 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 7156 in the name of Richard Leonard on Caledonian sleeper service. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I would ask those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Richard Leonard to open the debate up to seven minutes, please, Mr Leonard. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I begin by referring members to my voluntary register of interests? Can I also thank those members who signed the motion today, enabling this debate? In so doing, you have honoured a commitment to all those who care not just about our railways but to all those who care about parliamentary democracy and open government. Next month marks 150 years of an overnight rail sleeper service running from Scotland to London, but this is a service that cannot merely be consigned to its glorious past. It demands active support in the present in order to secure a bright future. A bright future is an integral part of a wider and longer-term plan for our public transport system. A plan that means that instead of closing down booking offices and cutting jobs, we should be investing in our railway and cutting fares. If we are really serious about climate change, we should be getting people out of their cars and on to public transport. When it comes to cross-border travel, we should be getting people out of their airline seats and on to railway carriages. I thank the member to take the points that he has made, but would he accept that until, if passengers are not returning to the railways as many as they did previously, there is a shortfall in money? We cannot just keep increasing the subsidy to the railways, can we? Richard Leonard? It is not a subsidy, it is an investment, and if we are serious about climate change, we need to get people out of their cars on to public transport, which is why not only this Parliament but the workforce, the trade unions and the travelling public deserve some straight answers this afternoon from the Minister, because the position is this. On 5 October last year, on the eve of the SNP party conference in Aberdeen, instead of making a ministerial statement or a ministerial speech in Parliament, the Minister for Transport issued a press release based on a carefully crafted reply to a Government-initiated question announcing that surco was being stripped of the sleeper contract and issued with a notice of termination. Then, exactly two months later, after the SNP party conference was all done and dusted, in reply to a series of written questions that I had tabled, the Minister for Transport was forced to reveal with a smoking gun in her hand that I quote, an appropriate assessment of a direct award to surco caledonian sleepers limited was now being made. So, the company, the... Yes? Minister? I thank Mr Leonard for taking intervention. Does Mr Leonard understand that I am somewhat constrained by the UK legislation in this place, which I have no power over as a Scottish Minister, which requires me to look at direct award, and if that is ruled out then the operator of last resort arrangements, which of course we have in place for Scotland, does he understand the process that I now have to go through as a Scottish Minister? Richard Leonard? Yes, I understand the process and I'll come on to that because not only are you guided by the 1993 Railways Act, you are also guided by the 2016 Scotland Act, which devolves rail services to Scotland. The truth of the matter is, the company that runs the caledonian sleeper calls for more public money to run the service, that request is assessed and rejected, then 60 days later the Minister is forced to admit that it is now lining up a direct award to that same company. Let me be clear, this is not just another run-of-the-mill ministerial U-turn, this is a governmental betrayal of the highest order. It goes well beyond the simple question of a train contract to the very values that define this Government. Let me remind Parliament and the Minister that this is the same circle that presided over a culture of bullying and harassment of its own staff on the Caledonian sleeper service. This is the same circle that boosted its profits by 64 per cent in 2021, hiked up the pay and bonus of its CEO by shamelessly exploiting the deadly Covid-19 pandemic as a money-making opportunity. And it's the same circle that, for over a year, conducted a reign of terror night after night among asylum seekers in Glasgow with its hostile lot change programme and forced eviction policy. This is who we are dealing with, so I say to the Minister today that it's not too late to do the right thing and bring this service into democratic public ownership. It's not too late to make a direct award to Scottish rail holdings, because there is a clear legal basis for bringing in a public sector operator under section 25 of the 1993 Railways Act. So the burning question is this, has Scottish rail holdings been asked to be prepared to operate the Caledonian sleeper service? And if not, why not? And if not, will the Minister instruct them to do so today? Finally, there are some who will accuse me of making this demand out of some kind of rigid dogmatic socialist ideology. Well, I have to converse that I do stand here this afternoon guilty of the charge of standing up for an ideal. I do stand here guilty of the charge of holding the firm conviction that this natural private monopoly run for profit should be a natural public service run for passengers. I do plead guilty to the charge of believing that public ownership of the railway is economically rational, socially responsible, environmentally sustainable and is democratically unanswerable. I do plead guilty, but I also make this plea as well. This is a decision which rests in the hands of this Parliament and of this Government alone. It is both legally competent, but it is also morally correct. So this afternoon, I hope that the Minister is not only listening, but is hearing and is prepared to act decisively to take this public transport service back where it belongs into public ownership. Thank you, Mr Leonard. I now call John Mason to be followed by Graham Simpson up to four minutes, please, Mr Mason. Thank you very much, and I thank Richard Leonard for bringing this subject for debate today. I have to say that I personally am enthusiastic about rail and use the train as often as I can. However, I have to say that the sleeper service is extremely expensive, and that is why I have not used it since New Rolling Stock was introduced. The most basic return fare, including a bed, is meant to be about £280, but when I looked at actual dates in the near future, it was more like £400 return with their classic ticket. By contrast, the last time I was in London, which was July, I travelled by west coast daytime train and it was £77 return. All rail travel is heavily subsidised or invested in, if you like that term, and rightly so, normally by around 50 per cent. It has been reported that the average subsidy on the sleeper is £164 per single ticket. Broadly speaking, I am in favour of public ownership in many sectors, especially when it is a public service and is virtually a monopoly. All the trains run on the same track and use the same stations just as all our electricity runs through the same wires and our water through the same pipes. The idea of competition in either the rail sector or the electricity sector is always going to be a bit artificial. Of course, it has to be said at this point that the Scottish Government is bound by relevant Westminster legislation, which I think is principally the Railways Act 1993. We do not have complete freedom to act as we might want to if all rail powers were fully devolved. Richard Leonard's motion mentions profits for the private operator, and, of course, that may be the case. Equally, there can be losses. I think that has happened with both the Bellio for the ScotRail contract and for Cerco with the Sleeper. Therefore, public ownership is not without risks. If there is a loss, then it is the public purse that has to foot the bill. I think that there has sometimes been the illusion around nationalisation that somehow all the financial pressures will magically disappear. People talked as if bringing ScotRail into public ownership would automatically mean lower fares, higher pay for the staff and more frequent and improved services. However, the reality is that income and expenditure still have to match whoever owns and operates our railways. We can do all of the above—the fares, the pay and all the rest of it—but they still come at our cost, whether the owner is in the public or the private sector. Yes, we could increase the subsidy, but would that be the right thing to do at a time when the NHS and other public services are so under pressure? Let's be realistic. It is a tiny number of people who use the Sleeper service, and unless they are using the seated coaches, they generally need to be fairly well off or have their employer pay for it. Cerco clearly has fingers and a lot of pies, and some of their work for the public sector may be of high quality and value for money. However, as Richard Leonard said, those of us in Glasgow will not quickly forget how Cerco was involved with the Home Office in threatening asylum seekers with eviction just a few years ago. I know that this final point is a sensitive subject, but there is a balance to be struck between the needs of passengers or customers, as they seem to be called these days, and the needs of the staff who work on the railways. I think that we all have to be clear that the passengers must come first, but that has not always been the case. Years ago, in the days of nationalised British rail, those of us who were older remember the awful sandwiches, which were a standing joke throughout Scotland, England and Wales. Certainly at that time, it seemed that the railways were often run for the staff and the passengers were a bit of an afterthought. So by all means, let's take the Sleeper into public ownership, but if we are to do so, let us also make the commitment that the passengers must come first and remember that we as politicians, together with the railway staff, are here to serve the public. I now call Graham Simpson to be followed by Neil Bibby up to four minutes, please, Mr Simpson. Thank you very much. I also thank Richard Leonard for securing this debate, not least because it's always good fun hearing him speak and winding the clock back several decades. On that side, this is an important topic to debate because it is a debate. We're not going to all agree on this, and it's an opportunity to hear from the minister as we've yet to discover what she intends to do about the sleeper service. We do need to know because this is an important and iconic service. Six mornings a week, a little piece of Scotland rolls into London full of people ready to start their day. The background to this debate was, of course, the announcement last year by the Scottish Government that the sleeper contract with Serco would be terminated halfway through this June. That was after the company wanted to discuss finances in the wake of the pandemic. It did seem a very sudden decision. When ScotRail became NatRail on April Fool's Day last year with the obligatory plaque unveiling by the First Minister, it followed years of negative publicity for Abellio. That's not the background here. Since Serco started running the sleeper service, they've invested in new fleet. There are 75 new carriages in less than four years. When we look at revenue, it was falling when the contract was awarded, but since then Serco has grown revenue by 48% with 2022 incredibly being their best ever year. This coming year looks set to be even better. Customers must like what they do. In fact, they've scored the highest ever customer satisfaction scores with full trains. Employee satisfaction is also up despite what the RMT might say. Against that, it does seem strange for even Richard Leonard to be arguing for change, though for him, as he's confirmed, it is ideological. Serco is clearly doing something right. I've not yet been on the sleeper, but I do hope to go soon on a trip to London, because for me, on a one-way trip, it offers great value for money when compared to other options. There are a range of ways to travel on the sleeper. You could just take a seat or there's a choice of cabin options, too, and there's lots of Scottish produce on board, even the mattresses are from Aberdeen. The minister has to make her mind up and she has three options. Sleeper could rejoin ScotRail. She could bring in an operator of last resort, or she could offer a direct contract award, which may be the best in terms of value for money. I've spoken to Serco and I hope that the minister will do so, too. They are keen to discuss a direct contract award, which would mean ministers having complete control of the contract, and that surely must appeal to the Government. Last month, Jenny Garlruth said that she was assessing that option, so has she now done so? A cloud of uncertainty hangs over the sleeper service, which is unfair on staff. I've outlined some of the options for the minister. She needs to say what she plans to do and why, and she should set out the business case for that decision. How would taking the service off Serco help passengers and how would it help the taxpayer? With the current contract ending in June, we're running out of track. This Government never said why taking ownership of ScotRail would be better, and they never had a plan for making it so. I hope that the minister doesn't repeat that mistake with the iconic Caledonian sleeper. Thank you, Mr Simpson. I now call Neil Bibby to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Up to four minutes, please, Mr Bibby. I thank Richard Leonard for bringing forward this important and timely debate. The Caledonian sleeper is 150 years old this year, from the Victorian era up to the present day. It has been a vital and valued link between Scotland and London for travellers of all kinds. Now, more than ever, the sleeper has a potentially vital role to play as a means of low-carbon travel. The two most used domestic flight routes are between London and Glasgow and London and Edinburgh. There's clearly significant potential from model shift from domestic flights to rail. A reliable, affordable and comfortable sleeper service can play a key part in this shift. It can and should play an important role in getting people back onto our railways and towards meeting Scotland's and the UK's climate commitments. It's also vitally important for our tourism sector. For the sleeper to play this role, we need a world-class service and we need value for money for passengers and taxpayers, too. Under the Circle franchise since 2015, we have had neither. Circle has not only failed on its franchise commitments. Its running on the sleeper service has not been a physically happy experience for either passengers or staff. A 2021 survey of Caledonia's sleeper staff by the R&T found that nearly 60 per cent of those sufferings had felt harassed by management at work, nearly half had felt bullied. Meanwhile, price hikes mean that a standard bed on the service is now up to £190 one way out of reach for many, many people in Scotland. I do believe that many people in Scotland would far rather take the train to London, but at prices like that, it's no wonder that many people have to opt to take a cheaper flight. As Richard Leonard said, despite the... Yes, we'll do it. Liam Kerr? I'm very grateful. Given that the current subsidy, as I understand it, is £164 per ticket, how on earth, going back to John Mason's contribution, could the ticket price be made any cheaper without huge funds being plowed in from the public purse? Clearly, there needs to be investment in subsidy in the railways. There always has been, and there always will be. However, we want a publicly owned railway that reinvests the profits from those private companies into services. If we do that, we can make rail travel more affordable. As Richard Leonard said, despite significant cost and revenue risk being transferred to the Scottish Government for a number of years, Serco has received fees for running the service, and indeed this week, Mr Kerr, Serco reported an operating profit of £11.2 million. The public, however, paid the price. That is, as Richard Leonard's motion states, money from the public purse being used to fund the profits of a private operator. There is a better way. I believe that the case is clear that, in June 2023, the Caledonia sleeper should be taken into public ownership. Such a step would mark an important move away from the inefficient and costly fragmentation of our railways. It would stop public money going to fund private profits and instead see those profits channel back into the network to the benefit of passengers and the public. What is more, Presiding Officer? We have a pre-established structure and model for doing this. Falling ScotRail is being brought into public ownership after the failure of a bellio. The structures are there to run the sleeper in the public sector alongside ScotRail. My question to the minister is this. What is the Government's policy intention? As Richard Leonard said, prior to her party conference, she appeared to be talking about public ownership. Recently, however, there seems to be talk of a direct award to Serco. I hope that today the minister will deliver some good news to rail users' staff and tax fares by confirming that it is her policy intention that the Caledonia sleeper will be brought into public ownership and run for the benefit of passengers, not private profits. Can I also welcome the opportunity to debate the future of the Caledonia sleeper service and thank Richard Leonard for securing the slot? Fundamentally, I do not think that we can deliver a People's ScotRail without a sleeper service that is fully integrated and operated in the national interest and run by a public company. Like many members, I am uncomfortable that a company that is better known for running detention centres and evicting people seeking asylum is currently the operator of a national rail service. I am pretty sure that that on its own is not a valid reason to pull Serco out of the running of the franchise, but I would certainly get a better night's sleep on the train knowing that it was being run by an operator who actually reinvests its profits back into the national interest. A nationalised sleeper service should not just be at the heart of this Government's vision for rail, it should also be at the heart of its vision for aviation because there is no credible way to meet our climate targets without a reduction in unnecessary air miles. Short-haul flights within the UK and to continental Europe can and should be reduced and the sleeper service should play its full part. We have already seen rail overtake flying as the most popular motor transport between Edinburgh and London. Rail share of this market rose from 35 per cent pre-Covid to 57 per cent last year, and rail operators have been smart. They have understood the market well on the east coast and have geared their marketing and pricing to what people now need and also can afford post Covid. The opportunity to replicate the success for the sleeper service is there, but it will need better integration and that must start with better ticketing and fair fares. With single ticket prices in the hundreds, the sleeper is simply not an affordable service at the moment and nationalised or not we need to be doing all we can to ensure that sleeper is a low cost option competitive with aviation. Since the Eurostar terminal shifted to St Pancras, the opportunity for seamless connections to Europe has been there for rail passengers coming from and to Scotland. A passenger, for example, getting on a sleeper at Inverness only has one platform change to get to Paris, Brussels and now Amsterdam by the morning of the next day, but the lack of an integrated affordable ticket remains the biggest stumbling block. We need to think big. The Irish Tea Shock and the French President have already announced a combined ferry and train ticket that will link the two countries starting this year. It should also feature a big discount for young people. If there is time in hand, I will take Mr Simpson. Very quickly. Does Mark Ruskell not accept that the sleeper service is in fact incredibly popular and the trains often run full? I do not think that that is the case on every single journey. What we have seen with the east coast is operators getting very smart about the way that they are structuring their fare prices and the offerings that they are creating. I think that more could be done with sleeper service, particularly on integrated ticketing. I want to return to that, Presiding Officer, because it is not just France and Ireland planning to ditch air travel. A new European sleeper train from Belgium to Berlin is launching in May with plans to expand the route to Prague. New direct rail services between Paris, Madrid and Italy are also getting ready to be launched next year. Our German Green Party colleagues have already been promoting a plan for a fully integrated European sleeper service at the European Parliament, including our Cali sleeper as a vital part of Europe's rail network. Scotland should not be left out of this rail renaissance that is happening across Europe. Brexit has left us isolated and at times locked up in a 10-mile tailback outside of Dover. We need to be better connected, but, of course, most European rail services are being run by nationalised rail companies that have the vision and backing of their Governments at their heart. We need a Cali sleeper run in the public interest and integrated with the rest of Europe's national rail services. I look forward to that vision and that day coming soon. I now call Liam Kerr to be followed by Karen Mawkin up to four minutes, please. I want to make a short contribution to this debate as someone who used to use the sleeper. I used to commute to and from London on the sleeper, and I still take it reasonably often. I readily recognise Richard Leonard's claims of the significant social, economic and environmental contribution that the sleeper makes. Having experienced first hand the excellent upgrades to the rolling stock, the use of local produce in the buffet car and the economic and net zero benefits to the north-east, in particular, of bringing people in and taking them to London. However, it is that experience that causes me great disquiet in the calls for nationalisation of this service. Richard Leonard, first of all, suggests that he is persuaded of this model by analogy to ScotRail. For anyone who uses ScotRail, as I do, but often can't, with Aberdeen having been cut off for much of last week, for example, that claim is extraordinary. That leads to the fundamental question that hasn't been answered, whether nationalisation would of itself improve the service. After all, as Graham Simpson said, it's not helped ScotRail. Indeed, last February Richard Leonard himself said in debate, we must encourage people back onto the railway in volumes that signal modal shift. Absolutely right. He went on that this cannot be done in the context of ticket-office cuts and closures, service reductions and the increase in fares. Yes, of course. Neil Bibby. There is a difference here between support and public ownership and the SNP's management of the railways. We would take different decisions from the SNP that the Government has taken in the past years. I readily acknowledge the appalling decisions that have been taken by the SNP Government. I think that Neil Bibby makes a good point on that. The fact is that those cuts are things that we have all seen since nationalisation. My point being that public ownership of the sleeper service doesn't of itself improve the passenger experience, the staff experience or, indeed, any other aspect. It can't, because the motion that rails the public purse would not be expected to fund profits for a private operator of the service says that. Richard Leonard clearly didn't bother to take even a cursory glance at the publicly available books that show that Serco has lost over £60 million running the sleeper since taking up the franchise. I remind him that the transport minister told me last year that ScotRail's rail passenger services, which cost £266 million in 2016, would, by the end of 2022, cost an expected £407 million. That is a parliamentary question that I will be putting in after this to see what it actually has been. If Richard Leonard had done his homework, he would know that the rise of work from home has cut fare income on the railways from £11 billion to £9 billion, which means that the only way to drive improvements on a nationalised railway—I don't think I'll have time, Mr Leonard. I can allow a wee bit of time and a wee bit of latitude to the member wish to hear from Richard Leonard. So, if it's about all these people working from home, why are our motorways and roads coming into major city centres congested in the way that they are? We need to get the people out of their cars onto the railways. Yes, we absolutely do. That is why, when Richard Leonard makes the point earlier that we need to deliver investment in the railway and cut the fares, he has to appreciate that the only way to do that, and therefore drive people away from their cars and onto the modal shift that he rightly brings up and that other members have brought up, are threefold. You either increase taxes on the people of Scotland, even those who never use the railway and are already subsidising journeys on the sleeper to the tune, as I said, of £164, and to hypothecate any higher tax tape to the railway, or you generate more money to invest in the sleeper by cannibalising other portfolios such as health or education, and no Government is ever going to do that, quite rightly, which leaves the only option is to cannibalise the railway budget from within, doing as the Scottish Government has done to ScotRail. You re-profile railway funds by cutting ticket office hours, cutting staff, cutting services, ramping up fares to squeeze more from the smaller passenger base. Presiding Officer, there is absolutely no analysis under which nationalisation could deliver a better service for passengers, staff or the taxpayers of Scotland. I go back to Richard Leonard's comments about the need for modal shift last year. I absolutely support him on that, not least to achieve our net zero ambitions, but in the context of the Climate Change Committee telling the Government how it is guilty of magical thinking when it comes to its net zero plans. I fear that we have heard more of that in this motion. I say to Richard Leonard that he must be careful what he dreams of, for if he were to ever nationalise the sleeper, he would rapidly find it turning into his worst nightmare. Thank you, Mr Kerr, and I call Karen Mocken to be followed by Casey Clark, who will be the last speaker before I ask the minister to respond. Up to four minutes, please, Ms Mocken. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I really want to thank my comrade Richard Leonard for bringing this debate into the chamber. It is such an important issue for us to debate, as we have heard across the chamber today. The Caledonian Sleeper Service is one of the jewels of Scotland's real infrastructure and represents a transport offering to the public that few other parts of the UK can really enjoy. The sleeper has been in operation since 1873, as we have heard, for 150 years this year. For many, it holds great memories, even our Opposition Tory members have mentioned that. It connects us across Scotland and the UK, and it does remain in popular demand to this day, despite the discussions that we have had in the chamber about the affordability at this present time. Graham Simpson mentioned that we were bringing this back to the chamber and taking this back in time, but the debate has shown from other members that we are talking about the way in which we sustain transport in this country, and we look at the environment and bringing people back into our railways to ensure that we can continue to have a proper look at our carbon footprint. I also want to talk a wee bit about the fact that I would associate myself with the comments that Richard Leonard has made on the fact that public ownership brings huge benefits to staff and to customers, if I can bring in John Mason's point, but it is important that staff and customers are seen as part of the equation. I do not believe that we should hand this service back to circle in June under any circumstances. Now is the right time—I think that we have heard—to bring the sleeper back under public control through a Government-owned company. We have heard today in this debate that we can do that. What better way to reward the staff of the sleeper service if we bring this service back into a long-term future in public hands? I believe that that would be popular, of course. Let's say that that happens. How is the member going to generate the money in order to pay for all the benefits that are being brought in by nationalisation? I think that the members of the Opposite Benches have to understand that this is a necessary thing for us to do, and Neil Bibby has also mentioned that we have always subsidised our railways quite rightly so, and that if we look at the contribution from Mark Ruskell, we want to integrate ourselves into Europe and be part of that service, and there is opportunity for us to do that. I believe that we absolutely can do that. Privatisation of the railways has been a disaster in this country and across Europe, and other European countries have done this so much better and have retained that public ownership. The current operators circle are now in a situation where they are paid by us to run the service, while at the end of the day we take the risk associated with that anyway. An incredible situation in which private enterprise can extract fees in order to run public assets, and if anything goes wrong, they just send it back to the public service anyway. When the railways across Britain were privatised, we were told that it would increase competition and drive down costs for the consumer. When we are saying that there is zero competition, zero risk to the companies, while customers pay increasingly high prices and shoulder the long-term financial burden, that cannot go on. I want to conclude by saying that it is a fantastic service that should be in public hands, and if the Government is serious, it will soon take it back into the public hands in the way in which it has been described that we can do. I refer to my entry in the register of members' interests and congratulate Richard Leonard on securing this important debate, which is part of a wider discussion about public transport and the climate challenge and how we get people to move from car and planes to rail in particular as the greenest form of transport. We need to compare where we are in this country, Scotland and the rest of the UK, with other European countries. In Germany, we know that it is possible to travel by train throughout the country for nine euros. In Spain, most train travel now is free for another year. In France, it has recently obtained permission from the European Commission to ban domestic flights on routes where train is available. Having listened in particular to Liam Kerr's contribution to the debate, it is very clear that we need big decisions by the UK Government as well as the Scottish Government. Circle has operated the Caledonian Sleeper franchise since March 2015. Prior to that, it was integrated into the ScotRail franchise and it was due to the Covid-19 pandemic that in March 2020 Caledonian Sleeper was transferred on what is called an emergency measures agreement. The all-cost and revenue risk was transferred to the Scottish Government and Circle received a fee for running the services. The risk is already with the Scottish Government and Circle are eligible to receive fees that they have been doing. The debate is to encourage the Scottish Government to take Caledonian Sleeper back into public ownership. I would be happy to take an intervention from Graham Simpson, as he still says. Thanks for taking the intervention. Can the member tell us, because I haven't heard yet from anyone, what it is that Circle have done wrong with the Caledonian Sleeper service? One speaker has said that they have been running a very good service. I suspect that the member has not spoken to as many Caledonian Sleeper employees as I have. We could have a debate on some of the practices that have operated in Caledonian Sleeper in its own right. We have already heard from Richard Leonard about some of the alleged bullying that has been taking place, but some of us have a dossier in terms of some of the problems in relation to how that service is operated. The Green Party has already spoken about some of Circle's behaviour in relation to people seeking asylum and bespoke accommodation. We know also of their track record in test and trace. There are some principled issues in terms of the kinds of organisations that Government awards contracts to, but there are some very specific issues in relation to how Circle have operated Sleeper services. I would say that they are discredited and they are not fit to receive public money from the Scottish Government, but that is probably a wider debate that we could focus on in detail. The issue today before us is whether that is the best way for a public service to be operated. We know—I do not think that we have the specific figures, but we believe that nearly £2 million in fees have been given to Circle as part of the current contract. I would ask the Scottish Government to confirm how much money Circle is receiving. I would hope that, over the coming months, as the minister is making decisions, Circle will take into account the very strong support that Circle has from the Scottish Labour Party, in particular to bring the Sleeper service back into public ownership. I congratulate Mr Leonard on securing this afternoon's important debate on the Caledonian Sleeper. I am not sure how many MSPs in the chamber have travelled on the Sleeper, but I would encourage colleagues to experience it. It is a fantastic opportunity to travel on the Sleeper. I undertook it myself for the very first time in November, and it was a really enjoyable experience. As Mr Leonard and Mr Bibby noted, Sleeper rail services have existed in Scotland for almost 150 years this year, and that gives us that connectivity from Scotland to other parts of the UK. They are really essential in terms of the vital mix of rail services that we have in Scotland. I have listened to the afternoon's debate with interest, and I want to return to the members' points in turn. It is fair to say that there are some different views in the chamber, perhaps split along ideological lines. However, I remind members for context that it was this Government that brought Scotland into public ownership, and I think that that is quite an important context to start from. On the issue of Scotland obviously delivering better rail services requires real leadership, Chris Gibb is leaving his key post as chief executive of ScotRail Holdings after less than a year. The Scotsman has reported that political interference was one of the factors in his decisions and linked it to the postponement of engineering works in Fife. Will the minister confirm or deny that that was the case? I recognise Mr Bibby's outline of an individual. To say to that individual, his post came to an end this year, so the issues that he has highlighted in the chamber are not my understanding of why Mr Gibb is leaving. If he would like to speak with Mr Gibb, as I have done, he would be more than welcome to do so. I am sure that Mr Gibb can give him his own views on that matter, but he has made a substantial contribution to the first year of public ownership of ScotRail. I want to respond to some of the history around the sleeper, but going back to the beginning of the sleeper in 1873, we had trains that were journeys that could last in excess of 11 hours. Obviously, things have moved on since that time. We have two sleeper services in the UK today. We have the Night Riviera from London to Cormill, and we have the Calais sleeper. The sleeper is the prominent example of connecting communities in Scotland directly to London. As important as the Calais sleeper opens up travel, it opens up travel for people who live in Scotland, but also for visitors. I think that we heard some of that from members today. Recently, we have really seen the balance. I am happy to do so. Rhoda Grant. The minister will remember that I wrote to her about some of the employment practices of Circle, especially about staff based in Inverness. They were making staff redundant with no hope of any redeployment without any consultation with the unions. I wonder if she will give that some consideration when she makes her decision. I thank the member for the intervention. She makes an important point. I absolutely will give that consideration. I spent an hour and a half yesterday with the real unions, and we talked about this issue at Lent as she will understand. I am more than happy to look at that, particularly in the round of future decisions that I will need to make in relation to the future viability of the sleeper service and how that will be delivered. As I mentioned, there has been a shift in our real way traffic, as it were, to the more tourist end of the passenger outputs. Liam Kerr spoke to some of the societal benefits that the sleeper service brings in terms of the economic benefits and the social benefits, but as we started to recover from the pandemic, the tourist services that are driving growth in the Caledonian sleeper business, which I think is perhaps different from when Mr Kerr and others may have used the service historically when it was more of a commuter service. As Liam Simpson noted, we have really quite high satisfaction levels from customers, and I think that that is important to reflect today. I think that the minister is right. It is really important to reflect on that. Carol Mocken described the sleeper being run by Serco as a fantastic service. Does the minister agree with that? If it is not broke, why fix it? I recognise the member's point. Serco is running a broadly good service. I will come on to talk about that in a bit more detail as we progress. However, it is important to say that the rationale, the decision that reached around about the provision of services going forward, was one that was based on value for money. We have spoken today at length. I have heard members make contributions on the importance of recognising the challenges that we face in Government in relation to the sustainability of public funding providing that subsidy, and I think that that is important to recognise. Simpson noted that some of the products on board—which, of course, are Scottish, and I think that that is important to help the service that is run to support local communities and also to give Visit Scotland an opportunity to promote Scotland to visitors who are coming to Scotland and travelling from London, of course. The success of the Calais sleeper has surpassed any other train company in the UK. I think that that is a really important point. Serco has been running a broadly good service, as we have seen, as I mentioned, from passenger satisfaction levels. It is revenues from the last year's outstrip pre-pandemic performance, and its bookings are stronger than ever. As a franchising authority, we have lifted the Calais sleeper into new levels of success. Scottish ministers historically, some years ago now, took the decision that the Caladonian sleeper would be operated separately from ScotRail services. That allowed the level of dedicated management for that service, which I think is hugely important in terms of how the service has progressed. The service has evolved, and with that it has been able to make progress. I recognise that there have been challenges historically, but it is important to put that on record. The policy decision, of course, was ahead of the resurgence of sleeper services across Europe, which I think we heard from Mr Ruskell. The Caladonian sleeper has established a model that has attracted attention from international sleeper operators, which is important to say. We have, in the Caladonian sleeper, a service that is thriving. That is quite unique in the current context on rail. There is a testament to the quality and attractiveness of the service, but also to the work of the staff. They continue, of course, to help in making the service as successful as it currently is. As a service, it is increasingly recognised internationally, as I mentioned, and it attracts passengers from all over the world. Of course, there are challenges, and I very much recognise that the franchise has had its problems. I think that we heard some of that from members this afternoon. The issues around the introduction of new trains are well documented, bringing in a complicated fleet with on-suite facilities, which is pretty ambitious and challenging at the time. However, we can also recognise the success that we have now with the strong recovery that I have mentioned and moving forward from the pandemic. As we have noted in the discussion this afternoon, I have taken the decision not to accept the rebasing proposal that was received from Serco at the end of last year. The current franchise agreement will end on 25 June this year. I need to repeat that the decision not to rebase was in no way a reflection on the quality of the product that has been developed nor on the commitment of the staff, as I mentioned, to deliver the service very well every day. It was instead a question of the terms that the rebase offer and that those terms did not represent value for money anymore. The decision about the arrangements that will replace the current franchise when it comes to an end in June need to be taken in accordance with the existing UK railway legislation. I cannot, as a Scottish Minister, unpick that legislation much as I may like to. Of course, the Scottish Parliament, again, additionally, does not to the power to change that legislation, at least not at the current time. Working within the constraints of that legislation, we are in the process of determining the arrangements to secure the continued provision of the Caledonian sleeper services beyond June. She has referred a few times to section 25 of the 1993 Railways Act, but does she not accept that section 57 of the 2016 Scotland Act provides her with an opportunity to put this out to attend a process that would allow a public sector bud? I hear what Mr Leonard is saying. I do not think that the legislation that he cited recuses me from also adhering to the current UK legislation. That is the advice that I take from my civil servants in Transport Scotland if he has legislative advice, which contradicts the advice that I am receiving. I am more than happy to consider that. Working within the constraints of the current UK legislation, I will move forward. As I noted in my letter to the NZ Committee back in October, it has been determined that it would not be appropriate to pursue a competition for the re-letting of the franchise at this time. We do not consider that the prevailing conditions in the current UK rail market would sustain that option. The post-pandemic recovery on rail has created, I think, a substantial uncertainty and risk about future market conditions. In terms of the current railways legislation, the remaining options for successor arrangements are the direct award of a new franchise agreement or to mobilise operator of last resort arrangements, as was undertaken for Scotland. That work, as I mentioned, is well under way, noting that June is fast approaching to consider those options in accordance with the current legislation and, of course, with Scottish ministers franchising policy statements and with the intent to deliver the best service, of course, for Caledonian sleeper passengers and the best value for the people of Scotland. I congratulate Mr Leonard again on securing this afternoon's debate on the future of Caledonian sleeper. I have listened with interest to the contribution from members on how those services should be delivered from June. I commit to update Parliament in the coming weeks on the new proposed delivery model 1, which delivers for passengers and staff alike.