 We now need to move to the next item of business which is a debate on motion 1.300 in the name of Neil Bibby on ScotRail. I would invite any members who wish to contribute to this debate to press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I press R in the chat function if they're joining us online in a column, Neil Bibby. To speak to him, move the motion around 7 minutes please, Mr Bibby. Felly, fawr yn cyfnod ar gyfer ymlaen, mae Gwelter y Peth yn cydweithio gynraddau gyda ni'n gyfnod ar gyfer y dialwadau gyda ni'n gyffredinol ar y baid, ond yn gweithio i chi fod yn ei amser a chosedeb ar y gwasgau panfyrdd. Rhaid i chi'n rhaid i chi'n iawn a chos o'r fforddau sydd wedi'i gydag i gylliannychu y cwrwm gweithio ar ei awr, neu'r gwaith yr ysgawr yn imboedd ac yn supportedr. O'r cyfnodau sydd fawr wedi'i cychwyn i gyd, byddiol, ar gael peidio i Llywodraeth ddiogelol ar gyfer Stonesdale-Rhaeileidiau. A o dechrau Llywodraeth, rydyn ni wedi ei gynhygr yn fawr o gyfnod, o grannu cyd-reidiau, o fawr i d philanthropy, o fawr o gydigau aiool, a o ddull yn llwfr, o bobl feddwl cyfnodau. Rydyn ni wedi cael gweithiau yw Llywodraeth ffredaeth. Wrth gweithio yma wedi bod dydyn nhw'n trwm iawn at wyrdd ydyn nhith, Nicola Sturgeon clym she wants Scotland to be at the forefront of tackling climate change. The SNP promised to reduce car use by 20 per cent, yet COP26 will meet in Glasgow in less than 40 days and the SNP's stance on rail confirms that Greta Thunberg was right. Scotland isn't a world leader on climate change, the SNP are all talk and they'll walk and so are the greens. Two days ago, Patrick Harvie tweeted three simple words, take the train. How on earth does this SNP green coalition expect people to leave the car and take the train when rail services are being cut and our rail services are in crisis? John Mason. I thank the member very much for giving way. Would he accept that some people are actually working from home now and therefore the trains are very empty in some routes? Of course we have a pandemic but we should be making it easier and not harder for people to travel on the train. How does cutting trains make it more likely that people are going to use them? We should stop hiking up fares, we should provide more trains so people can travel safely in a socially distanced way and we should stop these timetable cuts so people can safely and more conveniently travel and leave the car at home. Over the years of prevarication and poor performance, the SNP finally decided to bring ScotRail back into public ownership, not because it believed in public ownership as a matter of principle but because the deal that it did with Abelio was a flop from start to finish. It had to take the keys back. On this side of the chamber, we believe in public ownership of the railways not as a pre-election stunt but to put the voices of passengers and workers at the heart to invest in a growing rail network, not a declining one. It's time to set out a vision for the future of ScotRail and it's time for leadership to make that vision real. A new people's ScotRail publicly owned and accountable with representation from Scotland's passengers and the four joint trade unions on its board. A ScotRail that works for passengers, not profit, with affordable travel and improving services. A modern ScotRail, expanding services, decarbonising and driving modal shift away from Scotland's roads to Scotland's railways. If the minister and his green colleagues share that vision, then they will commit to one, restoring ScotRail services to pre-pandemic levels from May, two, intervening to resolve all current industrial disputes on our railways, and three, withdrawing their feeble amendment and backing Labour's motion today. That is the test for the SNP and greens today. Their amendment does not reject overall service reductions. It's a green light for railway cuts. Just like they sold out on a public energy company yesterday, they're set to sell out Scottish passengers today. Their weak amendment proves that the SNP will all talk when it comes to improving our railways and their deal with the greens is a sham. On the day the SNP and greens announced a co-operation agreement, ScotRail unveiled proposals to cut 300 services per day. That's thousands every week and tens of thousands every year. 26 million vehicle miles has been stripped from the rail network. Greener Government is impossible with a declining rail network. Children watching Thomas and Friends could tell you that. The minister said that ScotRail's proposals made 100 more services, but that's compared to a temporary timetable, not the pre-pandemic timetable. It's disingenuous to compare those proposals to the current timetable and to suggest that service levels are rising. It's time for the SNP to stop the spin, and it's time for the greens to stop the cuts. This summer, an eternal ScotRail report by Professor Ian Docherty recommended a 10 per cent reduction to services. Rail unions issued a statement condemning the report, which it said seeks to exploit the Covid pandemic, and it's fall out to attack the jobs of railway workers and cut the services that they provide to the public. I submitted a motion calling on the Scottish Government to reject the report, which was signed by three green MSPs. Now we are in ScotRail proposing 12.5 per cent reduction in services, exceeding Docherty's recommendations. What does that mean in practice? 34 fewer trains in both directions between Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh Wavelay via Falkirk High Monday to Friday, a 27 per cent reduction in trains available between our two largest cities. Does anyone in this chamber think that that's acceptable? Does anyone? I think that's very telling, Presiding Officer. It means 25 fewer trains also leaving Cross Hill Station in the First Minister's constituency. I'll take the intervention. I think that Neil Bibby for taking the intervention. I didn't shout up then, but we are wholly opposed to those cuts. My concern, as I'll make clear later, is that they will just stay when ScotRail is nationalised and things will get worse and worse. Does he share that concern? Neil Bibby, thank you for that intervention. I do share his concern. We believe in public ownership to make the railways better. We should be having a growing rail network and a better rail network of public ownership, not a declining one. That's very much what it looks like that's going to happen under this SNP green coalition. I was saying there that 25 fewer trains leaving Cross Hill Station in the First Minister's constituency heading to Glasgow Central, a 33 per cent reduction. It also means that six fewer trains will leave Arbroff in the Transport Minister's constituency on weekday services to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee, a 12 per cent reduction. Is this really the level of services ministers intend to build back to in 2022? In agreeing this motion, Parliament can give its view and call for services to be built back to pre-pandemic levels from May 2022. We accept that timetables can change, but the overall level of service must not be diminished. Labour is also calling on the Scottish Government to resolve all current industrial disputes on the railways with settlements that are fair for the workforce. Industrial action during COP26 is likely and it would be an international humiliation for the Scottish Government. Are they really willing to stand by and let that happen? That action is not instructed by London bosses, as five SNP MSPs disgracefully claimed. It is mandated democratically by key workers here in Scotland. To suggest otherwise is an anti-union smear against those workers and those MSPs should apologise. RMT are again in prolonged dispute with ScotRail, TSA, warn ScotRail to expect action over understaffing. Unites engineering members voted overwhelmingly for strike action 2. All rail unions are calling for disputes to be resolved fairly and they have been frustrated with the minister, behaving like a Tory transport minister, appearing to rule out intervening used unless workers accept efficiencies. If the minister wants efficiencies and a resolution, then he should reassess the excessive fees that his Government is paying a bellio for a six-day-a-week service instead of legitimising attacks on key workers. You do need to wind up now, to conclude, Presiding Officer. The vision for a better greener public that controls ScotRail is one that many claim to share. However, the reality of industrial unrest and service cuts is not compatible with that vision. I therefore move the motion in my name and invite Parliament to call for an end to an industrial unrest on the railways, the restoration of services to pre-pandemic levels and a new vision for a publicly owned ScotRail that works for Scotland's passengers. I now call on Graham Day to speak to him and move amendment 1300.2 around six minutes. I very much welcome the opportunity to debate the future of rail services in Scotland on this World Car Free Day, because no one can or should doubt this Government's commitment to improving Scotland's railways. In 2008, ScotRail was operating just under 2,200 services per weekday, providing 467,000 seats. By 2019, ScotRail had increased to just over 2,400 services per weekday, providing 645,000 seats. Since 2009, the communities of Alloa, Lawrence Kurt, Armadale, Black Ridge, Caldercru, Conanbridge, Shoffair, S-Bank, Newton Grange, Gordbridge, Stow, Gallishields, Tweedbank and Cintour have been reconnected to the rail network through the vessel at the beach and cuts. In the next three years, Reston, East Linton, Dahlcross, Cameronbridge and Leven will follow. I want to make progress and a lot I want to cover here. 441 track kilometres have been electrified and 108 brand new electric trains comprising 364 carriages have been introduced to the network. Prior to the onset of the pandemic, more than 75 per cent of passenger journeys on ScotRail were being made in net zero-emission trains, walking the walk. However, we know that there is more to do. No, I will not have heard enough from that side of the chamber. As we seek to rise to the challenge of climate change and transport contribution to Scotland's emissions, we have big plans for this transportation mode, including full decarbonisation and it becoming a go-to for freight. That commitment and investment was apparent pre-2020. It endured through the height of the pandemic, with our continuing support for the industry. I can assure the chamber that our commitment investment will continue as we shape the future of Scotland's railway. We face some immediate challenges that are largely brought about by the pandemic. A £1.1 billion annual spend on rail pre-Covid-19 has by necessity morphed into a spend of £1.5 billion plus. At the risk of mixing transport metaphors, we need to steady the ship and get ScotRail ready for not so much a build-back but a take-off. Labour says that there should be no overall service reduction in pre-pandemic ScotRail service levels. In effect, they are saying that what was suitable for 2019 should be suitable for 2022. Do they not recognise—you have had seven minutes to make your point, I want to rebut some of this—that there have been substantial economic, societal and environmental changes since 2019 and that those changes are having and will have a material effect on the provision of railway services? There will be changes to working patterns where we work and how we work, but we have yet to understand what that will mean for the future. Therefore, what we need is a level of service provision that meets the changing needs of passenger demand as Scotland comes out of Covid but with the flexibility for beyond. I am well aware that ScotRail's consultation on its proposed timetable for May 22 has generated interest and concern in some quarters, but the review also proposes positive changes. ScotRail is currently operating around 2,000 services per week per day, providing 551,000 seats. That will grow. There are areas in the country where the services will be improved by this. Mr Bibby asks where. Let me tell him where it is going to be improved. Glasgow and Carlisle via Kilmaric in Dumfries. New services have been added between Dundee and Glasgow, and new services in Vargauri and Gwain Eagle. That answers your question. A review is not a permanent thing. Of course, we can review services again if travel patterns change again, but surely we must look to deliver services to meet people's needs when they want to and need to travel, which frees up capacity to provide more in that regard. That is essentially what the current review does. We have to address the operational challenges of the railway in an efficient manner all of the challenges. I want to recognise the crucial and positive role that our railway workers have played in supporting key workers through the pandemic and enabling key workers of the key parts of the economy to function. Everyone working on Scotland's railways deserves to be treated fairly and paid fairly. However, it is a hard truth that there is simply no additional funding available to provide further support to the rail sector. Accordingly, if fair and reasonable pay increases are to be achieved, it has to be through the realisation of operational efficiencies within the business. However, let me also be clear, as I have been with the majority of the unions who are engaging constructively in exploring that. Efficiencies cut more than one way. Scotland Rail's management needs to be open to better ways of working that reduce costs on their side. As transport manager, as I did earlier today, I will be pressing the officer of the rail regulator to progress savings to the fixed costs that Scotland's railway has in regard to its contractual arrangements with Network Rail, which make up 55 per cent of overall spend. I find common ground when Mr Bibby is in the belief that a public sector-controlled integrated passenger railway is the model to best deliver for Scotland. The period of stability provided by the decision that we took to deliver ScotRail services within the public sector allows us to assess the scale and pace of recovery from Covid-19 and to consider how we respond to the UK Government's white paper. I am conscious of the time, Presiding Officer. There is so much more I wanted to say, but I will conclude on this. The pandemic impacts and climate change challenge mean that we are going to have to do things differently, to deliver differently. Taking ScotRail back into public sector control means that we can operate differently. Both must be seen by all concerned as an opportunity, and I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much Minister. I now call on Graham Simpson to speak to remove amendment 1300.1 for five minutes, Mr Simpson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in my name. I have to say, I find it extraordinary that a transport minister coming into a debate on transport would not take any interventions. I thank Scottish Labour for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is being held against the backdrop of looming service cuts, on-going industrial action and a forthcoming change of ownership of our rail operator. Today, as we have heard, unions have been protesting outside the First Minister's official residence calling on her to stop the service cuts. The RMT's Mick Lynch says, with COP26 just weeks away, it begars belief that the Scottish Government is happy to preside over massive cuts to rail services, despite that being a sustainable and low-carbon form of transport. That will do nothing to make Scotland a net-zero nation and will push more people into cars. Mr Lynch is absolutely right on that, but he might also reflect on the fact that strikes achieve the same thing. It is clear to me that if those cuts go ahead, they will be here to stay and that that direction of travel will not be good. It is easy to be critical when anything goes wrong on the railways. We have all done it, leaves on the line, the wrong kind of snow, stations skipping, fair increases, late trains, no trains, breakdowns and now strikes. There is a lot to criticise and there always will be because running railways is a ffiendishly complicated business, but we have to be honest and say that while the privatisation of the railways led to some improvements and an increase in rail travel, it has not been the roaring success that many hoped it would be. We should also be honest and say that nationalisation is not the key role that Labour and the SNP think it will be. The industrial action that we are seeing on Scotland's railways should serve as a warning to government that could well be more where this comes from. Today should be a debate about a positive future for our railways, not a debate about industrial strife, though that suits some people's narrative but not mine. The minister should insist that parties get around the table and accept mediation. He should insist on that. Perhaps he can address that point later. We need to move away from the private bad, public good mindset and accept three things. The first is that we want trains to run on time. Second, we need simpler, cheaper fares and easier methods of getting tickets. Third, we need more lines connecting more communities. That is not just reopening old lines but improving what is there. It is a nonsense that we have largely single track lines linking Aberdeen, Inverness and the central belt and not electrified and we need to improve the line beyond Inverness, too. Patrick Harvie tells people to take the train. That is just not an option for many people. Even in the central belt, as members know, the UK Government is to create a new public body, Great British Railways. It will own the infrastructure, receive the fare revenue, run and plan the network and set most fares and timetables. Network Rail will be absorbed into the new organisation. Great British Railways will simplify the current confusing mass of tickets, standardising mobile and online ticketing and bringing an end to the need to queue for paper tickets. It will contract with private companies to operate trains to the timetable and fares that it specifies in a way that is used by Transport for London. I like the TFL model and I think that it is something that we should look at here in Scotland but we do not have to. We know that the SNP wants to take Scotland into public ownership from next March. What we do not know, Presiding Officer, is any of the detail of what that will look like or any in-depth explanation of why whatever it is that it proposes and we do not know what that is will deliver for the passenger. Now, our amendment calls on the Government to come up with that, perhaps the minister can do that later. Presiding Officer, we want to see a green recovery. Public transport should be at the heart of that. It is going to need investment. It is going to need commitment. What it does not need is dogma and our fear. That is where we are heading. Thank you, Mr Simpson. I can tell the chamber that we have no time in hand, so any interventions will have to be accommodated in the time allocation. Beatrice Wishart, who will be followed by Paul MacLennan, is in four minutes, please, Ms Wishart. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There is an anecdote attributed to one of my predecessors as a representative of Shetland, Joe Grimmond, who, when asked to name his closest railway station, would say, Bergen. I cannot say that I am not jealous of colleagues who are able to hop on a train and return to their constituencies after a day or a week here. Instead, I am more used to flight safety demonstrations and gate changes than staying behind the yellow line and platform announcements. As this motion points out, today is World Car Free Day, a tricky task when you live in an area that geographically challenges public transport. We must do more to break the reliance on cars for short journeys, though. We should make sure that every part of Scotland has an excellent local transport system and good links to the rest of the country. We must make public transport sustainable if we are to see any benefit for our planet. In 2015, transport became Scotland's single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. It accounts for more than a third of emissions. Progress has been made in other sectors such as electricity, but transport has not budged. In 2018, 48.7 billion vehicle kilometres were travelled by road. That is up 10 per cent in a decade. By 2037, Transport Scotland modelling forecasts a 25 per cent increase in car trips and a 44 per cent increase in goods vehicle trips. If we cut rail timetables, we certainly have no chance of changing that. We do not have a chance of meeting our climate change targets unless transport is rapidly decarbonised. Meanwhile, the current ScotRail Abelio setup has been beset by delays and dissatisfaction. People are so frustrated that, for the first time in decades, pre-pandemic, the number of people using rail actually went down. Delay repay compensation to passengers nearly doubled in the space of just two years. If our railways are facing cuts, potentially including to the workforce, we need a commitment of greater investment and fair treatment for workers. We support driving up improvements to services. Through stronger protections for passengers, performance improvements can be made. The next chapter for rail services needs to deliver more for passengers. We need governance that will deliver that from day one. For the future of rail, we would like to see a system that recognises the post-pandemic patterns of travel, which takes into account local input and allows for accountability by passengers, more freight on to railways to reduce congestion and pollution, and a move away from fossil fuels on the network towards electric power, batteries and hydrogen. We embrace the opportunity to run railways better, taking the best of the UK Government's Williams review, such as simplified modern ticketing. With passengers in mind, we can attract more people on to trains and out of their cars, all of which would help to accelerate action to tackle the climate emergency, and to meet the tougher target of a 75 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, which was put into Scottish law after work by the Scottish Liberal Democrats. We call on Scottish ministers to commit to an affordable, clean, green, reliable, expanded and modern railway, with overall journeys maintained, which allows for accountability by passengers. Empty, polluting, ageing trains do not benefit anyone. Change is needed now for our rail service. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate this afternoon on what is World Car Day, Car Free Day. Like many of us, I am and have been a regular user of rail services for many years. I welcome the news earlier this year that the Scottish Government was planning to bring ScotRail back into public hands, but what we need, unlike Mr Simpson, is that we need devolution of full rail powers to Scotland, not the UK. I want to pay thanks to Scotland's railway workers and staff for their dedication to keeping services running during Covid. This is an important part. In the context of the discussions, we have got to recognise the financial impact that the pandemic has had on ScotRail. The update that we all received today showed revenues are only at 50 per cent—50 per cent—a pre-pandemic level. That is the reality. We must acknowledge that the Scottish Government has invested record levels to improve connectivity and increase the number of trains across Scotland's rail network. Transport Minister mentioned that in the last 10 years, the Scottish Government has invested £1 billion in some 441 track kilometres of electrification and associated infrastructure improvements directly benefiting more than 35 million passenger journeys each year. In my constituency, East Linton station has just been granted planning permission and I only just met with Network Rail this morning to discuss time, money and construction. There was also an investment of additional platform in Dunbar. Employment in the railway in Scotland is at its highest level ever under this Government, with over 9,000 jobs and many others in the supply chain. Covid-19 has changed how and where we live, work and travel. Companies and organisations are reviewing the way they work. Hybrid working will become the norm. A recent report from the World Economic Forum found that 49 per cent will prefer home working after the pandemic, with another 30 per cent preferring a hybrid model. Two thirds of companies are actively looking at home and hybrid working models—two thirds. ScotRail is seeking to develop a timetable that will better meet future travel patterns, significantly reducing the unsustainable burden on the public purse of running more trains than are needed. Many communities across Scotland have reconnected to the rail network, including Allawa, Calder Crew and the Borders railway communities, open new stations on the Airdrie to Bathgate line and the Borders line. The Scottish Government has allocated a record £4.85 billion to maintain and enhance Scotland's railway in the current control period. That future investment includes continual electrification and decarbonisation through our rail services. The consultation on the proposed new timetable provides an opportunity for ScotRail customers and businesses to help to shape a reliable and responsive timetable. That is a starting point, not the end. It is time to recognise the challenges that we face on the railway and find a way to build back from the pandemic in a manner that delivers a more sustainable and efficient service that is ready to meet future demand. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Minister are committed to an affordable, clean, green, reliable and modern railway that is publicly owned and accountable, and founded on fair work first criteria, decarbonising our passenger rail services, meeting Scotland's net zero ambitions and supporting the Scottish Government amendment. I now call on Liz Smith, who will be followed by Richard Leonard. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Such is the very strong concern that has been expressed by many of my constituents across Mid Scotland and Fife, but most especially by those who live in the Perth to Edinburgh M90 corridor and in the area around Cercody and Central Fife and those near to Dumblane. Those are people who have been in touch because they are very concerned about what the proposed 2022 changes would mean for them and their families. I do not think that there is any other way to describe what is contained in those proposals other than cuts to rail services, because in percentage terms across Scotland it would work out as a 12 per cent reduction since the pre-pandemic year. I also fully understand why I sympathise with those passengers and rail workers who feel badly let down by this, because it has an impact not just on the services but also on jobs. The Scottish Government implies in its motion that Professor Doherty's report is about building back pre-pandemic levels but also providing for future demand. I want to examine that just a little bit further. I think that it was Mr Mason earlier this afternoon who, quite rightly, if I may say so, pointed out that working patterns are changing perhaps on a permanent basis. There will definitely be more people who will choose to work at home, people who previously would have been commuting to work in offices, but that fall in demand has to be set against the regional demographic changes and also against what we are told is a wider Scottish Government policy when it comes to the green agenda. The proposed removal of the direct link Edinburgh to Perth has been a particular concern, because the rerouting of Perth to Edinburgh via Dynfirmland will add 10 minutes to a journey time, to our rail services is already well over the time of comparable journeys in the rest of the UK and in Europe. Let's be honest, that's been precisely why we've been campaigning for the last 20 years for an upgrade to the real infrastructure between Edinburgh to Perth, based on the fact that we want to get more people on to greener transport, making trains much more competitive with roads. Surely we also have to pay attention to the extent of the population growth that is happening around the western edge of Perth city and around the hinterland of Cynros and where a large proportion of the working population is travelling to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Neither should we forget that Perth station is supposed to be the hub for Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness, which is exactly why bodies like Transformer have been presenting such a cogent case when it comes to infrastructure developments. It's surely very important that ScotRail recognises that all of this when it comes to timetabling its future services. Such was my concern about all of that. I asked to meet with the ScotRail officials on 6 September and they effectively told me that they are going to push ahead with those changes because there is so little that they can do regarding the constraints of the current infrastructure to make ScotRail services competitive against road. I understand that concern, but that's not your responsibility. I'm afraid that I don't accept what they are proposing for 2022 is going to be the right answer. Obviously, there are concerns in other parts of Mid Scotland and Fife about the proposed end of the direct link between Dumblin and Glasgow necessitating a change at Stirling and to some of the central Fife areas where they're going to have more changes at Invercy thing. People are telling us quite clearly that they want trains to be accessible, to run on time, to be clean and efficient. They do not want slower trains, cancellations and trains that are less competitive with car journeys, nor do they want to service, which Graham Simpson pointed out, is functioning against the backdrop of uneasy relationships with Government and passengers. Good quality transport has to be at the heart of economic policy making and I suggest that we learn a lot from what is going on in some of our European neighbours where they know how to get train services right. Thank you, Ms Smith. I now call on Richard Leonard, who will be followed by Emma Roddick. Mr Leonard, again four minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and can I refer members to my register of interests? Let me begin with the facts. Abelio ScotRail is fully funded by the Scottish Government. Fact. Even before the introduction of the emergency measures agreement, the Scottish Government funded two thirds of ScotRail Abelio's revenue. Fact. The Scottish Government has announced its intention to bring the ScotRail franchise into public ownership. Fact. The Scottish Government now has complete control of the ScotRail franchise. Fact. So why is it? I asked Scottish Green back benches and front benches, as well as the minister, why is it that the Scottish Government, in presiding over the commissioning of the dockety report, although no one is claiming responsibility for it, and now refusing to rule out implementing the recommendations of the dockety report is doing so, knowing that it will mean a radical cut in Scotland's rail services, a radical cut in the workforce, a radical cut in ticket offices. No wonder, no wonder. No wonder Professor Dockety himself says that his plans, I quote, will require addressing difficult cultural and political questions. When I tackled the minister on this in a written parliamentary question last month, he replied that Transport Scotland was working to, and I quote him, provide a platform, sick, to assess the scale and pace of recovery from Covid-19, and the minister spoke of, in his words, changing priorities and requirements of rail passengers. As usual, the minister did not answer the question that I asked, but, significantly, he did not deny that the Scottish Government was making its own assessment of the dockety cuts, so we make a simple, uncomplicated call on the Scottish Government today rule out cuts to rail services in Scotland. At a time of climate crisis, we should be expanding our railways, not contracting them. In plain terms, I know the cabinet secretary for net zero energy and transport is not here, but he was a late convert to ending the rail privatisation experiment. I say to him, to the minister and to the Government today, in all sincerity, the railways in public ownership run for passengers, not profits, are part of the solution to the climate change crisis, not part of the problem. The other question is this. With the Scottish Government in complete control of the ScotRail franchise, why is the cabinet secretary and the minister for transport presiding over Britain's longest-running industrial dispute? Why is it, when anti-trade union laws demand that the workforce re-ballot these hard-working senior conductors and ticket examiners, the key workers, at the very point that they are re-balloting? Why is it five SNP MSPs in Glasgow decided to issue a joint statement attacking their trade union and calling on the workers to collapse the strike or break the strike? Why didn't they instead issue a joint statement calling on ScotRail and their own government to address this pain justice, end this pay freeze and settle this dispute? Finally, I say to them, do they not recall the words of the cabinet secretary for finance, who in March 2021 said, I am clear that the pay freeze announced by the chancellor fundamentally misjudges the value of front-line workers? I think the SNP supported by the Greens in government is fundamentally misjudging the value of these front-line workers, so I call on the Government and the Parliament to get on the side of Scotland's railway workers and all of their unions, drop the planned cuts to rail services, drop the planned cuts to rail jobs, drop the planned cuts to terms and conditions and back the Labour motion at decision time tonight. Thank you very much, Mr Leonard. I call on Emma Roddick, who will be followed by Dean Lockhart, Ms Roddick. Again, four minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As someone for whom it is an everyday reality, I have spent over 48 hours on trains in the last month. Folk hamming up on World Car Day, World Car Free Day, the grave disruption to their lives that would come from not using their car for a 20-minute journey out of one day out of 365 really does jar, so I do thank my colleagues on the Labour benches for giving me this opportunity to make productive use of my irrational annoyance. However, being a Highlands and Islands representative, I do understand that not only is going car free difficult for many of my constituents, it is impossible. If you live in allness and you work in a care home in Barberville, how do you get to your night shift when the last bus has long gone? However, there are many, I accept, who could make the switch from car to public transport, but they don't because we are not yet giving them good reason to. When the journey from Thurso to Inverness is four hours on the train and two hours 20 in a car, why would you take the train if you can drive? Friends of the Far North line pointed out in their latest issue, and I think that it is fair to say all of their issues, that most of the Highland main line remains single track, asking when will the sun shine on the Highland main line. The need for doubling this route is something that I have already raised twice in this chamber, and I expect a number of my colleagues will be sick of hearing about it from me fairly soon and until it happens. Considering both the massive carbon efficiency benefits and the fact that massive lorries carrying freight, which could be transported by rail, not to mention the issues currently around who drives those lorries, are the cause of many issues on the A9. It is great to see mention of moving more freight on to our railways in the Government amendment, however you can only go so far with that while the Highland main line remains single track. If we are talking about the benefit to the climate, I think that it surely makes sense to move freight off the roads and on to rail, where the journeys are the longest and therefore the carbon emissions are the highest. It is fantastic, really fantastic, that we are talking so much about decarbonising public transport, about electrifying and exploring ways to hydrogen power trains on existing routes like the West Highland line. Having control of the franchise surely means that we have to go further than improving what is there. We also have to make sure that the services and the timetables are working not only for those who currently use them but for those who can be convinced. I find it utterly bizarre that some of the justification for service reductions from Scotland Rail at the moment are using current passenger numbers. Firstly, you cannot use that at a time when people were actively being told not to use the train as any kind of basis for decision making. We should be looking forward to the future and using the opportunity of service changes to encourage more users. I am glad to see a mention of that in the Scottish Government amendment. I was as excited as a child at Christmas or myself at Christmas when I heard the announcement that the Government was taking over ScotRail ownership more so now that there is a commitment to putting staff and passengers at the heart of governance. I do share in the disappointment that, in the wake of that, timetable changes show that we are still not using high-speed trains to service in Burness, the city with the longest intercity routes in the country, which surely should mean that it is top of the list for daunting trains that have been described by ScotRail and the Scottish Government as not suited for intercity travel. ScotRail being brought into public hands provides us with a massive opportunity to get things right, and I think that both the Labour motion and the Scottish Government amendment recognise that. I look forward to working with my colleagues across the chamber and including Scottish Labour to make sure that that does happen. In six months time, as we have heard, ScotRail will enter public ownership, and a new national rail service will be created, a development that will not only shape the future of our railways and the jobs involved, but will also have a significant influence on our journey to net zero. Given the significance of those plans, we have heard remarkably little from the Scottish Government about the details of what will be involved. Given the significance of that policy, the Scottish Government must resist the temptation to railroad those plans through Parliament, pun intended, with the help of the Greens. Whatever those plans involve, they must involve full parliamentary and committee scrutiny, widespread stakeholder and worker consultations, as well as a long-term strategic plan for Scotland's railways. We have seen in the past what happens when the Government intervenes to bring assets into public ownership without that consultation, without long-term planning and without proper scrutiny. When Ferguson Marine was nationalised two years ago, there was no prior consultation, no plan in place, despite warnings, including from those benches, that it would damage the yard's ability to win future work. We saw the same with intervention in BiFab. Again, no consultation, no long-term plan, the same with Preswick Airport. We saw the same flawed approach that was taken by the SNP with the proposed publicly-owned energy company, a policy announced by the SNP without consultation, only for the Government then to spend £500 million on consultancy fees to be told that policy would not work. The flawed approach has to change. There has to be a better way to plan for the future of Scotland's railways. If the Government needs help with its long-term planning for the railways, I think that my colleague Graham Simpson set out some very clear objectives in his opening remarks that I hope we can all support for the trains to run on time, simpler, cheaper fares and easier methods of getting tickets, more lines connecting more communities. We have announced that as part of our manifesto, a railway network that works across Scotland, England and Wales, and also the Government needs to tell us how these plans will help to deliver the transition to net zero. On this last point, there are many recommendations in the Williams rail review that merit close consideration by the Scottish Government, and I would say that to the minister, not to let narrow political interests get in the way of following good policy elsewhere in the UK. We do not just need that long-term plan for railways in Scotland. We also need to see an immediate resolution to the industrial dispute that has been going on for six months and causing disruption across Scotland. A strike that, if unresolved in five weeks time, could threaten to disrupt the COP26 climate change conference to be held in Glasgow. Scotland will host up to 20,000 delegates with events being held across Glasgow, Edinburgh and other venues across Scotland, with rail connectivity being critical to the success of the conference. For a Government that claims to be world-leading, not being able to run the trains during COP26 would be an embarrassment for the whole of Scotland. That is why we are calling on the minister to get involved to work with ScotRail and the unions to get this dispute resolved. It has gone on way too long. Let me conclude by saying that passengers and workers across Scotland deserve a Government that gives our railways more support, more financing and more attention. They are not getting that from this Scottish National Party Government. I support the amendment in Graham Simpson's name. It is important that we thank the workers for their commitment to delivering rail services during the pandemic. It is also important that we push a bellio to get round the table with our unions and resolve the industrial dispute well ahead of COP26. The motion references Car Free Day. It is a reminder of why we need to urgently transform our transport system. If we do not get the system right, then the 70 per cent who have access to a car will simply drive more, while those who do not have car access will be even further disadvantaged than they are already. Rail must be at the heart of the Government's plan for 20 per cent reduction in traffic, and the transfer of ScotRail into public ownership next year must mark a relaunch of rail in Scotland, a genuine people's railway, a service run in the public interest, with a direct role for passengers and workers in the planning and delivering of services, reaching out to communities who are currently not served by the rail network and passengers who, to be honest, could be served a lot better. I am concerned that the focus of the Docherty report and the subsequent ScotRail timetable proposals have been based on service cuts and facilities closures across Scotland's rail network, rather than changes that can genuinely create room for further expansion and improvement of services. The report claimed to make those recommendations due to changed passenger behaviour and the need for economic recovery from Covid. In many ways, and as the points have already been made, it is still too early to say how rail use will recover post the pandemic, given that many workplaces have understandably yet to invite workers fully back to the office. We know that ScotRail is currently consulting on their national proposed timetable, with the responses closing on 1 October. I do not have time in hand. I am sorry, unless I do have time in hand. I do not think that I do. I can give you a little bit of time back. Okay, I will take an intervention. I will take an intervention. It is briefly as possible, Mr Bowie. It is very brief. Mark Ruskell will say what the Scottish Greens' submission to that consultation will be. Do they accept ScotRail's fit for the future proposals to cut 300 services a day or not? Mr Ruskell? Well, no. I will tell you what I am doing to listen to the people, listen to the travelling public and channel their comments, not only to ScotRail, but to the minister as well. I have been actively encouraging constituents across my region to make their voices heard. Over 300 people have engaged with a consultation portal that I have set up. They have already told ScotRail what they think of the cuts. ScotRail has confirmed to me today that they will be attending a town hall event that I will be organising online next week to explain to the people what those timetable changes are and to hear directly from passengers across my region about how those changes will affect them, the people having their voice and having their say on the issue. How ScotRail deals with responses to the consultation will be a big test. We expect full transparency and what concerns will raise with them and the action that they will take to address those concerns before the final proposals are then passed on to the minister for a decision. I acknowledge that some change will be necessary. No one wants to see empty trains running and the rail network must be used efficiently. There may be timetable changes that meet passenger demand better than they do currently, but what we have seen come through the changes so far is of real concern. For example, Cacoddy to Perth would take up to 30 minutes longer with no direct train between the two places and less frequent journey times. Journeys within Fife will require a change in beceithing, which will also lead to increased journey times. Passengers in Strathur may benefit from more regular services from Glen Eagles, but for Perth residents they will see the current problems of journey times even more compounded. If the message is that it will become harder to take the train between Perth and Scotland's other cities, that will be incredibly damaging to the Government's target of securing 20 per cent reduction in vehicle mileage. I really hope that the minister will listen to passengers—I am sure that he will, and he will listen to the workers as well—and we look forward to the successful relaunch of a people's railway next year. Thank you very much, Mr Ruskell, and the final speaker in the open debate is John Mason. Thank you very much, and I would welcome the chance to take part in today's debate. I think that there is no question that we face some very challenging decisions around travel in general and rail travel in particular. On the one hand, we want a world-class rail service carrying passengers and freight everywhere they want to go, but, on the other hand, we need to be thinking about the environment and perhaps many of us were travelling too much before Covid and we have now learned to travel less. In particular, for myself, travelling each week from Glasgow via Bathgate to Edinburgh on the train, the reduction in passengers getting off Edinburgh park station has been quite remarkable. Will they ever return to previous work patterns? I do not think that anyone knows, as Mark Ruskell just said. The other side to all this, of course, is the financial aspect. As with all parts of the budget, we have to live within our means. I strongly support having the railways under public ownership, and while we are at it, I did not like seeing gas and electricity privatised as well, but they will still have to operate within a budget. Broadly speaking, if there is to be a pay increase above inflation, there will need to be a matching increase in fares above inflation, or, if fares are to be held down, wages will have to be held down too. I have to say that the last time the rail was in the public hands, the public did not always get a good deal. The awful British rail sandwiches were a standing joke, so this time around the passengers and other users have to be at the centre. From that perspective, I agree with the line in the Conservative amendment that says that any operating model must put delivering a reliable and affordable service for passengers at the heart of its aim. I am not sure whether that is good English, but never mind. As we move towards new ownership of the railways, I think that we need to remember that the railways are not there to serve us as politicians. Neither are they there to serve the RMT or the staff of the railways, much as we appreciate them and especially the work that they did during the pandemic. The railways are there to serve the public, and both we as politicians and the staff who work in the railways are there to serve the public too. If fewer people are travelling by train because of working at home, nervousness about being in a busy public place or for any other reasons, then the railway system will have less income than it did pre-Covid. So that shortfall has to be made up in some way. For example, we could increase fares, we could increase the public subsidy, for example by cutting the NHS budget, or we could trim services to better match demand. I think that those are the three main options that we have, and I hope that Labour in particular will seriously engage in this debate. It is very easy to say that we want more services, we want increased pay, we want reduced fares, but sadly the numbers have to stack up. It is okay, I am not being promoted. Agreeing on public transport is a public service, and the state will have to support that public service, but if you are not willing to invest in public transport, there is no point to declaring a climate emergency. We need to invest in public transport in order to get people using public transport, and that is going to require greater public investment. John Mason, I can give you back most of that time. Thanks very much. Of course we need to invest, but we can only invest the money that we have. Mr Bibby lives within our budget. He has a family, as I understand it. I have to live within my budget. We all have to live within our budgets, so it is all very well saying that there should be all those things that we would like to see, but we can only do it if the money is actually there. Moving on to some of the specific service proposals, I welcome the fact that Glasgow North Electric, including Edinburgh to Helensburgh, looks like staying broadly the same. On Glasgow Edinburgh via Falkirk High, it is a bit disappointing that the previous all-day 15-minute service will reduce to 30 minutes off-peak. I understand that, and based on my previous arguments, the money has to come from somewhere. Given that in many ways is ScotRail's flagship route, given the investment in Queen Street station and given the electrification of the route and the excellent rolling stock, it is still disappointing. Hopefully, if demand picks up, services can be increased. I love getting the train from places such as Inverness to Wick and similar to the rural routes, but that is one of the most heavily subsidised lines. The average fare is £7, and the subsidy is £25 per passenger. I am not arguing against that, but I wonder if Labour is seriously arguing that we should increase that subsidy even more above 75 per cent. It is not just because you are commenting on this part of the line, but you will need to conclude now, Mr Mason. I will just stop there. Thank you very much, Mr Mason. We now move to closing speeches. I call Liam Kerr for minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have listened very carefully to the debate today, and with only four minutes I have a very limited time to pick the key issues. The first thing to say is that we can support the first part of the Labour motion, resisting the reduction in ScotRail services. The second thing, which this afternoon makes abundantly clear, is the utter abdication of responsibility from this Scottish Government. In relation to the pay dispute, that is something that was evident long before today. Indeed, in June, I asked the First Minister about that, and she said that it was for the employer to resolve and the matter rests with the operator and the unions. It is a position that we have heard today from the Minister and Mark Ruskell, and it is reflected in the Scottish Government amendment. However, there are three reasons why that shameful abdication does not stack up. Firstly, ScotRail has been operating under an emergency management agreement. Section 5.5C of Appendix 2, to schedule one of the supplemental agreement, makes it clear that Abelio can negotiate all that they want, but they cannot authorise anything without ultimately the consent of the Scottish ministers, as ultimately that is where the funding will come from. However, just in case, I was mistaken on that. I dug out the franchise agreement. Schedule 15.2, clause 2.1 on page 617, states that, in the last 12 months of a franchise, Abelio shall not vary or promise to vary the terms or conditions of employment of employees without the prior consent of the Scottish ministers. In any event, under employment law, Chupy says that any purported variation of a contract of employment that is or will be transferred is void if the sole or principle reason for the variation is the transfer. Of course, there are caveats to that, but as the future transferee, one would have thought that the Scottish Government should be actively discussing with the transferor what it would expect to see post-transfer. I do not accept the Scottish Government's position of sitting on their hands and hoping that Abelio and the unions will fight it out. That is just not acceptable. Secondly, Mr Simpson's amendment calls for the Scottish Government to undertake a review of disused tracks and stations and reopen those that would support local growth and connectivity. It notes that for many people across Scotland, particularly in rural areas, car travel is a necessity, not a choice. It was a point that was well made in what I felt was a thoughtful contribution by Emma Roddick. I heard Liz Smith talk about campaigning for rail infrastructure upgrades between Edinburgh and Perth for 20 years. I raised yesterday that Fraserburn and Peterhead are the furthest towns in the entire country from the rail network. Car travel in the north-east absolutely is a necessity, not a choice, and remedying the shocking lack of rail provision would absolutely support local growth and connectivity, and many other positive side effects, not least on the drive to net zero and the reduction of car kilometres that the Government wishes. However, when I have raised that with the minister, he abdicates responsibility to the delayed STPR2, which, of course, just yesterday, the cabinet secretary failed to give me a precise date of publication on it. Perhaps in closing, the minister will state whether he supports, firstly, the reopening of Dice to Ellen as soon as possible and then the prompt extension of that to Peterhead and Fraserburn. Finally, Graham Simpson raised the lack of electrification of a line between Haymarket and Aberdeen. I have asked many questions on that, if and when the north-east might see the £198 million left from the £200 million promised years ago as part of the Aberdeen city region deal. Who does the minister abdicate responsibility to this time in his answers? Network Rail. This afternoon, the chamber has heard a shameful litany of instances where there has been a complete failure of this Government to take responsibility. Dean Lockhart demanded that the minister get involved. The minister has the perfect opportunity right now to show some leadership and take responsibility. Will he? We shall see. Thank you, Mr Kerr. I heard the reference to Fraserburn. I think that, as Ms Bishop made clear, there are others who have claimed to being further away from the train network. Minister, can you conclude again five minutes, please? In closing for the Government, I want to make clear again some key points. The Government has delivered more routes, more trains, more people travelling on those trains, more stations in greater frequency. We shouldn't forget the huge impact to the pandemic, the need to lock down the country and transport services for all but essential travel purposes has had a long-lasting impact. That is why we have just announced a further extension of the emergency measures agreement to provide additional support for Scotland rail. We did that on Monday. Our rail services, sadly, are effectively hemorrhaging cash and are running at much more substantive losses than previously. We have to get our railway back on to assure our financial futon footing, whilst also planning for long-term service delivery. Let me be clear, we are determined to do all that we can to restore passenger service levels to where they were pre-pandemic, but we face challenges in the short term. The timetable proposals in many areas mean better and more frequent services. I appreciate that that is cold comfort for those who are facing fewer services and currently, at least in the short term. However, it is a consultation and it is a starting not an end point, and I encourage you to do that very briefly. Neil Bibby I asked specifically the minister about the Glasgow Queen Street to Edinburgh Waverley service via Falkirk High. It has been described as the flagship service between our two largest cities. You should not have to be waiting half an hour to get a train between our two largest cities. Surely the minister can rule out those cuts at 26% reduction in that. As usual, dealing in fax is problematic for Mr Bibby, because let me throw another fact back at him. That service is the one that washes its face on our network, the one service. Those seats are occupied by only 26% of the time. That exemplifies the challenge that we face about users. Beatrice Wishart was absolutely right in what she said about the future not being running empty trains. We have to get real about that. I go back to the point about the consultation. I would absolutely encourage members to do it as Mark Ruskell has done to get involved in the consultation process. The labour motion calls for full restoration service levels to pre-Covid, regardless of affordability. What are the new services that are proposed to be introduced from May 22? Are they to be ditched or are they to suggest that we keep them and add them back in on top of the old services? You cannot run the same carriages at the same time in different locations. A number of members rightly have raised the issue about the pay claims and industrial action. Graham Simpson and Mark Ruskell called for getting round the table. I can advise them and others that such engagement is under way and has been. The unions and management are currently looking at a way forward around pay claims, a way forward that can be made. I know that because I have actively encouraged them to do that and have been engaged with a number of the unions. The Government agrees that rail employees deserve to be treated and paid fairly. As transport minister, I have challenged briefly if I have time, Presiding Officer. Graham Simpson is briefly as possible. Very quickly, just on that point about getting round the table, can you explain further what that actually is? Is it mediation? I need to be careful hearing what I say because this is a matter between the unions and a Billial Scotland rail, but there are discussions taking place. The Government agrees that rail employees deserve to be treated and paid fairly. As transport minister, I have challenged all parties to identify efficiencies to free up the funding that is needed to deliver fair and reasonable pay settlements. I reiterate that those need to come from all quarters, including from our strategic relationship with Network Rail. In the SNP, we contend that a fully integrated, publicly controlled railway, not the separation of track and trainers at present, would best serve the needs of staff, customers and the public bus. Alongside pressing the case for that, we will continue to engage with the ORR and seek a better deal. Does anyone really believe that paying £815 million per annum for the maintenance of and access to Scotland's rail track alone represents value for money? If we are to reduce overheads, maintain and grow employment levels, increase services and be able to further invest in the network, then this issue has to be addressed. We have a vision for the future of Scotland's railways based on service improvement, fair work and the decarbonisation of passenger rail services. To answer the question that was asked earlier, we will update Parliament on all of this before the end of the year, but I want to say now, for the avoidance of any doubt, that we intend that staff and passenger representation will play a key role in shaping the future direction and governance of the new organisation. We also have ambitions to facilitate a marked increase in rail freight, Presiding Officer, to help meet Scotland's net zero ambitions, as Beardwood Wishart and Emerotic called for. I note that the Labour motion fails to mention rail freight. I am assuming that that is just an oversight, because our vision for rail freight is a competitive, sustainable rail freight sector playing an increasing role in Scotland's economic growth by providing a safer, greener and more efficient way of transporting products and materials. I know that that is a vision shared by the trade unions. Our long-term commitment to rail remains undiminished. We have some difficult immediate challenges to overcome, but with a real-world approach to addressing those, we can overcome them. We can get Scotland's railway truly fit for the future, a future that meets the needs of the public, is a fair work employer and plays a leading role in cutting transport emissions. The decisions that we take in the coming months will shape the future of Scotland's railways, and by doing so, they will shape a response to the climate crisis. As Beardwood Wishart said, transport is Scotland's largest source of greenhouse gases, responsible for more than a third of emissions with levels barely below what they were in 1990. The last decade under this Government has been a missed opportunity to put rail at the heart of our fight back against climate change, yet in the year the world's eyes will be on Scotland as we host COP26. When we all hope that agreement will be reached here in our own doorstep, we will herald the world's determination not to lose the climate emergency race. Beggars' belief that the Scottish Government swan song for their failed ScotRail franchise is to herald in the single biggest cut in rail services since devolution. Let's be clear that that is a cut in services. It is 300 fewer services a day than there were before the pandemic—100,000 fewer per year. It really is astonishing that, given the opportunity to rule out reducing the overall number of rail services below pre-pandemic levels, the minister tried to spin his way out by saying that it is fine. The number of services will be more than they are in the middle of a pandemic, and, as Emma Roddick said, at a time we are telling people not to use the train. Is that really what we mean by building back better? Is that the height of the SNP-Green coalition's ambition for railways? When car travel has crept back to above pre-pandemic levels, the SNP-Green coalition has thrown in the towel when it comes to getting back to pre-pandemic levels on our trains. Never mind growing them. As Richard Leonard said, at a time of climate crisis, we should be expanding our railways, not contracting them. The minister said that we need to match service patterns with uptake. Labour believes that we need to use every power that we have to start to increase that uptake. We are not going to do that. We will not get people back on our trains by taking those trains away. The minister even claimed that the proposed new timetable was good for passengers in my region. He highlighted the Nith valley line, and he said that it would benefit. Let me tell the minister what, in my view and my constituents' view, is the real world. Those cuts actually mean for my constituents. In our region, where in many cases the services pre-pandemic were not good enough. The Nith valley line between Glasgow and Dumfries, the number of trains in a weekday will fall from 11 to just a cut of 27 per cent, with a 20 per cent cut in return journeys. Direct services to Newcastle will be axed altogether. There are plans for reduction from eight trains to just five in each direction between Gervan and Sonarra. A cut of over 37 per cent between Aire and Glasgow will be a massive 16 fewer trains a day in each direction, and a cut of over 25 per cent. Proposed timetable will mean just three trains a day between Custair and Edinburgh. Compared to the pre-pandemic timetable, the proposals reduce services in the border railway, restricting half-hourly trains to peak times during the week. Of course, we need to align the times of services to meet changes in travel patterns, but that does not mean that we need to cut the overall number of services altogether. That is what Labour's motion talks about today. As Mark Ruskell and the minister said, we do not know yet what demand will be when we do emerge from the pandemic. What we do know is that, if you drive down frequency, you are going to drive down passenger numbers even further. There has been no effort from the Scottish Government to make rail more attractive post-pandemic. Rail fares have rocketed by more than 50 per cent under this Government, with passengers facing another hike and ticket prices in the next few months. A season ticket from Tweedbank to Edinburgh will increase by £112 in January. From Aire to Glasgow, it will rise by £100. Where is the proposed rail fare review from the SNP Green Coalition? Surely that is urgent. Surely we should have had that review before we have this new timetable. When will we see more urgency when it comes to reopening station? The minister talked earlier about the Neth Valley line. He mentioned that in this speech and also two weeks ago. Let me give an example of what he can do to get people back on the trains in those places. He can reopen stations in East Striggs, Thornhill and Mockland and Cormnuck on that line. That will get people on to our trains. Let's show ambition by reopening those stations. As Neil Bibby and Richard Leonard highlighted today, the joint trade unions launched their campaign to stop these cuts six months to save Scotland's railway campaign. Labour stands with those workers, key workers, who all deserve our thanks for keeping Scotland moving during the pandemic. However, they need more than just our thanks. They need and deserve fairness at work and decent pay and conditions. It is not good enough that ScotRail workers have not had a pay deal for two years, including before the pandemic. It is also not good enough that the Scottish Government is quick to hand out millions of pounds in management fees to Serco and Abilia for a seven-day service that we are not getting, while at the same time the Government has effectively imposed a pay freeze on ordinary rail workers. The minister is, frankly, posting missing when it comes to resolving an industrial dispute that has dragged on for months. Fortunately, the failed franchise itself will only drag on for another few months. The minister and John Mason said that they support public ownership of our railways. Frankly, it was not that when they opposed not one but two motions that I brought to this Parliament in the past three years to end ScotRail's franchise and deliver, as the Scottish Co-operative Party described it, a people's railway. I welcome that the SNP has come on board to shunt into its sidans that what we once claimed would be a world-leading franchise, but it has, as Neil Bibby said, been a flop from start to finish. However, I have to say that if the SNP is really committed to public ownership, why would it not bring the Serco Caledonia sleeper franchise under public control? I will do what the minister failed to do at the start. I will take an intervention from him if he wants to answer that question. No, you will not, because you are just about to conclude, Mr Smith. Much relief to the minister, I am sure. A fully publicly-owned and publicly-run railway is Labour's vision for our railways. It is a vision that starts to put passengers first, not the profits of privatised companies. It is a vision that puts our railways at the heart of the fight against climate change, not accelerates it by cutting services. It is a vision in which the workforce and the managers of change, not its casualties. We can start to deliver that vision today by backing Labour's motion. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Smith.