The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S1M-1461, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on transport, and an amendment to that motion.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would like you to reflect on the several occasions when you have refused to accept amendments. I ask you to reflect on this morning's decision as one of your poorest.

A member must not comment on the quality of decisions of the chair, which are always first class, regardless of who is in the chair. Otherwise, he will be in trouble. I always reflect on the member's amendments. Sometimes I select them, but today I have not done so. I call Bruce Crawford.

I take members back to the Ladbroke Grove rail crash on 5 October 1999, which tragically claimed so many lives. Within a week of the accident, John Prescott said in relation to safety on the railways that

"it has not been decided whether Railtrack's role would pass to a new organisation set up for the task or be assimilated into the HSE."

Ladbroke Grove should have provided a wake-up call to both the UK Government and the rail companies about the future security of the industry. Instead, what do we find? John Prescott made the right noises but did not have the slightest intention of turning his rhetoric into action.

On Tuesday 17 October, a year and 12 days after Ladbroke Grove, the Government sleepwalked into the biggest ever crisis on the railways in this country. Within two days of the Hatfield tragedy, the industry was in meltdown. Speed restrictions were imposed on more than 1,000 miles of track and speeds were cut by a third at 81 locations. Within a week, the Rail Freight Group was forced to cancel 400 trains.

On 24 October, seven days after Hatfield, Prescott finally woke up and ordered an urgent review into the standard of Railtrack's repair works. He said in the House of Commons:

"in the future as in the past, there must be no priority higher than safety." [Official Report, House of Commons, 24 October 2000; Vol 355, c 138.]

However, the situation worsened markedly that evening. Railtrack Scotland announced that the Scottish west coast line would be closed between Glasgow and Carlisle. Later that same evening, the Minister for Transport's duvet was heard to rustle on the ministerial floor in parliamentary headquarters as she was wakened to be given the news of the worsening situation in Scotland. Realising that she was waking into a nightmare, the minister got out of her goonie long enough to tell the press that she would meet the Railtrack executives in Scotland on Monday 30 October. Thirteen days after Hatfield, the Scottish minister wiped the sleep from her eyes and met the company that has contributed to the worst rail crisis in living memory.

Is it any wonder that the SNP motion calls on the Parliament to express its anger and concern over the crisis in the rail network in Scotland? Is it any wonder that we ask the Parliament to

"regret the lack of authority, influence or action demonstrated by the Scottish Executive"?

Will Bruce Crawford say why he believes that further fragmentation of responsibility for safety in the railway industry will be beneficial? Does anyone in the railway industry agree with him?

I will come to that.

The Parliament should be strengthened in its views because of what is said in the consultation paper "Strategic Priorities for Scotland's Passenger Railway", which the minister launched on 28 November. On page 13 of the document, we find the remarkably complacent statement:

"Great strides have been made by the industry to improve safety on trains and the infrastructure."

On page 2, a paragraph on the devolution settlement contains much rhetoric on powers being passed to the Scottish ministers through the UK Transport Bill for the operation of railways in Scotland, under the so-called McLeish settlement. Those powers do not add up to a row of beans. The minister is to get powers to give directions and guidance to the strategic rail authority on services that either start and/or finish in Scotland. What changed between July 1998, when the Scottish Office document "Travel Choices for Scotland" was produced, and the introduction of the UK Transport Bill?

"Travel Choices for Scotland" contains the key commitment. On page 63, it states:

"In addition, the Scottish Executive will have executive responsibility for . . . issuing of objectives, instructions and guidance in relation to passenger rail services that both start and end in Scotland".

Who in the ministerial team was responsible for selling out Scotland by removing the power to give ministerial instructions? Which minister was responsible for downgrading the authority of the Minister for Transport's office, or was it a partnership decision involving the Liberal Democrats, of whom there are only two in the chamber today? Who was responsible for ensuring that the Minister for Transport would have the same powers for action as Sam Galbraith had over the Scottish Qualifications Authority? According to the Executive, those powers were not great and Sam Galbraith could not be seen to interfere.

Whoever it was has given Scotland an Executive that can talk, consult and give directions until it is blue in the face but that, when push comes to shove, has no powers, no controls—

Will Mr Crawford tell the chamber the exact details of the powers that John Prescott has in negotiating franchises for the rest of the UK?

I am not really interested in the powers that John Prescott has—

It is a material point.

I have taken Sarah Boyack's intervention. I am not interested in the powers that Prescott has; I am interested in the powers that Sarah Boyack should have.

As I said, when push comes to shove, the minister has no powers, no controls, no capacity to introduce instructions and no direct hold on the crucial legislative and investment levers to make the changes that are needed to turn round Scotland's ailing rail industry. She has less control to make the changes than the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority has over its underground.

The Executive has inherited a mess from the privatisation of 1994, but it has no powers to do anything about it. It has inherited an industry that is fragmented, unreliable and uncompetitive. Ironically, the situation was described most succinctly by the former chief executive of Railtrack, who recently said:

"The railway was ripped apart at privatisation and the structure that was put in place was a structure designed, if we are honest, to maximise the proceeds to the Treasury. It was not a structure designed to optimise safety, optimise investment or, indeed, cope with the huge increase in the number of passengers the railway has seen."

The industry is fragmented, with confused and vague lines of responsibility. That can be no surprise, given that we have Railtrack with a plethora of subcontractors, 25 train operators, five freight movers, a rail regulator, a strategic rail authority and the Health and Safety Executive.

It is time to stop using the Conservative's legacy of privatisation as a scapegoat or an excuse for inaction. Consecutive UK Governments have failed the Scottish rail industry because they are not as close to our problems or opportunities as the Scottish Parliament is now. As important, UK ministers cannot be held accountable to this Parliament for decades of failure.

rose—

I am concluding.

It is time for powers over the rail industry to be transferred to this Parliament and for the Scottish Executive to be given Scotland's share of the new funds for investment in transport infrastructure. In May, Prescott announced expenditure plans of £180 billion on the transport infrastructure over the next 10 years; £60 billion of that was allocated to rail, with £29 billion coming from the public sector. It is time for Scotland to get its hands on its share to invest in Scotland's priorities. It is time for this Parliament to be given the powers to undo decades of complacency and to transform the railways of Scotland into the modern, comfortable, safe and reliable industry that this country deserves and of which it can be proud.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern and anger the crisis in the rail network in Scotland; regrets the lack of authority, influence or action demonstrated by the Scottish Executive and that the control and legislative powers over the rail industry in Scotland remain primarily reserved matters for Her Majesty's Government, and calls for all the powers over the rail industry in Scotland to be transferred to the Parliament, for the Scottish Executive to be given Scotland's share of new investment in transport infrastructure and for a mechanism to be established so that Scotland's interests are directly represented on cross-border rail matters.

I welcome this opportunity to respond to the SNP's motion and to set out the Executive's progress in building a system of integrated transport in Scotland, including the development of a 21 ^st century railway that is fit for our needs. My suspicions that the motion has far less to do with the railways and much more to do with the SNP's agenda have not been dispelled by Bruce Crawford's remarks.

It is not possible to discuss the current state of our railways without reflecting on why we are experiencing what Sir Alastair Morton, the chair of the shadow strategic rail authority, described a couple of months ago as "a nervous breakdown". The current crisis has been caused by decades of underinvestment in rolling stock and track development and maintenance, and by a fragmented rail industry resulting from the privatisation of the railways, which even the Tories—the policy's architects—acknowledge was a botch job.

That legacy led to Paddington, and more recently to Hatfield and Mossend, and to two months of rail chaos, passenger delays, overcrowding and uncertainty on railways across the UK. That is the legacy that the Labour Government in Westminster in connection with the partnership in Scotland has inherited and is now working hard to sort out.

Although that poses a massive challenge, I absolutely refute the suggestions in the SNP motion that we have been inactive and complacent and are not interested in sorting out the situation. The solutions do not start and end at the border and they will be of no use whatever if we in Scotland pretend that we can separate ourselves from the rest of the UK network and from the investment and standards of safety that are needed throughout Scotland.

Will the minister give way?

No—the member has had his time.

What about the thousands of passengers who travel from Scotland to the south every day? Although Scotland needs its fair share of investment, we should not pretend that massive investment is not needed throughout the UK and that such investment on the east or west coast main line will not deliver for passengers in Scotland as well.

I do not underestimate the challenge for a minute. However, the Scottish Executive is playing its full part in the recovery of the rail network. Although John Prescott has made it absolutely clear that the recommendations in Lord Cullen's report will be implemented, he is not simply waiting for that report and has already started to sort out the network.

Bruce Crawford made much play of the current crisis. However, he has failed to take account of what has been happening not just in the past 18 months of the Scottish Parliament but since the Labour Government was elected in 1997. The rail recovery action group has been formed with the objective of returning the railway to normal, safe operations as soon as possible, and we are in regular contact with UK ministers and officials from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the group's progress.

The SNP did not mention the fact that, on 22 November, the National Rail Operators announced a £50 million compensation package for passengers, which has been funded jointly by the SSRA, Railtrack and the rail operators. Many ScotRail passengers have already secured significant payments from that package.

rose—

Will the minister give way?

No.

The chair of the SSRA, Sir Alastair Morton, is working with the rail industry to remove the obstacles within the current arrangements in order to provide a safe, punctual and better service. We are being kept fully informed of the SSRA's work.

Bruce Crawford did not even mention that new railway safety regulations come into force on 31 December. Furthermore, the transfer of responsibility for the approval of train operator safety cases will move from Railtrack to the Health and Safety Executive. A new rail safety company called Railway Safety is expected to be set up with the primary objective of promoting rail safety throughout the GB rail network. It is vital that we have the same standards in Scotland as across the UK. In his recent review, the rail regulator, Tom Winsor—

Will the minister give way?

No.

In his recent review, the rail regulator, Tom Winsor, is ensuring that Railtrack delivers on its investment plans—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I hope that this point of order is not about the minister not giving way. That is up to her.

Will you remind the minister that this is a debate? In any debate, there is usually some engagement.

That is not a point of order.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Is this a genuine point of order?

Bruce Crawford said that he would respond to the points that I made, but he dismally failed to do so.

The chair is not responsible for the contents of speeches.

In his opening remarks, Bruce Crawford did not refer to anything that I have said is being done or has been proposed. It is important that we take into account what is being done. The changes that I have mentioned are being introduced before the outcome of the Cullen inquiry—

What changes?

I am sorry, but Bruce Crawford should be aware that things have moved on. He needs to take account of the current situation.

In advance of the outcome of the Cullen inquiry, the UK Government is introducing some key mechanisms to deliver higher safety standards on our railways, all of which must apply to Scotland as well as to the rest of the UK. Those are the benefits of being an integral part of a GB rail system. I doubt that we would have any of those benefits if Bruce Crawford had his way.

Will the minister give way?

No.

The SNP has not told us what it would do differently. All we have heard is that it wants Scotland to have certain powers; we have heard nothing about how it would exercise them. That is the critical difference. There has been no acknowledgement of the massive effort of railway workers throughout the country to ensure that rerailing is implemented.

Will the minister take an intervention on the railway workers?

Yes.

Members:

Oh!

Does the minister agree with the railway workers in the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, who have demanded the return of the railway network to public ownership?

The railway unions also want action on the recommendations of the Cullen report. Although everyone accepts that safety is the top priority, we need the mechanisms to deliver it; the trade unions must be part of that process.

There has been massive investment in the railways. All the changes demonstrate that the £60 billion investment programme for Britain's railways will be critical in putting our railways back on a secure footing.

Bruce Crawford talked extensively about our powers in Scotland. I asked him to tell me the differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK in relation to directions and guidance on franchises to the SRA. He could not do so. The answer is that the wording is exactly the same; exactly the same wording in the Transport Act 2000 applies to negotiations on franchises. Bruce Crawford did not even know that.

Will the minister give way?

No. The minister is into her last minute.

It is vital that we decide on franchises within a UK context. That is John Prescott's overarching power. Scotland has devolved powers within that UK framework, under what is otherwise known as the McLeish settlement. It is important that we have such powers. We have the ability to influence and set the key terms for the rail network in Scotland and we have new investment from our public transport fund and freight facilities grants. Although we have the opportunity to define the shape of Scotland's railways through the passenger franchise system, it must be done within an overall UK framework. We need to exercise our devolved powers to get the best possible deal for Scotland. However, we intend to exercise those powers within the context of a GB rail network that delivers for every passenger and freight company throughout the UK. We are working towards that objective.

Although rail passengers have had an appalling time of late, I have outlined what the UK Government is doing—and what the Scottish Executive is doing in partnership with Westminster—to ensure that, over the next generation, the railways in Scotland are transformed into the kind of railways that people want. That is the purpose of our consultation exercise.

I move amendment S1M-1461.2, to leave out from "with concern" to end and insert:

"the progress being made by the Scottish Executive to build a sustainable, effective and integrated transport system which provides genuine choice and delivers a safe, accessible and expanding Scottish rail system as an integral part of the GB rail network."

Not for the first time, the SNP has lodged a motion that its spokesperson barely addressed in the opening speech, as a variety of alternative issues were introduced. Bruce Crawford's opening pitch related to safety matters and the Health and Safety Executive. We might have had an interesting debate on that issue had the SNP lodged such a motion. Instead, Mr Crawford spent most of his speech simply outlining a catalogue of woe about the railway industry in Britain. He had plenty to say about that because, of course, there is plenty to say about it.

Surely the value of having a debate on a specific motion is to analyse the problems and then prescribe some remedies relating to that analysis.

We had a moment of analysis towards the end of Bruce Crawford's speech when he said that the situation that we face is the result of the fragmentation of the rail system. However, the nearest that he came to suggesting a remedy for that was to propose the further fragmentation of the railway system by divorcing the Scottish rail network from the UK network and, by doing so, separating out the Government's management and organisation of the industry on an Anglo-Scottish basis.

Will the member give way?

No.

The remedy that Bruce Crawford suggested was additional powers for ministers. Additional powers to do what? In all the cases that Bruce Crawford outlined, what analysis did he give and what subsequent explanation did he offer of how transferring any area of policy or management from the UK Government to the Scottish Executive would address those problems?

When Mr Prescott announced the £180 billion in May, he said that the Government would fund a substantial increase in the role of light rail in our larger cities. He talked, in the long term, about 25 cities having new light rail systems to address the problem of congestion. However, a letter from the DETR, dated 1 December, says:

"The funding for light rail schemes mentioned in the 10 Year Plan is therefore for England only."

It is therefore important for members of this Parliament to get their hands on the levers of power.

As the Executive promotes its policies, we might find that the issue of light rail could reasonably be addressed in Scotland. I am not aware that there is any definitive Government policy that says that in no way will taxpayers' money ever be used to support light rail initiatives in this country. However, there are currently no light rail schemes to be supported in Scotland.

Bruce Crawford has not addressed the fact that the strategic rail authority is not yet in place or the fact that the infrastructure investment funds have not yet been set up. The only fund that has been set up has advanced a substantial sum of money to help to promote the crossrail scheme in Edinburgh. He makes an important point, nevertheless, and I am interested in the extent to which Scotland will receive a share of the public sector money and the related pump-primed private sector investment. I am not convinced that the Executive has cleared up how it will tap into that money—that is an aspect of the problem.

However, what did Bruce Crawford say about managing the railways and about the franchises?

What deficiency did he identify in the Executive's ability to shape the next ScotRail franchise? Members will agree that there were too many franchise companies, but that applied to the UK as a whole, not to Scotland. No one is suggesting that there is anything wrong with having a Scottish franchise. The problem that has been identified with the Scottish franchise is that, like the others, it is too short and has not stimulated enough investment.

Another principal difficulty concerns the role of Railtrack. By and large, the problems in Scotland are not caused by the train-operating companies, which have invested substantially—they may not have received sufficient quality from their manufacturers, but they have invested. The difficulties have been with the management and maintenance of Railtrack, and I am critical of the role of the UK Government in that. There has been overregulation. The Government has had a role in deterring Railtrack from carrying out essential maintenance because the company has been concerned about the penalties, although belatedly it has put safety before consideration of the penalties.

That issue should be addressed on a UK basis, because the principal difficulties have arisen on the main lines that run across the border, not on those that run inside Scotland. No Scottish approach has been taken, nor a Scottish solution found, to UK problems of the Government's relationship with Railtrack and its investment in, and support for, that company.

If, on another day, Bruce Crawford chooses to lodge a specific motion that identifies specific powers to address specific issues and to achieve specific ends, he might win some support. However, today's debate is about none of those things; it is about associating politicians in this Parliament with disasters in the rail industry and trying to suggest that, if the SNP had control of matters and Scotland were divorced from England, life would somehow be better. That is a perfectly respectable case to argue. However, the Parliament is entitled to expect that, next time Bruce Crawford lodges such a motion, he will produce some analysis, evidence and argument to support a claim that, in the absence of such support, appears ridiculous and opportunistic to the rest of us.

I do not need to tell members that the economy of any area is largely dependent on the existence of an efficient and affordable transport infrastructure. That can be demonstrated clearly in much of rural Scotland, especially in the Highlands and Islands, where the transport infrastructure is limited and, in many cases, non-existent.

We hear a great deal about the development in and around the capital of the Highlands, Inverness, much of which would not have taken place without the massive improvements to the A9 trunk road from Perth to Inverness. Those improvements have allowed developments to proceed at quite a pace, but much more needs to be done and we must consider what further improvements are required to the north, west and east of Inverness.

Like everywhere else, the Highlands region is dependent on the rail infrastructure. Transport policies that are drawn up in London and Edinburgh must reflect that to a greater extent than, unfortunately, they have so far. The most obvious example of that is the problem with fuel pricing throughout Scotland, which we have tried to address in this Parliament. That problem has continued for some time, but nothing much seems to be being done to address it. It has a serious effect on the economy of the Highlands, as the distances are greater, the fuel is more expensive and public transport is inadequate because of the costs and the logistics.

Recent statistics suggest that 20 per cent of overseas tourism in the Highlands has been lost because British Airways decided to cut its Heathrow air link. There are further plans to cut the long-haul air links from Gatwick and the fear is that the number of overseas visitors will drop further, affecting our tourism even more seriously.

The recent rail disruptions and flooding in England have highlighted our dependence on the rail infrastructure. Companies that use the overnight service to London for the transportation of fresh produce—a number of them have approached me lately—have incurred considerable and on-going costs because their goods can no longer reach the capital in time for the markets. That is having a serious effect on small businesses throughout the Highlands.

In the past year, the Scottish Executive has encouraged the use of rail transportation north of Perth through its freight facilities grant. Many companies have been supported through that initiative. Applications for that support would increase if the process was made easier; currently, they take up to six months to process, which is absurd. I am sure that the system could be streamlined.

That initiative was a step in the right direction. However, I travel regularly up and down the A9 and see many articulated vehicles on that road. Companies are not being sufficiently encouraged to use the railways for transportation; I would like the Executive to do more about that.

The Scottish Executive and the shadow strategic rail authority must liaise to find a competitive pricing regime that would allow rail operators to compete with the road hauliers and help small businesses to transport their cargoes by rail. I have received many complaints that the application process for the freight facilities grant is too complicated and that it is difficult to gain approval for a grant. The process takes six months, but it should take around six weeks. In the months ahead, the Scottish Executive must address that problem if it expects the grant scheme to work.

The current problems with the railways will not encourage people to use them. We must establish an efficient and dependable rail system. Railtrack has failed to do its job and passengers and freight users have been made to suffer for the shareholders' benefit. Today's problems are testimony to the lack of investment in the rail infrastructure by successive Governments. I hope that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive will ensure that much more support is given to the rail industry, so that we can have an efficient, affordable and appropriate rail infrastructure.

We now come to the open debate. I should point out that we are running a little bit behind time.

What is Murray Tosh on? Whatever it is, I want some.

I want to address the human element of the crisis on our railways. I travel almost every day on the Glasgow-Edinburgh railway line, as do many members of this Parliament. In fact, 3 million passengers travel on that route every year, with many of them getting on at interim stations such as Falkirk, Croy and Linlithgow. The situation on the railways has highlighted the failure of the industry to cope with emergencies and has brought to light the lack of protection for passengers on trains. The frequency of the trains between Edinburgh and Glasgow has decreased from one every 15 minutes to one every half hour. That has resulted in even more overcrowded and cramped trains on that line, with passengers not being able to board trains because they are full, and has raised serious safety issues. The situation is much the same across the country, but I have specific knowledge of that route.

I appreciate what Gil Paterson is saying. However, could he explain what there is in the motion or in the argument that has been advanced today that would have led to anything different happening in relation to the washed-away track in Polmont or the difficulties that ScotRail is having with its rolling stock? The motion is irrelevant to those issues.

I got a fright—I thought that Mr Tosh was going to tell me what he was on. I will come on to the points that he raises later in my speech.

I have worked in the motor industry for most of my life and I know that the regulations governing the number of people who are allowed on road vehicles are strict, as are the requirements for safety measures such as belts and air bags. There are maximum passenger capacities for buses, cars and planes, but I am bewildered and amazed that no such regulations exist for trains. In fact, there are practically no health and safety regulations at all.

The perception is that, because the trains are built to such a high specification and provide a walk-on service, there is no danger to passengers and no need to regulate numbers. However, in recent weeks, the dangers to passengers as a result of the rail crisis have highlighted the need for health and safety regulations and an increase in the carrying capacity to cope with passenger numbers. A colleague of mine told of a pregnant woman who was forced to crouch on the floor because she was feeling ill and was unable to stand. The train was overcrowded and packed to the doors, which meant that there was no room to get her to a seat. Many members will be aware that, recently, at Linlithgow station, the police had to be called because of the number of people who were trying to get on to the train. The scary fact is that if all the people had physically been able to get on the train, there would have been no health and safety rules to stop them. A few weeks ago, a train's doors flew open as it passed through a tunnel. Luckily, no one fell out—that time.

Frequent commuters are fed up. How passengers from Falkirk, Polmont and Linlithgow put up with standing all the way to Edinburgh day after day is beyond me. Over the crisis period, timetables have been cut, there are longer journey times and there are less frequent trains. The ones that are running are dangerously overcrowded and uncomfortable for passengers. Passengers should be able to expect a level of service in keeping with the ticket price, but they are not receiving that.

Rail users have lost confidence in the rail industry. The privatised and fragmented system is inadequate and does not serve the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament needs to have the power to take action to ensure that rail safety and passenger safety are not compromised for financial gain. People should get what they pay for—a seat on the train.

Listening to Murray Tosh, I was reminded of the wee boy who wet the bed and blamed it on the blankets. It is interesting that he talks about analysis and the fragmentation of the railway and says that this debate is only about associating politicians with disaster. It is no wonder that he did not want to have today's debate. He should be associated with this disaster as it was his party that privatised the railways in the first place and that is what has led to the disaster: the fragmentation and the pursuit of profit over the pursuit of public safety. He should be willing to take—

Will the member give way?

I am only seven seconds into my speech. I will allow the member to intervene shortly, even though he did not let me intervene during his speech.

Today's debate is artificial. It is artificial because the one demand that has massive public support, which has been raised by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and which has even been raised by normally conservative and cautious commentators such as Mr Kerevan in The Scotsman and Mr Macwhirter in The Herald, has not been allowed into the debate. The demand is that the Scottish Parliament should call on the Westminster Government to renationalise the railways. That demand is clearly overwhelmingly supported by the public.

Surely it is the responsibility of political leadership not to fan such economic nonsense and to lead people to believe that answers can be found by diverting billions away from investment and towards the purchase of Railtrack?

That is a fine point. In 1996, when rail privatisation was completed, the rail infrastructure had been sold off by the Tories for £1.9 billion. Two years later, it was valued on the stock exchange at £8 billion. The Government has announced a public subsidy for next year of £4.9 billion and a 10-year subsidy of £26 billion. We are investing in the privatised rail network 13 times as much as it was sold off for; we are investing more than was invested in the publicly owned rail network.

The problem for Murray Tosh's party is that it tried to make a private concern out of the public railway and failed miserably in the attempt. It failed because the pursuit of public safety is incompatible with the pursuit of private profit. We have 100 operating companies and Railtrack as the structural company. All of them are serving shareholders to the extent that, despite the loss of innocent lives at Hatfield, Ladbroke Grove and Paddington, Railtrack's shareholders had pay-outs of £50 million last year and £53 million this year. While people are killed on the railways, the private shareholders get an increase in profit. That is the problem with our railway network. That is why we should bring into today's debate an analysis that concludes that we need to restructure our railway network under public control and public management.

It is a pity that the Conservatives sold the rail network off and it is a grave pity that Labour is no longer willing to support its renationalisation. It would have been interesting if my amendment had been accepted as I know that many members of the SNP support the renationalisation of the rail network. I know that the party supported it in 1992, but I feel that it might not support it now. I would have liked to see how many SNP members still support the idea. We have demands for more control and more influence when what we need is public control and public ownership.

I will finish with a wee story from Rory Bremner, one of the finest comics and impersonators in Scotland. Two friends are sitting in the pub, one of them looking very glum. The other one says, "What's wrong with you?" His friend says, "I had my car stolen the other night." "Oh, that's terrible," says his friend. "It's worse than that," says the first guy. "Why is it worse than that?" "Because the guy who stole it chapped on my door and offered to sell it back to me." "But that's theft!" exclaims the friend. "No," says the first guy, "That's privatisation." That is the problem.

We have had a number of debates on railway matters in recent weeks, including two useful ones on some of the rail issues in the city of Glasgow. Today's debate, however, is not a transport debate, but an independence debate masquerading as a transport debate, as Murray Tosh correctly indicated earlier. It comes from what used to be called the Alex-in-wonderland school of politics, which maintains that a cascade of gold will descend on Scotland and that all our problems will be solved if only Scotland obtains its independence and gets rid of the wicked United Kingdom.

In view of the change in the Scottish National Party leadership, we should perhaps rename it "The Johnny and the Magic Roundabout Story". "Boing!" said Zebedee, "We've solved the roads problem—a billion pounds. Boing, boing! Great railway system we've got now." That is the SNP approach. Nothing in what was said in Bruce Crawford's introductory remarks detracted from that analysis, such as it is, of what the SNP is proposing.

The problems on the railways are primarily caused by a lack of investment. On the roads, despite the eventual U-turn by the Conservative Government on its big roads policy, the Tories fathered a whole generation of potholes with resource cuts to local government. It is on the railways, however, that their 20 years of neglect and their dismissal of the public interest bore most heavily. We are paying in spades for that with the present disruption in the rail system. Countries that fail to learn from history are condemned to relive it, and there are sinister parallels between the Tories' botched, failed rail privatisation and new Labour's privatisation of air traffic control, with its disregard for the crucial issue of public safety.

Could Mr Brown clarify that? I am aware of the remarks made by Don Foster MP, among others. Is it the policy of the Liberal party in the UK that the railways should be taken back into public ownership? Is that the policy of the Liberal party in this Parliament?

The issue is not one of privatisation or nationalisation. Things have moved on in that regard. The issue is about the botched way in which the privatisation was carried out and the fragmentation of the system. That is the legacy that we are living with; that is the main problem caused by the manner in which the Tories brought about the break-up of the railway system.

The SNP solution offers a further break-up of a network that is already dominated by fragmentation. It is irrelevant and unworkable; it is dogmatic nonsense. The proper way forward is for the investment and strategy of the basic intercity network to be directed at a UK level, through the SRA, on which the Scottish Executive has a nominee and into which it has an input. As Sarah Boyack made clear, the way forward is partnership between the Scottish Executive and the various other interests. Matters concerning the railways do not stop at the border. Scottish passengers and freight and the Scottish economy, despite the claims of the SNP, all have a clear, relevant interest in the effectiveness of the rail links on the east and west coasts down to the south.

I will finish on a point that is perhaps not totally germane to the motion. The cross-party group on strategic rail was briefed recently by Great North Eastern Railway on how it was tackling the problems on its section of the rail network. In that discussion, GNER confirmed that it is one train down as a result of the Hatfield accident. It also stated that securing the delivery of new railway engines took three years. That is quite an important background issue to the whole situation, particularly with regard to what we heard recently about the problems with the Turbostar trains.

There may be some potential for the Government and the Scottish Executive to look more closely at the way in which we organise the delivery of railway trains and engines to the network. That is a significant problem, in addition to the problems with Railtrack that have been identified. I ask the minister to consider that issue when she winds up for the Executive.

I wish to do something novel in this debate: I want to address the motion. I do not think that the SNP members have addressed many of the issues, particularly following other members' interventions.

When I stand on a platform or in a crowded train, I do not hear passengers saying that they want powers to be transferred to Scotland; they want solutions to problems. The Minister for Transport has underlined the fact that some of those solutions are now being legislated for. The SNP motion has singularly failed to address that.

I have no problem with matters being dealt with at a UK level when that is the best level, which is the case with health and safety, infrastructure and investment. [Interruption.] I will be happy to take interventions if members have something to say. The infrastructure has been separated, and there are problems with that, including the fact that the operating companies do not feel responsible for the maintenance of the lines, given Railtrack's role. The SRA is to deliver that necessary integration.

I thank Andy Kerr for agreeing to take interventions. I asked the minister this question, but I also ask it of Andy in his capacity as convener of the powerful Transport and the Environment Committee: does he accept that those who work in the rail industry are demanding the renationalisation of that industry? Does he personally support that?

I have met representatives of rail industry trade unions, and I have not heard them advocate the position outlined in the SNP's motion. I am happy to read in this morning's newspapers that John Prescott's office is giving a clear indication that he will be taking very strict measures on 1 February if the rail industry has not sorted out the problems. That is a reserved matter, however, and I respect my colleagues in Westminster enough to trust that they will make their decisions based on the advice and information that they are getting. I will express my views on the matter when they have done so. That is only fair.

I believe in the devolved settlement and in the respective roles of this Parliament and of the Westminster Parliament. I hope that the issues will be dealt with on 1 February. If the question on nationalisation that Tommy Sheridan raised is brought up at that point, we can consider that.

Does Andy Kerr agree that the SNP completely failed to address its own motion, particularly with regard to the increased fragmentation that its provisions would bring to the industry, that that fragmentation would introduce a further lack of clarity on responsibility for safety issues and that the costs of running the network would possibly increase as a result?

Andy Kerr had to phone a friend.

I am happy to take interventions. Dorothy-Grace Elder attempts to intervene from a sedentary position—that is her problem, not mine.

I agree with Bristow Muldoon's position, and with the fact that the points in the motion have at no stage been addressed by the SNP in this debate. Its members talk about Railtrack and the difficulties with the lines. What do they want to do? They want to fragment further the systems and structures that currently exist. I do not understand it. In the UK and Scotland, we have a concordat, and there is discussion and channelling of information among ministers north and south of the border.

Perhaps Andy Kerr can tell me what changed between the publication of "Travel Choices for Scotland", which made it plain that the Minister for Transport would have the power to give instruction, and the current situation, in which it is possible to give direction and guidance. If the Minister for Transport and the Executive had had that power to give instruction, action might have been taken a lot earlier. What has changed?

I took the time to attend the minister's press conference on the franchise agreement process. I am happy with the powers that she has under the system, and that she will be able to deliver what Scotland needs for its railways.

I will close on this point. I believe that there are a number of similarities between the SNP and Railtrack. First, the SNP would close all lines south of the border at any opportunity, at an hour's notice. Secondly, the SNP is constantly changing its timetable for independence. Thirdly, like Railtrack, the SNP is constantly demanding bigger handouts from the Treasury. Fourthly—

rose—

I have taken three interventions, and, as I said, I am closing, thank you very much.

Fourthly, the SNP promises bigger dividends, but, sure as fate, it becomes less popular in doing so. Lastly—I think that this one fits very well—the SNP, like Railtrack, has difficulty reaching London, and will now reintroduce some older rolling stock.

We now come to the closing speeches, and we are running about seven minutes behind, which means cutting into the next debate. I therefore appeal for brief closing speeches.

I will be brief, as my closing comments have been stolen by the previous speaker. I am sad that this debate has not been about what it should have been about: the future of Scotland's railways. A strategic document has been published by the Scottish Executive, asking for views about how our railways should be developed. I am sad that the SNP instead chooses to have a debate on the sterile arguments that it always brings forward about future relationships and independence, rather than one on a current issue—on a document that has been published for comments on the future of our railways.

I use the railways daily. I know how important it is to invest in them, and I know that we can make changes through the Scottish Parliament. Through representation, I have succeeded in the past few weeks in getting a rail service restored in north-east Fife. It has been agreed to restore a cut service from next May, when the new timetable is published. That is an example of the positive things that the Scottish Parliament can do.

We have control over our railways. The Scottish Executive is able to direct ScotRail, Railtrack and the SRA on how the Scottish rail service is developed. We have strong powers to make changes to how Scotland's railways operate. It is sad that Murray Tosh should forget that the problems in our rail service result from lack of investment over many years. In their 18 years of control in Scotland, the Conservatives failed to invest in our rail service.

I make the point that I have made before in the chamber: the purpose of privatisation was to increase investment dramatically. Privatisation has done that, as was proved when Tommy Sheridan rattled off the valuations and when we talked about the problems with the new rolling stock. That rolling stock resulted from massive expenditure by the train-operating companies. In principle, privatisation is a considerable success.

Privatisation has not been a considerable success. The Conservatives did it very badly. Even those who are involved in the rail network will say that privatisation failed to address the key issues of safety and service improvement because it put profit first. It is generally accepted that Railtrack is a shambles, and that that is the case because it was privatised badly by the Conservatives. Nobody can deny that. I am sorry that Murray Tosh thinks that it was done well.

It would not be sensible to renationalise the rail network because that would be a waste of public money. We should concentrate on investing in the rail network.

The member says that it would be a waste of public money to renationalise the privatised rail network, yet, as I have said today, we are now investing 13 times more public money in the privatised network than the amount for which the network was sold off. Does that represent value for money?

In discussing renationalisation people forget that what is important is how much is invested in the railways rather than who owns them. The problem is that the Conservatives' privatisation of the rail network failed to ensure proper investment after 18 years of underinvestment by the Conservative Government. We now need to ensure that, regardless of whether the rail network is publicly or privately owned, it receives investment to improve services.

I had intended to finish on the five similarities between Railtrack and the SNP, but, unfortunately, that comparison was stolen by the previous speaker. However, there is one similarity that he forgot. Sadly, like Railtrack, the SNP's bandwagon keeps coming off the rails. This bad motion is yet another example of that. The SNP should concentrate on investment in our public services and saying what it would do to improve Scotland's rail service. The motion fails to do that.

I can agree with only the opening part of the SNP motion, which is:

"That the Parliament notes with concern and anger the crisis in the rail network in Scotland".

Thereafter, there is the usual nationalist message, with which, members will not be surprised to hear, I cannot agree. I think that Murray Tosh has seen it off. As Andy Kerr said, even the SNP did not address its own motion.

Yesterday's report from the House of Commons Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, which accused Railtrack of losing sight of its "core responsibility" to run safe railways, is deeply worrying and cannot be ignored. Like my Westminster colleagues, I have doubts about the composition of a Railtrack board, only two of whose seven members are experts on railways. However, the SNP is calling for the Scottish Parliament to have more control over Scotland's railways. Although that will happen in due course in a devolved and integrated way, extra control by this Parliament will not necessarily lead to a better or safer railway, if the Executive's accident-prone record is anything to go by.

Tommy Sheridan and Bruce Crawford will be pleased to hear that I think that there has been too much fragmentation of what was once British Rail. That matter needs to be addressed at a strategic level. Although I will probably not agree with the detail, John Prescott is doing that.

I believe that more fundamental work needs to be done on the design of the track. My limited engineering experience suggests to me that perhaps rails need to be redesigned to cope with the increased loadings that they now carry. Rail design has not changed in 100 years. Gauge corner cracking is not a new problem, but it is more common now due to increased stresses and strains.

Will the member agree that one of the major problems with the rails is the fact that 15,000 rail maintenance workers have been laid off since privatisation?

Privatisation is about raising capital. The Conservative Government recognised that and privatised the rail network so that capital could be raised on the stock market and investment would be made by the company. The fact that the company did not do that is down to the fact that the regulators did not do their job. The Government should have ensured that the regulators did their job.

Gauge corner cracking is more common because of the extra stresses and strains that are caused by increased speeds and loadings. As a former engineer, I call for an expert review of rail and track design. That is fundamental.

A further problem, which must be addressed locally, is the timely introduction of new rolling stock. On the Ayr-Glasgow line, the introduction of the new Juniper class trains, which was due to occur this year, has slipped back until 2001. ScotRail now hopes that those trains will be introduced by May 2001. I, too, hope that they will be. As a passenger on that line, I declare an interest: passengers on that route have suffered too many delays and too much discomfort for far too long.

Both Tommy Sheridan and the minister spoke of the legacy that was left by the Tories. The fact is that privatisation worked. Privatisation is not an exact science. Where the process failed was in the underinvestment by Railtrack and the ineffectiveness of the regulator. I make that point as strongly as I can.

I welcome the minister's greater emphasis on safety and her adoption of the Cullen report.

Will the member give way?

The member must finish as he is almost a minute over time.

I welcome what John Farquhar Munro said about the need to look after railways in relation to tourism and freight.

It is a pity that Robert Brown and Iain Smith do not get together with their colleague Don Foster, who as recently as last month advocated the full nationalisation of the railways. What else can we expect from the Liberals? The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

Many important points have been made in this debate to which it is worth replying.

It is rich of the SNP to criticise the powers that come to us through the McLeish settlement and the UK Transport Act 2000 without analysing the extent to which we are using them or saying how it would use the list of powers that are identified in the motion.

Bruce Crawford seems to be obsessed with the framework of directions and guidance to the strategic rail authority. I make it clear that Scottish ministers have sole responsibility for issuing directions and guidance to the strategic rail authority in relation to the franchise that operates rail services that start and end in Scotland, and for sleeper services that are run by that franchise within a national framework.

Will the minister give way?

No. The member will sum up in a few minutes.

The powers are the same as for franchises across the UK. Members—Bruce Crawford more than anyone—will know that when we discuss bills in committees, we change the wording. The critical point is how we use our powers and how they mesh into the wider UK framework.

Murray Tosh spoke about the importance of tapping into the SRA and about how it will identify the criteria for new investment. That is critical and that is why we are discussing with the shadow strategic rail authority freight strategy and the criteria for its investment programme. The Executive is prepared to invest huge amounts of public sector money in the rail industry.

rose—

It is right that we should get value for that investment. That is why we need a regulatory framework. One of the weaknesses that we have inherited is the fact that the lack of investment in the railways has left us with a backlog of maintenance work. It is now being addressed. It is vital that there should be a regulatory framework.

The franchise process works. Lord Cullen's inquiry will give pointers to the future, which the UK Government can take on board. The Government is working through the railway recovery plan and, on the Scottish franchise, in discussion with us to provide future investment.

John Farquhar Munro made some critical points about the freight industry. Given the events of the past few weeks, it is absolutely right that most of our attention has been on passengers, but freight is also vital for the future not just of the north of Scotland, but of the whole of Scotland. That is why we are making £36 million of investment available to freight services over the next three years and why we have invested £19 million already.

Will the minister give way?

No, thank you.

We are keen to work with the whole rail industry. We set up the rail industry forum in Scotland to enable the rail industry's passenger and freight interests and direct passenger interests to participate in discussions with the Scottish Executive. That will allow us to work together.

Robert Brown made an extremely important point about the ability of the train operating companies to obtain new rolling stock, the need for which is another legacy of underinvestment. Creating manufacturing capacity from a standing start is a tough job. Massive investment, through the various franchises, is being made in new rolling stock across Scotland and the UK.

No one from the SNP has been prepared to say what that party would do with the powers that it seeks. We are absolutely clear that we are using our powers to the full. Scotland's railways will benefit from being part of a dramatically reshaped rail safety regime across the UK. We are in a loop with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and UK ministers and are involved in the discussions on how that regime will be progressed. We will benefit from the £60 billion that will come through the GB spending plan for railways.

Light rail is an issue that we must deal with in Scotland. We have already held a debate on light rail in Scotland and I am sure that there will be others. In England, the proposals are much further ahead than they are in Scotland. I say to Bruce Crawford that that is the simple reality—it is the challenge that faces us in Scotland. Light rail is referred to in our rail franchise paper as one of the key issues that the new franchise must take on board.

The money will come from Scottish investment—from the Scottish block—but there are no proposals in front of us. Fiona McLeod might want to address that when she sums up the debate for the SNP. The direct investment that we will make in the Scottish franchise is worth £200 million in public support in the current financial year. We will look to the new franchise to increase the supply of rail services across Scotland.

Over the next three years, £150 million will be invested through the public transport fund.

Will the minister give way?

No, thank you.

In Scotland, we benefit from having the best train operating company in Great Britain after Island Line on the Isle of Wight. Broadly speaking, ScotRail has done a good job over the past few years. Even during the current crisis, nearly all ScotRail's services operated a normal timetable within a short period.

The points made by Gil Paterson about the Edinburgh to Glasgow line are relevant. That line was disrupted because of track speed restrictions but, as Gil Paterson knows, given that he is a regular user of the service, the journey time is getting back to just over an hour and the line should operate at full capacity in the new year.

Passengers in Scotland and across the UK have had a tough couple of months. However, the critical point that people should take from the debate is that we have new powers and new investment. We will use those powers to their full extent. Scotland's railways must be part of an integrated UK transport system. Rail can help to reduce congestion, peripherality and social exclusion. It can assist economic development and will generate environmental gains. However, Scotland's railways will achieve those broad objectives only if they are an integral part of a GB network. Therefore, we must have powers in Scotland, as well as liaising with the UK Government. That is precisely what we are doing and I call on the chamber to support the Executive's amendment.

Today's debate has fallen into three main areas: safety, ministerial powers and money—money is always mentioned. I thought that members would talk mainly about safety. I am surprised that everyone picked up on the issue of ministerial powers.

We have heard that the SNP wants to fragment the railways even further—

Will the member give way?

I would prefer to get started.

I take issue with the implication that the SNP wants to fragment the railways even further.

The minister said throughout the debate that she has powers and that the Transport Act 2000 will give her more. I draw her attention to the fact that the House of Commons made it clear that, under sections 208 and 209 of the act, the strategic rail authority will not have to comply with directions or guidance from Scottish ministers that are not consistent with guidance from the secretary of state. The SNP's point is that power over the strategic review of railways in Scotland must lie in Scotland and must not be at the mercy of the secretary of state in England and Wales.

The minister also talked about the £50 million compensation package that will be available to passengers. If the minister travelled on the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail line every day of the week, as Gil Paterson and I do, she would hear that passengers do not want compensation—they want the money to be invested to ensure that they have a safe and reliable railway.

We must also consider why the minister and the Tories' Murray Tosh are happy that someone else will decide what happens in Scotland. The power to direct the railways in Scotland on behalf of passengers must lie in Scotland. That power must not be exercised at the behest of a secretary of state in England.

We must achieve Scottish powers that are good for Scotland's railways. We would not be in the position that we are in today if we had been able to instruct ScotRail and Railtrack.

Every member who has spoken in the debate has invited the SNP to say how it would use such powers. Fiona McLeod has yet to do so. Would she set up a separate health and safety executive in Scotland? Would she set out separate guidelines on safety specifications for Scotland? She has not answered those points.

Come independence, there will be a separate and independent health and safety executive in Scotland. On that point—

Will the member give way?

No. Bristow Muldoon should sit down. He has been up and down like a jack-in-the-box all morning.

Let us consider the money that is involved. Last year, Railtrack's profits were £421 million. The Health and Safety Executive's funding for its work throughout the UK was £182 million. The debate is about putting profit before safety. Perhaps we would be able to invest in safety first in an independent Scotland.

The minister also asked whether we would have the same guidelines in Scotland as are in place in the rest of the UK. I draw to her attention the fact that, after the Hatfield incident, Bruce Crawford and I met Railtrack a week before she did. We were told that, in Scotland, Railtrack applied guidelines plus—the staff whom we met were proud of the fact that the guidelines for Railtrack in Scotland are better than the guidelines for the rest of the UK. However, while we were pleased to hear that we already have better guidelines, we were not pleased that guidelines plus has resulted in 250 miles of track needing to be replaced.

Independence and power in Scotland will ensure that Scotland's railways do not again get into the mess that they are in today.

What about the detail?

The detail is there—the problem is that the minister cannot come up with the money and does not have the power to do anything with it anyway.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I am conscious that we are short of time—I have only four minutes.

I want to conclude by repeating the point that the SNP has made throughout the debate. The SNP wants power in Scotland so that there is parliamentary oversight of the railways in Scotland. That would ensure that the massive public subsidies that already go to Railtrack, to which Tommy Sheridan referred, deliver a public service in Scotland and reflect the desires and the demands of the people of this country.