 If members and ministers wish to change seats, we will move to the next item of business, which is a statement by Humza Yousaf on an update on the ScotRail performance improvement plan. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so members should refrain from intervening until then. I welcome the opportunity to update Parliament on the progress of ScotRail's improvement plan. It is an exciting and challenging period for rail in Scotland, with record levels of investment and projects such as the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme and fleets of new electric and high-speed trains that will revolutionise services. I know that members are also keen for an update on management changes recently announced by Network Rail and Abelio and in regards to ScotRail's franchise and details of course of the free week fairs offer. I received the plan. The moving annual average performance level was at 89.6 against the contractual trigger of 90.3. As soon as the plan was received, we set about detailed scrutiny of its delivery. Our latest information is that over 86 actions have been completed and the vast majority of those remaining are currently under way. As a living live document, the original 249-point plan has expanded to more than 270 initiatives. As members will be familiar, the improvement plan was split up into three distinct sections, infrastructure, rolling stock and operations. The improvement plan was also backed by £16 million of accelerated funding by the ScotRail Alliance. I want to take this opportunity to thank railways staff up and down the country for all the hard work that they have put in, particularly over the past few railways to help to make our railways run better, from the engineers improving signalling right the way through to station staff who have tweaked their operations to run even more efficiently. Their efforts are not often acknowledged enough, so I want to give a heartfelt thanks to each and every one of them. The reason in particular I want to thank them is because of their direct efforts, we have seen an improvement in performance across the railway network in Scotland. I am confident that continued focus from staff and management through the performance improvement plan can see a return to the level of performance that passengers are rightly entitled to expect. Let me be clear, ScotRail is not yet performing at the level that I would like it to. However, let us be equally clear, neither is the situation that the apocalyptic scenario often presented and painted by some of our opponents. Let us examine the facts. Firstly, since the improvement plan was received, there has been an improvement in performance. The moving annual average, the contractual measure, the standard industry measure used right across the United Kingdom, has improved from 89.6 in period 6 when we received that plan to 90 per cent. That is 0.3 per cent away from ScotRail's target of 90.3, which, of course, would lift them out of improvement plan territory, therefore obviously and logically not requiring an improvement plan any more. Looking at the last railway period alone, period 10, which coincided with, we know, high winds, including two storms, there was a 6 per cent improvement in performance between period 9 and period 10. The comparisons with the rest of the GB rail network also tell their own story. ScotRail's bettering performance has seen them increase the gap between how well they are performing compared with railways across the United Kingdom. ScotRail is now 2.3 per cent better than the GB average. However, I know that PPM moving annual average figures are not the sole measure of how well a railway performs. Passengers and commuters tell me—as I imagine they tell many across the chamber—that they are frustrated by, for example, practices where their stops are skipped. The Manning director of ScotRail, Phil Wester, announced a number of months ago that he would be putting in place a protocol to avoid that practice. Skip stopping is reducing. I can confirm that, between period 9 and 10, that practice reduced by around a bit of third. It occurred on only 0.59 per cent, just over half a per cent of all services booked. Of course, I want ScotRail to do even better. However, that is further proof that the improvement plan, as instructed, is delivering some results. I am, however, disappointed that the national passenger survey results were published today. The survey itself took place in autumn, when the fieldwork took place just at the time that we demanded that improvement plan, before it started to take effect. Nonetheless, there is no sugar-coating at those results. I know that members were also looking for an update on ScotRail's free week initiative, which was announced at the end of last year. We said that we would make announcements with more details than we will. Let me reiterate, without any equivocation or doubt, that there will be a free week of travel offered to annual and monthly season ticket holders this year. There will also be further discounts offered to weekly and less frequent travellers, whether for work or, indeed, for leisure, particularly when using a ScotRail smart card for the journeys. All of that, of course, is backed by £3 million of funding—£1 million more than the opposition we are calling for. At the time of the announcement, I made it clear that we would bring forward further details of the scheme in early 2017. I was also clear at this stage that there will be a contribution from ScotRail, as well as from the Scottish Government. Members, I know that we are keen to understand the source of funding of our fares initiative. Our squire regime focuses on improving the passenger experience across stations and services. The financial contributions that result every four weeks in the railway period on a rolling basis are then reinvested back in for the benefit of rail passengers. Using a proportion of those funds to benefit ScotRail passengers through the fares initiative falls very much within that remit. The squire fund sits at £2.06 million, which is the net total laughter reduction of £834,000, which has been committed or delivered so far. The remaining £1.8 million of that will be used for the fares initiative, the remaining £1.2 million coming from Transport Scotland's budget. I want to be clear that other ring-fence funds such as the access for all, or indeed the Scottish Stations Fund, will not be impacted. That is an exciting time in our railways. Backed by Scottish Government investment of over £5 billion in that control period, we will see a revolution in rail. This year, we have already seen the first of 70 new electric trains start to be tested here in Scotland. Passengers will be able to travel in these in autumn with all of the Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk services, operated by the new fleet by December. Those longer, faster and greener trains will provide 26 per cent more seats at peak times from this December, rising to 44 per cent when eight cars can operate from December 2018. Helping with those capacity issues, I know, passengers and members across the chamber want to see tackled. The new fleet will then be joined from next year by 26 high-speed trains to link our seven main cities. Those will be completely refurbished before entering service. Combined with the revolution in rail initiative, it will help to deliver a step change in provision from the highlands to the borders. Once both fleets are introduced, the ScotRail fleet will climb above 1,000 carriages, an increase of 50 per cent since we took over in government in 2007. We are also progressing our commitment to ensure that a public sector body is able to bid for future rail franchises. I have set up a group to meet and discuss this important work, compromising delegates from Opposition parties, rail trade unions and other key stakeholders. We met in December, had a positive and constructive discussion and will meet again next month. I present the focus of the work to examine the suitability of existing bodies as bidders and the steps that are required to create a new public sector body if that is necessary. Members will have noted in among recent coverage a focus on the performance of network rail on delays caused by the management of the network and recent cost increases resulting from the development and management of major rail projects. That focus is justified. Network rail is critical to the delivery of excellent day-to-day services, but it also has ambitious plans for growth and improvement. That is why we fully fund them to deliver their network maintenance, management and project functions. It cannot be right that the partner whose work we specify and fund has little accountability to ministers and indeed to this Parliament. That is why I wrote last week to all parties seeking their support around the evolution of network rail, and I thank those who have already given somewhat constructive responses. A properly devolved and accountable network rail, I believe, will bring improved accountability, operational efficiency and better alignment with Scotland's needs and priorities. I will conclude by looking at one issue of network rail management. That is, of course, the planned departure of the managing director, Phil Vester. That is, of course, a decision for Phil Vester for a Beleo and indeed network rail reclassified body under the department for transport to make. I have shared a good relationship with Phil. I have never doubted Phil's commitment to make our railways better. Phil Vester continues in post and will oversee the improvement plan until such time he vacates his role. He has already presided over periods of improvement, as I have outlined, and I am grateful for that. I wish him well for his future endeavours. His successor, Alex Hynes, will join us on what are, as I have already outlined, both exciting and challenging times. Alex comes with considerable experience in the railways. Ultimately, progress in an industry as large, valuable and complex as rail is not about individuals. It is the collective efforts of those thousands of dedicated employees that I thanked earlier, supported by Government ministers and critically, the Parliament that will deliver our ambitious plans, support and grow the economy and deliver a first-rate service day in and day out for passengers across Scotland. I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. It is right that he has come to this chamber, given the changes at the top of the ScotRail alliance in the past few days. We welcome the appointment of Alex Hynes to be the new managing director of the ScotRail alliance. I wonder, however, whether Mr Hynes is prepared for the relationship with the Scottish Government that he will face in his new role, for it is that, above all else that seems to have driven Mr Verser from his post, ill-thought-through announcements regarding public sector bids and the future of the franchise, uncosted raids on the square fund without adequate consultation for which Mr Verser cannot vouch, while the situation on the ground deteriorates for the travelling public with customer satisfaction down and the latest performance data showing average annual punctuality lower than the contractual target. It is not good enough. So can we have assurances from the transport minister that Mr Hynes will have the full support of this Government that the minister will cease to bounce policy into the public domain without proper consultation with either ScotRail and or the various stakeholders? And will he promise those passengers, so fed up with the performance of our railway network, that he will stop with the gimmicks and the policy-making on the hoof and finally focus on resolving the underperformance of our national railway? Taking lectures on national railways from a Conservative party who, of course, overseeing a 10-month dispute on the southern railway, I'm afraid, is a bit hard for me to stomach. But let me say that I don't at all recognise the picture that he paints of Scotland's railways. I've just mentioned there in the 10-minute remarks that I made that we've seen improvements since we've received that improvement plan when we received it in period six, the moving annual average was 89.6, it's now at 90 per cent. It doesn't matter which political party you belong to, that is an improvement. When the practice known as skipping stops is reduced so that it takes place and only 0.59 per cent of service is booked, that is an improvement. When we back investment in rail by £5 billion of Scottish Government funding, that shows our confidence in our railways. To give him an absolute assurance when Alex Hynes takes up post—in fact, I hope that before he takes up post, I get the chance to speak to him—he will have not only the full support of this Government, I imagine and I would hope that he would have the full support of everybody across the chamber, because all of us, whether it's the management of ScotRail and the Alliance, whether it's Scottish Government ministers, but crucially the 7,500 people working in the Alliance are working day in and day out tirelessly to ensure that the passenger gets the best experience possible. It would be nice if they also received the support of those across the chamber as well. Neil Bibby. I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. Scottish Labour always welcomes the opportunity to question the Government on behalf of Scotland's passengers. Passengers are fed up with the level of delays, cancellations, overcrowding and skip stopping. Despite everything the minister has said, today's passenger survey by Transport Focus confirms that passenger satisfaction is at a 14-year low. On almost every single measure, satisfaction is down compared to the previous year. Only 38 per cent of people are satisfied with the way ScotRail deal with delays. The reality is that targets continue to be missed. Passenger confidence has slumped and the ScotRail chief has announced that he's leaving after just 18 months. The minister agreed an improvement plan with ScotRail. In October, he told Parliament that he expected ScotRail to hit the 91.3 per cent target by the end of March. A clear target, a clear expectation and a clear deadline. That deadline is fast approaching and Phil Verster has announced that he is leaving. Minister, will ScotRail hit that target? If they don't, what responsibility will you take as transport minister for the performance of Scotland's railways? It must be depressing to live in the mind of Neil Bibby where everything seems to be going wrong. Have an objective look at the facts as they exist? I have an objective look at the facts that show that, when we asked for the performance improvement plan in period 6, the moving annual average was 89.6, it is now at 90 per cent. To say that there has not been an improvement is absolutely incorrect. When you talk about the practice of skipping stops and we say that it is reduced from period 9 to period 10, to say that it is not an improvement is incorrect, I agree with Neil Bibby that the passenger satisfaction results are disappointing. 83 per cent satisfied, but that is still disappointing. Of course, it is 2 per cent higher than the GBA average, but I agree that it is disappointing. It is incredible that it is moaning and groaning when I am agreeing with what the front bench spokesman has to say, so I agree with him. The first target for ScotRail to achieve, of course, is to no longer need that improvement plan. That would be to get up to 90.3 per cent away from that. My expectation for them is to get to that as soon as they possibly can. I will keep pushing them. Ultimately, if ScotRail does not reach their targets, if ScotRail dip, if they go into breach territory, if they go into default territory, yes, there are some very severe sanctions that we have discussed and people know about. Ultimately, of course, that could lead to them no longer having the franchise, but I do not see it getting there. Instead of beating them down, all I am doing is working with them, with the railway staff, to ensure that they continue on this trajectory of improvement. It would be a good thing if Neil Bibby joined them instead of putting and doing down railway staff. If he noted and commended them on the fact that they have been working tirelessly and they have achieved some improvement, I think that that would help to motivate them to make further improvement and improvement as we go ahead. The minister has previously agreed to take an interest in a localised improvement plan for services on the Maryhill train line, which ScotRail has agreed to develop following my representations. Minister, I want to ensure that national improvements become a local reality in my constituency. Can the minister assure me that the recent announcement of the looming change of the ScotRail MD will not impact on improvements that my constituents expect to see locally? Can I count on the minister's on-going interest and commitment to the Maryhill train line services? I think that that is an important point. I am not sure why the members and the Opposition are laughing at local matter, but I thank the member for raising the matter of Maryhill. I can give an assurance that it is important that, when there is a management change at the top, people are looking for continuity. I would press the ScotRail Alliance to ensure that continuity does indeed continue. Phil Vester is currently the MD. I know that the Network Rail and Abellio, and indeed Riva, as the employer of Alex Hines, are working closely together to ensure that continuity and handover happens as smoothly as possible. If the member has any issues or difficulties or problems at all in getting the local matter resolved, I will be more than happy to have a conversation with him or with ScotRail, but I do not envisage that there are any issues or problems with the recent management changes that have been announced. I am interested in the minister's explanation of the funding for the one-week free travel scheme. Transport Scotland's website states the following. One of the most important aspects introduced for this franchise is that all penalties from Squire are retained in a ring-fenced fund for reinvestment into the Scottish rail network. The fund is not used for repairs but for qualitative improvements or new facilities by agreement by Transport Scotland and ScotRail. Indeed, Mr Vester, in last week's REC committee, told me that if ScotRail felt that if the money would be best used on other things, it had the right to choose to do so. He stated, I cannot vouch for whether the scheme goes ahead. Can I ask the minister who came to the conclusion that using the Squire fund falls within the remit of the fund? This is neither a qualitative improvement nor a new facility. Will he force ScotRail to pay for his announcement at the expense of other passenger improvements? No, I find this utterly ridiculous when we made this announcement of the fairs £3 million that would go towards a free week. Opposition members, including some from that side of the chamber, were demanding that ScotRail made a contribution as well as the Scottish taxpayer in the form of the Scottish Government. Now that they choose to, of course, make that contribution, they are also up in arms. They are simply as no pleasing members of the opposition. Squire can be reinvested into the Scottish rail network for the benefit of the passenger. A free weeks' travel is a benefit for the passenger. The vast majority of passengers on Scotland's railways buy their tickets journey by journey. Labour's plan for a fair freeze would have benefited every single passenger in Scotland. Given that only season ticket holders will benefit from the free weeks' scheme outlined in the statement, what percentage of passengers will benefit from that? I will try to correct some of the inaccuracies in what Daniel Johnson just said. When I made this announcement at the end of last year, I did not say that it would just be for monthly and annual season ticket holders. In fact, in my remarks of 10 minutes ago, I said that it would also look to bring discounts forward for those who travel either for leisure or for work and are less frequent travellers. Coming to Labour's rail freeze, it is probably worse saying that independent evaluation done by Ernst and Young shows that that would have cost up to £58 million. That would have been £58 million that would not have been invested in a railways. I am irritated by any political party trying to get short-term advantage from the railway industry. That has been really irritated me is the campaign for rail freeze. 2016 was meant to be the year that we are turning our backs on populism. It has really done enough damage, but there is little more populist than a rail fair freeze, which is totally unrealistic. Not my words, the words of Tom Harris, the former Labour transport minister. A labour fair freeze would not take £58 million out of the rail industry, has been condemned by somebody in their own political party who used to be a transport minister. We have now announced £3 million of a fair discount that will go to benefit railway passengers who are daily, weekly, monthly and annual travellers as well. Why do Labour parties not welcome that and get behind rail passengers and the discounts that we are offering them? I thank the minister for this statement and I am pleased that he is so excited about the state of Scotland's railways. I think that we were all beyond the point of falling back on support of Tom Harris for a debate about those matters. I agree with his tribute to the people working in Scotland's railways for the efforts that they are making. Many of them know that the way to get long-term benefit for Scotland's rail services is with a public sector operator. Can the minister confirm whether his intention is that a public sector operator would have to bid competitively against privatised operators, or will we simply change the rules to ensure that it is going to be a public sector or not-for-profit operator? The member is always being slightly flippant, but I do not think that there is anything wrong with being excited about the plans that we have for our railways. They are very exciting when it comes to those 70 new trains, when it comes to faster greener longer trains, when it comes to connecting our seven main cities by high-speed trains. I think that that is something that is worth getting excited about. I would say absolutely to Patrick Harvie that I recognise the challenges. I simply make the point that the service is not nearly as apocalyptic as some present it. On the public sector, I thank his colleague John Finnie for being extremely positive in terms of the discussions. I want to make sure that I get him as much accurate information as possible, but my understanding is that, because of the changes of the law that we made, of course, a public sector body now could apply, but it absolutely still needs to compete. That is what we have said. It has to compete with a private sector bidder, and it has to be part of that process. My understanding, of course, is that we do not have the legislative competence to change that. Of course, during Smith's negotiations, it was the unionist parties that stopped us having full control over our railways, but I will get more detail on that, but I thank him and his party for the constructive way of taking part in those discussions. Phil Verster made it clear to the rural economy committee just before he resigned that he had not agreed to the transport minister's attempt to raid of £1.8 million on the service quality regime fund to help fund the Government's free week of travel. That fund can be used for disabled-accessed stations. My constituents in the north-east have had access turned down to Inch station because they are told that there is not enough money. How can the minister say in his statement that disabled-accessed stations like Inch will not be impacted upon by this attempted financial raid for a week's free travel? He is incorrect that there is not any money in the squire pot. There absolutely will be even when the contribution is made for the free week. I have told him that there is £2.06 million after the deductions in terms of what will be spent, where Scotland will be using £1.8 million of that money for the free week. We will be putting in the other £1.2 million, so there is still going to be money. However, there are two other funds that are used for DDA compliance. One would be the access for all, which is the UK Government ring-fenced £67 million of that ring-fenced for Scotland. 25 Scottish stations have been upgraded through that fund. That is the type of fund that, when it comes to the substantial work that might be needed at Inch station, which I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about, would be used for. There are other funds as well. He will know that it is part of the franchise—or maybe he does not know that it is part of the franchise—that we have the minor works fund. That goes to improve facilities and services to make them more accessible through more minor works such as accessible toilets, dropped kerbs and hearing loops. However, I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about Inch station. Although the access for all UK Government fund is already committed, it will reopen, I am certain of that. I am more than happy to have a discussion with him about Inch station and I am recommending that for our future access for all fund and to see where we can get with that. There are seven members still wishing to ask questions. Can I ask each just to ask a question not to have any preamble? Can I also ask a minister to be as brief as possible in his replies? Mary Evans to be followed by Annie Wells. Can the minister set out how many of ScotRail's trains running late currently skip stops to improve their punctuality during rush hour and what action is being taken to improve that? As I said in my statement, I should make the point that if a stop is skipped, then, of course, that does get marked down against performance. That is an important point to make. As I said, that practice has reduced by about a third between period 9 and period 10, the period that just passed, and it affects 0.59 per cent of all services booked. For such a senior position, I would like to know what the process was in replacing the man's director of ScotRail at such quick notice, barely a weekend. I would also like to ask what changes to their role have warranted a starting salary of £18,000 higher than his predecessor, and will the new EMD be receiving the same relocation package as his predecessor? I thank the member for the question. Of course, those are matters for Network Rail. Network Rail is a reclassified body under the Department for Transport. The salary level would then have the sign-off of the Secretary of State in the UK Government, the Minister for Transport, and I would direct your questions towards him. Stuart Stevenson to be followed by James Kelly. Is the minister content that one minute ago the public performance measurement was 9 per cent better in Scotland than in the GB network, and that at lunchtime today there were two trains not running to schedule, both of which arrived early? Yes, I am grateful for that. The serious point, of course, is that we have seen an improvement in performance, as I have said, over the past few railway periods, not where I want it to be, not where it should be, not enough to lift ScotRail out of the performance improvement plan territory, but it is an important point to make that it is on the right trajectory. James Kelly to be followed by Gail Ross. At the time of the publication of the improvement plan, the public performance measure for month only stood at 90.7 per cent, and the subsequent four periods did not reach 90.7 per cent. Can the minister explain why it has never recovered to the September figure, despite his improvement plan being in place? He is asking why railway performance in the summer is not as good as railway performance in the winter. The reason for the moving annual average is that the contracted figure is because it takes account of that seasonal variation. He is not using the contractual figure, he is not using the standard industry measure, he is using what the Donald Trump's press, as we call, is an alternative fact, he is using the wrong measure. He is incorrect, it is the moving annual average. When we requested the improvement plan, the moving annual average was 89.6, it now stands at 90 per cent. That is, Mr Kelly, by anybody's measure an improvement in performance. Gail Ross, by Elaine Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have a register of interest, and anyone can read it if they like. Can the minister give me assurances that the review group for the Far North line will still go ahead despite this change in management? Yes, it will go ahead, and the first meeting will take place in Inverness tomorrow morning. I know that the member will be fully appraised of that. We know that there are issues and have been issues in the Far North line. In fact, that is why there is a specific section of the improvement plan specifically for the Far North line. Of course, we look forward to making those improvements for the people of the north. Elaine Smith will be followed by Willie Coffey. Can I ask the minister whether he will support the RMT's Safer Scottish Trains campaign, including an independent review of the operational safety of all driver-only operated trains and an urgent assessment of all services to ensure that they are fully accessible for passengers with disabilities, including the impact of skit-stopping? The member knows, because she was there, that I met her and the RMT on the Safer Trains. There are many initiatives in the Safer Trains campaign that I support. She knows that Transport Scotland has a dialogue with the RMT. She also knows that I have doubts about the independent safety group, because the ORR, of course, as a regulator, is the one that independently verifies monitors and looks over the safety of the railways, but I can continue the dialogue with the member and, of course, the RMT. Willie Coffey, thank you. Given the more than half of ScotRail's delays, which were over three minutes duration, were as a result of folks attributed to Network Rail, what benefits does the minister see from further devolution of Network Rail's functions that he mentioned in his statement? It is a hugely important point, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the Opposition is groaning at a very important point, that 54 per cent of delays are due to Network Rail. It is not just, of course, the Scottish Government that believes in the devolution of Network Rail. A very excellent report by the reform think tank, of course, led by Tom Harris, former transport minister in the UK Government, which backed devolution of Network Rail. It makes sense to me that, when there is a body that we are funding that is responsible for major projects up here in Scotland, that is responsible for the track in the infrastructure, and responsible for over half of the delays on the network. That should be accountable not just to this Government but to this Parliament, and we have Opposition members groaning in dissatisfaction. So, yes, it is an important point. We will continue to push for it, and I hope that other parties will join in. Thank you very much, and I am particularly grateful for the last seven members for their performance, punctuality and keeping to time. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. 1. Is that the amendment 3573.1 in the name of Peter Chapman which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing, on developing force in Scotland but in B.agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question that is at the amendment 3573.2, the name of Rhoda Grant, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing B.agreed Ffragus Ewing be aggriad. Y gwleid efallai aggriad yn mynd ddechrau? Ydi, mae'r ddefnyddio'r gweithio ag sin, fe'r ffrugus Ewing be aggriad? Gweithio amser. Mae'r ddefnyddio'r ddefnyddio, mae'r ddefnyddio'r ddefnyddio, yn gyflwylo cyngor? Emwy yn mynd i'n rhai hwn. Mae'r ddechrau, ac yn gweld, mae'n gweld i'r ddechrau hwn. Fe'r ddechrau ar gyfer y ddefnyddio, lisabau ddiolf yn gweithaethol y gwail eich fffrugus Ewing pan yw Andy Wightman yw Yes4, no86, yw 18 ymsg poserfynu ac mae'r ddechrau yn gwneud hynny. Fy gwaith ym Mawr 3, 5, 7, 3 yn y myffergys Ewing gan ystafael ond y dyfodol i'r ffostri ac Scotland nes eirwyr, yn dysfynu'n gweithio? nad yw'r gweithio yn ddechrau'r dyn nhw? Nawr. Ydw i'r ffosnes yr wych i gweithio, hwnnw byw hynny ymdsig ar ddylan Cymru, ond yw ym mwybwynt nes unrhyw gwaith i'r dynnu.