or British institutions. In this case that means splitting Scotland's rail network from that of England and Wales.

If Mr Wilson does not like predictable responses, he should not produce such predictable policies.

I am grateful to the minister for giving way.

All I am arguing is that the ministers should have the same control over railways as they do over roads. Why do the ministers not like devolution? Are they reluctant to involve the Parliament, or are they confident that they can deliver?

Mr Wilson has made it clear that he will not deviate from the fundamental objective of his party. My party is committed to the devolution settlement and will continue to develop that, but I do not believe that revisiting the devolution settlement will bring comfort to rail users or operators. However, I believe that there is room for positive and constructive debate, which we welcome.

The Rail Freight Group is one of the bodies in the industry that has made it clear how important it is to have a single British network, with a single operator and common standards from the north of Scotland to the channel ports. If that integration is put at risk, it is not the economy of the south of England that stands to suffer, but the interests of Scottish exporters. As Iain Smith said, when priorities are being set for rail investment in England, we have to be at the discussion table to make the case for investment in the east and west-coast main lines, both of which are vital to Scotland's interests.

The minister referred to investment. Does he agree that if £2 billion is invested in the Jubilee line, a similar investment should be made up here in Scotland?

I was sorry to hear Sandra White's speech, which did not seem to take a constructive approach to the Scottish rail industry. She was right to mention rail links to central Scotland's airports. Next week, we will begin a study of possible rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. The SNP front bench should recognise our significant investments and initiatives.

However, leaving decisions on the wider British network to others and leaving the table of the UK railway network company to have our own railway network company would not best protect the interests of Scottish rail users. This is a time of opportunity for working out new structures. We should build on the good partnerships that exist among the various players in the Scottish rail industry.

As members from different parties have said, there may be advantages in developing the relationships between operating companies and the network provider not only throughout Scotland, but throughout Britain. We should explore that.

We should be clear about our fundamental objectives of protecting the standards of the national network, allowing the Scottish passenger rail company to concentrate on passenger services, having significant Scottish input into strategic decisions on cross-border mainline services and promoting rail freight.

As Sarah Boyack said, we have worked closely with the UK Government and the Strategic Rail Authority to ensure that our investment priorities gain their support. Those are priorities not only in Scotland, but elsewhere for Scotland. We will continue with that partnership approach.

When decisions about the future of the rail network are made, we will not look for a quick fix or a separate solution. We will look for a new structure that will last and give Scottish passengers and Scottish exporters the rail service that they deserve.

It would have been easy for the SNP to use the debate to castigate other parties for their disastrous railway policies over many decades. We chose not to revel in their discomfort, because it is in the Scottish national interest to lend our efforts to finding a lasting and stable solution to securing future investment in, and development of, our rail network and to promoting its good governance.

We must learn from mistakes, chief among which was the surrender to the dogma of privatisation and the mantra that private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships are the only way of supporting a significant number of additional projects beyond those for which the public purse can provide.

I take some issue with Murray Tosh's otherwise excellent speech. The error has been to confuse financing with funding, which obscures the fundamental truth that the taxpayer must, sooner or later, pay for public infrastructure, to the extent that it is not commercially viable. Most would acknowledge that few of our rail services fall into the category of commercial viability.

I know of no member of the Parliament who would not want our rail network to be extensively developed. There are sound and convincing grounds for that, such as to further environmental, economic development and social inclusion objectives in urban and rural Scotland. Who could deny the strength of the case for the Borders rail link, as presented by Christine Grahame, or Sandra White's arguments for a Glasgow crossrail scheme and airport link?

We propose a Scottish variation on the theme that Stephen Byers has advocated of reformulating Railtrack as a not-for-profit trust or a company limited by guarantee with a board of directors who are drawn from rail industry stakeholders. That body's priority would be the interests of the travelling public, not the need to increase shareholder value. It would invest any operating surpluses directly into the network.

As Andrew Wilson has cogently argued, we want Scottish ministers to take a further step forward by negotiating for the establishment of an independent Scottish trust to raise investment funds in capital markets, for the devolution of railway policy to the Scottish Executive and Parliament and for a fair share of planned UK public spending on the policy, perhaps through the Barnett formula. That would allow us to create a publicly accountable railway system that is fully integrated with other transport modes.

What are the alternatives? A UK-only trust will mean continued strategic control of our railways by Whitehall and its agency, the Strategic Rail Authority. Scotland is bound to lose out without decentralisation, as it is sure that the Treasury will insist on maintaining pressure to focus on investment schemes with the best short-term return on capital. That means directing investment to the areas where high passenger flows already exist—principally London and south-east England.

What about vertical integration and the ScotRail franchise taking over responsibility for track and stations? I suspect that companies such as National Express would run a mile from that prospect, given market conditions. As David Begg has said, without market growth to provide the collateral for investment, the private sector will depend heavily on public investment to deliver new infrastructure. Just like almost every other public railway, our railway needs public commitment and support.

Notwithstanding the predictable boorish reactions to our proposals from the usual suspects in the Labour ranks and the response of the Minister for Transport and Planning, who seems to equate sensible decentralisation and the devolution of powers with fragmentation, I urge her to take up our proposals and I commend the motion.