The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-14720, in the name of Colin Smyth, on the ScotRail brake clause. Can I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons and Colin Smyth to speak to and move the motion for up to eight minutes, please, Mr Smyth? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today, Parliament has a chance to put Scotland's rail passengers before the profits of our privatised rail funds. To say to commuters, we are listening that we will not sit idly by on the sidans while passengers suffer from a railway system where fares are rising above wages, where new trains run late before they have even been built, where passengers stand on a platform not yet convinced the train will even stop and if it does, will it be late or overcrowded? Labour's starting point in this debate is to be clear about what our railways are for, to connect people and goods to support a vibrant economy and thriving society. That may seem obvious, but the reality is that, under the fragmented privatised rail system that we have today, public transport has become detached from public service. Our trains should be essential services, but instead they are being used simply as an opportunity for profit by private companies. That is until the private firm fails and the Government has to step in. Stepping in to endobilios mismanagement of the current ScotRail franchise is exactly what this SNP Government needs to do. On every measure of performance in this franchise, punctuality, cancellations, capacity, it is a case of fail, fail, fail. In fact, we currently have the worst performance since this franchise began. On punctuality, ScotRail has not met its target since 2015. Performance is now so bad that it has hit breach level or rather it would have been a breach of the franchise had the cabinet secretary not struck a backroom deal in September to give ScotRail a licence to fail until June next year. Paul Wheelhouse, grateful for the member taking intervention, will keep this brief. Would the member accept that data that has been provided by ScotRail in advance of this debate shows that, in the period since it started this financial year, 63 per cent of the faults have been the responsibility of Network Rail? We could pass the buck as the minister clearly wants to do. We could talk about the fact that, contained within those figures for Network Rail, a disruption is caused entirely by extreme weather. Those figures do not show up in the ScotRail figures, they show up in the Network Rail figures. Maybe it is a position of Paul Wheelhouse that we can make the weather better under an SNP-devolved administration. What we should be doing is not, frankly, letting ScotRail off the hook. When we did let ScotRail off the hook, what is it that they did? The following month, they delivered an even worse performance during the reporting period, with the annual average public performance measure failing to its lowest point since 2006. By the company's own admission, it will be 2019 before the performance increases just to scrape above the breach level. According to the Office of Road and Rail's most recent projection, ScotRail is unlikely to hit its performance targets until sometime in 2022, although ScotRail refused to say if it will.  This plummeting performance is not limited to punctuality. The ORR also found that reliability in the first quarter of this year was the worst since records began, and it is getting worse. Cancelations are skyrocketing, with the cancellation rate for the last reporting period more than three times higher than it was at the same time in the first two years of the franchise, leaving more and more of Scotland's passengers stranded. The trains that do run are increasingly unlikely to be overcrowded, with the moving annual average for capacity hitting a franchise low in the last reporting period. Improving punctuality, reliability and capacity year on year should be the basic aims of any franchise, but under this franchise, after one failed improvement plan and the publication of a second, all three performance measures are getting worse. It is not just in the franchise performance obligations that ScotRail is failing. Every key responsibility from service quality to rolling stock management this franchise is a shamble. Square, the service quality incentive regime monitors the state of trains and stations across a range of measures. Cleanliness, safety, accessibility and staffing—crucial parts of any successful franchise—are all monitored by the scheme. That monitoring shows that ScotRail has not hit more than half of its square target since 2016, and it points the hit less than a quarter. Last year, it failed in so many measures, and the only thing that it delivered was record fines of more than £4.5 million. Again, things are getting worse. This year, ScotRail has already racked up more than £2 million worth of fines for failing to hit their square targets, the highest ever for this point in the year. The management of rolling stock has been equally shambolic. The long-awaited 385-class trains from Hitachi were delivered 10 months late, and then they were almost immediately recalled for safety reasons. The so-called iconic refurbished intercity 125s, which ScotRail said would transform rail travel in Scotland, are being rolled out without controlled emission tanks fitted. Yes, in 2018, this franchise is reintroducing in ScotRail services trains, whose toilets will quite literally be emptied directly onto the tracks, despite a clear agreement not to do so. It is a shocking practice, as is outdated as the 40-year-old trains themselves. It really shows utter contempt for communities and staff working on those tracks whose health and safety will be compromised as a result. It is clear from the Government's amendment today that none of that matters. It will continue to wring their hands and say that it is not very good, but when it comes to the crunch, it will be business as usual. This Government needs to wake up to the fact that this is a failing franchise operating within a failing franchise model. It is a symptom of the fragmented profit-driven privatised railway system that was created 25 years ago this month, a privatisation experiment that needs to be driven to the end of the track. Here in Scotland today, we can take a first step towards doing just that. There is a break clause in the ScotRail franchise that could simply be allowed to expire in 2022, rather than be extended to 2025. The Government has the power to use that clause to put Scotland's passengers and, for that matter, abelio out of their misery and end the franchise. By seven notes now, it gives the Government time to put in place a public sector operator of last resort and to properly prepare a public sector bid should there be any future franchising. From their decision not to directly award the Northern Ireland's Felly contract to the public sector to the timid transport bill that keeps the ban preventing local councils fully running bus services, the Government is at best ambivalent towards public ownership of public transport, which is why it will not enforce that clause today. The Scottish Government, if it were committed to public ownership, would end this franchise at the earliest opportunities. It would get serious about a public sector bid. It would recognise that, ultimately, what we need is an end to the wasteful, inefficient franchising system altogether. It would back Labour's calls for the repeal of the 1993 railways act so that we can have proper public ownership of our railways, bringing track and train together not the current failed separation of network rail and rail operators. Even those who do not support public ownership in the chamber today must see that the current franchise is just not working and has to end sooner rather than later. When it comes to the vote later today, members will have a choice, a choice between putting passengers first or continuing to put the profits of the privatised utilities first by allowing this franchise to continue. Moving the motion, Labour is clear who's side we are on. Labour is on the side of Scotland's passengers, the rail staff, the trade unions, who together say enough is enough. It's time to call a hope to this franchise, it's time to end privatisation. The Scottish Government has been clear in our ambition to ensure that Scotland's railways deliver a world-class service across the country. Our record investment of £5 billion to March 2019 will deliver the outcomes of connecting communities, enabling opportunities and spreading sustainable economic prosperity across Scotland. The ScotRail franchise is now well into its fourth year under the stewardship of Abilio. The chamber is fully aware that there continues to be significant challenges in both network rail and ScotRail's ability to meet the Government's challenging but achievable service performance targets, and the amendment in my name acknowledges that. However, it's also very important not to lose sight of the significant improvements that ScotRail has already delivered and of the further transformational improvements that this contract is in the cusp of delivering for Scotland. The upgrade and expansion of the rolling stock used in Scotland is well under way, and the passengers across the central belt have already been able to travel on the new class 385 trains since July. Around 100 new electric carriages have been added to the ScotRail fleet this year, enabling the main Edinburgh to Glasgow route to be a fully electric railway since August. Those faster, greener and longer electric trains have already replaced the 48 diesel carriages each hour between our two main cities, so we will contribute to delivery of low-emission zones and achieving our low-carbon transport targets. We know that the introduction of those trains has not been without problems, and the Scottish Government has made clear its disappointment with Hitachi's late delivery. Nonetheless, passenger feedback for those who have travelled on them has been strongly positive since they have been introduced by ScotRail. I know that members across the chamber, including Jamie Greene, John Finnie and John Mason, have been impressed by the modern on-board facilities, more seats, improved accessibility and overall better travel experience. ScotRail deserves credit because when faced with Hitachi's delayed delivery, ScotRail secured and introduced 40 available electric carriages. I have only six minutes, so I am afraid that I will have to pass just now. I am going to make progress, Mr Finlay, if you do not mind. I will introduce 40 available electric carriages to ensure an electric service with enough seats until Hitachi delivers the full new fleet, putting passengers first. Those solutions have maintained service provision and increased capacity with more than 17,200 extra seats already provided each day on Edinburgh to Glasgow services, not that Colin Smyth acknowledged that. As we move towards all 70 of the new train sets being delivered by next spring, more trains will be able to enter service on our newly electrified network, which is part of our £5 billion investment in the railway across Scotland. That will deliver significant improvements to routes from Stirling, Dunblane and Allow in December and the Edinburgh Glasgow Central via a shots route from May 2019. The new fleet will also provide more seats on existing routes, such as North Berwick, Lanark and Glasgow and South Electric, to allow a further cascading of existing refurbish trains to other routes. Overall, that will boost seating by 23 per cent since the start of the franchise. Of course, we want to do more. In the next few weeks, another 200 extra services will be introduced across the country to make rail travel more attractive for commuters and leisure users and to help to boost the wider Scottish economy. Labour might not be interested in that, but you might want to listen. ScotRail has recruited more front-line staff to deliver these enhancements, with 126 more posts now than at the start of the franchise, with a further 140 being recruited. Edena now provides a total of more than 5,000 jobs, and the rolling stock that is needed will be fed up by the class 385s and refurbished high-speed trains entering service in the coming months. The cascade will not only help to support new services, but will enable more trains in Fife, the Borders, Inverclyde and Glasgow to run with more carriages and boost the total number of carriages in the ScotRail fleet to more than 1,000. That is an increase of more than 50 per cent since 2007. While Colin Smyth and his colleagues might not recognise it, ScotRail is delivering its revolution in rail for passengers across the entire Scottish rail network. Indeed, growing numbers of passengers use the ScotRail franchise. I thank you, if you do not mind, for continuing the constant growth and patronage throughout the life of this Government. We have consistently stated in the chamber that performance is not where it should be, and I have reiterated to both ScotRail and Network Rail the need for a robust and resilient plan to deliver improvements across the network and provide customers with a more reliable railway. Although ScotRail remains one of the best-performing large train operators in Great Britain, with the moving annual average of ScotRail's public performance measure 1.9 per cent better than the GB average, clearly the deterioration in performance needs to stop in order to return reliability and punctuality to our challenging but achievable targets. The recommendations contained in the Donovan review aimed to support performance improvement and deliver a resilient railway are welcome, but we are yet to see those improvements take effect. However, we recognise that the suspension of the practice of skip-stopping services at stations to recover operations has been welcomed by passengers with skip-stopping now at the lowest level on record. I will take a brief intervention. The minister said that we need to improve performance. Could he tell the chamber today when ScotRail will actually hit their performance targets? Mr Smith is failing to note the improvement that has been made. Skip-stopping is down 84 per cent in the last year. The move has also been welcomed by transport workers. Excuse me, minister. Could I ask people to stop shouting from a seated position, please, and recognise that if we are going to get through this debate, we are very, very pushed for time? Thank you, Presiding Officer. If I may, I know that time is short. I want to point out in the absence of positivity from Mr Smith. A very recent statement by the convener of Scottish Borders, Council David Parker, who has recognised the positive engagement of ScotRail in maximising the benefits of this Government's investment in providing rail services to residents of Midlothian and Central Borders. Council Parker states that he has been very impressed with the team at Abilio ScotRail, who has worked very hard to make the Borders railway a success and are continuing to focus on improvements. Importantly, Transport Scotland and Abilio ScotRail deserve credit for managing the enormous investment that is taking place in Scotland's railways at the moment and for passengers. The benefits of those improvements will be felt very strongly in the year ahead. Perhaps if Council Parker can recognise it not even in this chamber, perhaps Mr Smith might do that in the future. However, as the Parliament will be aware, 63 per cent of the delays in our railways are the responsibility of network rail. Timetabling has been centralised in Milton Keynes. There have been issues with vehicles being left on the track. It is not just about whether Mr Smith might want to take into detail. I know that I need to come to the conclusion, Presiding Officer. I thank you for your patience. I will pick up some other points in closing, but I wish that Mr Smith and his colleagues would give some credit to the staff and management of ScotRail for the improved performance that they are delivering for our passengers. I want to move your amendment, please, minister. Sorry, I formally moved the amendment. I want to get a microphone. If you might tell us what the Standing Order says about the Scottish Government completely ignoring the terms of the substantive motion regarding the break clause. It is up to individual members how they respond in the chamber and what they say. Can I say to everyone involved, perhaps, if I could have heard everything that was being said since the start of the debate? It may be easier to answer that question. I call on Jamie Greene to speak to it and move amendment 14720.2 for up to five minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in my name. I am not sure whether Mr Wheel has really believed what he was reading out on that speech, because passengers out there watching this debate will be wondering what planet he is living on. The reality is that—let me make some progress first—if you can answer that question, that would be great. Paul Wheelhouse? I do, as somebody who believes in using official statistics. Yes, I do believe in those statistics, but also as somebody who uses the trains. I can see the improvement. Mr Greene himself has acknowledged that on Twitter, social media, the improvement in the rolling stock, perhaps he would acknowledge that today. Jamie Greene. We have got new rolling stock. I have been on them with great carriages, but that does not in any way account for the many problems that people are facing right across Scotland. People are standing on platforms waiting on their train. The train goes whooshing by. What is the new carriage going to do for them? People are on crowded trains that cannot get a seat. What is the new carriage going to do for them when there are no seats available? What about the commuters this morning on the Larbert to Croy track, who saw floodwaters not on the track but coming through the roof of their train? What is the rolling stock going to do to support those people? I am afraid that the lack of self-awareness on the minister is quite incredible in today's motion. For that reason, to be fair, I have a lot of sympathy for the sentiment of what Labour's point is today and the point that they are making with their amendment. What they are doing is forcing to the chamber an important point about the performance. The performance in the state is called simply unacceptable to passengers at the moment. Please let me make some progress. I want to explain why the member wants to intervene. I want to explain why we won't support the motion, because it is important to explain why. First of all, what Labour's motion is asking is to end the current contract at its earliest opportunity. Presumably, that would be 2020, when the break clause comes into force in the current franchise agreement. First of all, we have no way of predicting what the quality of service will be in 2020. It is impossible to pre-empt whether or not the break clause should or should not be applied at that time, so deciding today that it should be applied in two years does not make any sense. If the motion perhaps said that it should be an option on the table, perhaps I would have been more mindful to support it. Secondly, this is the important point, nowhere in the Labour motion does it say who it thinks should run the network in that instance. Colin Smyth has said it in his speech. It is no huge surprise to anyone in the chamber what their political view on this is. There are many views on who should or who could run the railway, but it does not say that in its motion. Third of all, our amendment offers a sensible solution, because when the break clause day approaches, the Scottish Government rightfully should come to this Parliament and outline its plan, explain to the Parliament its rationale for the decision that it wants to make and explain that decision to us, including the cost implications of that decision. That is what our amendment says. If it is very brief, I have a lot to get through. It would be helpful to ask who would run the railway if that franchise was broken. It would be exactly the same position that happened with the UK Government when it broke the east coast mainline franchise. It would be run by an operator of last resort. The important thing is that franchise would be announced now, that it would be broken, and we would have up until 2022 to put that operator into place. Jamie Greene I am very glad that Colin Smyth has such confidence in the UK Government. Unfortunately, I do not have the same confidence in this Government that they could take over as operator of last resort. Even if Abelio decided to walk away from the contract, there is no evidence to suggest that a public bid could take over the running of the rail network. Can I move on, because we have such little time to the SNP amendment? I think that this is an important one today, and I want to bring it to members' attentions. Unsurprisingly, I will not be supporting it. Why? Because it does not paint a true picture of the situation. It does not even acknowledge anywhere in the amendment that any of this is any of their fault. It is always someone else's fault. It was someone else's fault when we had the ferry debate last week. It is someone else's fault that we are having a debate about rail this week. It is time after time that is the narrative that we get from this Government. It is claimed that the majority of delays on network rails' fault is a very simplistic view at best, but it is factually misleading at worst. Let us look at the facts. We looked at this in great detail today in rural economy committee. I hope that you watched that session, Mr Wilhouse. You may have changed your amendment if you had. 37 per cent of delays on Scottish rail network are attributed to network rail infrastructure. That is not a majority last time I checked. 23 per cent of delays are attributed to train operator avoidable issues such as carriage faults or staffing issues. Nowhere in the motions does it accept that the network rail figure also includes weather-related delays, passengers taking ill, vandalism to the tracks in line, all the things that are outside of the control of any operator. In fact, Alex Hines himself told the committee this morning that all those uncontrollable factors are lumped into the network rail figure. To use this 62 per cent figure is disingenuous completely. The fantastic notion that devolution network rail will solve all those problems is simply untrue. Members have three simple options. They can back a labour motion that calls for an end to the franchise, but it does not say who will run it, how it will run it and how much it will cost. The minister does not have time to have three options. I must conclude. Or they can back ours, which is a sensible and pragmatic solution. I apologise for cutting everybody short, but there is just no time this afternoon. I know that the member did take two interventions, but even with interventions there is no time today. John Finnie to be filled by Mike Rumbles. Thank you very much indeed. Presiding Officer, can I declare my membership with RIMT parliamentary group? Indeed, I thank RIMT members, ASLIVE members, TSA members and all the other people who do an excellent job with our rail network. I am not certainly here to derive our ScotRail in their efforts, but what I am here to do is to discuss the motion that is in front of us. That is a motion that is fundamental about political philosophy and political intent. Colin Smyth has asked that the Scottish Government should exercise the break clause in the ScotRail franchise at the earliest opportunity. That is certainly a position that the Scottish Green Party fully adores. We believe that public services should be run exclusively in the public interest. Of course, there is a statutory obligation placed in every limited company to maximise profits for its investors, and investors will always trump our citizens. Of course, Abelio is not a commercial company as such, it is part of the state-owned Dutch railways. I am grateful to RIMT for research into some of the finances and the questions of a loan from the parent company to the subsidiary, namely Abelio, and the 8 per cent interest that is paid on that loan and the assumption that there is no reason that that will not be repaid. That rate of return, as the briefing tells us, clearly outstrips the rail delivery group's claim of an average return of 2 per cent for train companies. I think that there are questions to be asked and, indeed, worthy of further pursuit regarding that. Of course, the franchise model is a Tory rws to deliver public money to private companies, and that is compounded by the rolling stock leasing companies. However, it is important that we understand the past and future. It is certainly the case that the Labour Government could have and did not change the arrangement. However, I encourage Senors to repent and I am very happy at the position of the Scottish Labour Party. I am also grateful to the ferret journalists for their research, a document that said that the SNP could not have allowed public sector bid into Scotland. It is important that we have an informed debate about it. That is not always the case with people. I am also interested in something that I took off the SNP website that says how will the SNP use new powers over public sector rail franchises? I quote, that this power was secured by the SNP Government. No, it was not. The power was delivered by the Smith commission, and there were two other bodies on the Smith commission that welcomed that. That is an inaccurate statement that is repeated in the Government's motion. It goes on to say that, this year, 2016 and this year, we will identify a suitable public body to make a robust bid for the next ScotRail franchise and will confirm the next steps for preparation of a bid. We will support the further devolution of network rail in Scotland so that it becomes fully accountable to the people of Scotland. The Scottish Green Party supported that last bit, but the Scottish Green Party is curious about the middle bit and the progress that has been made. I have to tell you that it is probably unusual to say that I was excited about going to a meeting in 2016 with other representatives of the parliamentary groups and the trade unions. That was called by the then cabinet secretary and followed a period of widespread criticism of ScotRail's performance. He said that the contract could be cancelled in 2020, and contingency plans were in place for the Scottish Government to take over train services earlier. He talked about the current performance then being unacceptable and confirmed, but it could be stripped of the contract if punctuality dipped. I am not a great one for figures, because I think that what people want to know is that the train turns up, and percentages do not mean much to them. He went on to say that, if the Scottish Government, if Transscorch Scotland had to take over our railways tomorrow, we have contingency plans in place to do that. Those contingency plans presumably are still in place, so I think that it is unfortunate that some of the amendments are in front of us here. I was very keen to have a detailed and longer than four-minute discussion on that, but in the time that is left I would say that sadly we cannot nationalise our railways, but we can ensure that they are run exclusively in the public interest. We have seen that with East Coast three times. It is simply about political wall, and the question is, does the SNP have it? The Northern Isles contract award would perhaps suggest not, but if they have it, can I ask how they are going to demonstrate it, please? Thank you, and I call Mike Rumbles. I ask all speakers to try and stick within four minutes if possible. I do believe that this debate today is an appropriate opportunity to prod the Scottish Government to act more appropriately over the poor performance of the ScotRail franchise operated to date. I thank the Labour Party for bringing the subject forward in their own debating time, and the Liberal Democrats will be voting for their motion today if we get the chance. I know that the transport secretary has only been imposed for a short time, but he takes over at a point when we are seeing the worst performance against agreed targets since the current franchise began. I feel sorry for Paul Wheelhouse, who tried to defend, in my view, the indefensible in the debate, so he has my sympathy. It is the customer experience that should be at the very heart of delivering an effective and efficient rail service, and I am afraid that putting the customer first every time does not seem to me to be the priority of the current franchise operation. Whether it is delays to the service, skip stopping, which, by the way, I am glad to hear this morning, has finally stopped as a policy by ScotRail, the ability of customers to obtain a seat on a train—there is a novelty—or, as was reported in yesterday's newspapers, the very worst level of train cancellations at over 70 every day, according to reports, three times higher than the first two years of the franchise. The overall customer experience is particularly poor. The record of the current franchise holder is simply not good enough. What has been the Scottish Government's reaction to this record of poor service to the Scottish rail traveller? Just last month, the new transport secretary granted a temporary waiver allowing ScotRail to breach previously agreed standards until June 2019. Just why he has done this is not clear, and I would have really liked him to have been in the chamber today to explain his reasoning to MSPs. It seems to be that the transport secretary—I would love to give away, but I only have less than two minutes—it seems to be that the transport secretary would rather blame Network Rail for the failings of the franchise operator. People will be angry that ScotRail has given an easy ride just because SNP ministers have an intense desire to take control of Network Rail. I noticed that an unnamed Scottish Government spokesman said yesterday, and I quote, "...we know performance is not where it should be, and we heard that again today. That is why ministers can and do hold Abelio ScotRail to account within the terms of the franchise." It doesn't seem to me or my Liberal Democrat colleagues that granting waivers to Abelio ScotRail over performance targets until June next year is quite what we would call holding the franchise to account within the terms of the contract. No, rather than giving waivers to Abelio ScotRail, the Scottish Government should be giving notice that it will be exercising the break clause in the contract at the earliest opportunity. The next franchise contract should be drawn up during the lessons of this current debacle and include stronger financial penalties and sanctions against poor performance in the interests of passengers. In evidence to the committee this morning, Alex Hines, the managing director of ScotRail, confirmed after repeatedly refusing to answer questions in a straightforward manner that the Scottish Government actually advanced funds to ScotRail ahead of when this money was actually due. Mr Hines, of course, wouldn't say how much public money was involved, although I have to say, reading information from the Scotsman's website, they claim that the figure is £23 million. A £23 million early payment, if that's not rewarding failure, I don't know what is. This lack of transparency by the Scottish Government over taxpayers' money is simply not acceptable. I said at the beginning of my contribution to this debate that focusing on the customer experience environment. I think that the customer experience has been forgotten by ministers and it's about time they put this at the top of their agenda. Jackie Baillie used to be skip-stopping that upset my constituents. That was the practice deployed by ScotRail, where they just missed out stops if they were running late. Sometimes there would be no notice. You could be standing at the door ready to get off only for the train to keep going and you end up miles away from home. When skip-stopping was ended, my constituents were delighted. Goodness me, I was even delighted. Now skip-stopping of one or two stations has been replaced by trains, skipping every single station stop because they have been cancelled completely. Scores of people have been in touch with me about delayed and cancelled trains. I signed up for the ScotRail Alerts direct to my email account. The service has been so bad that the alerts have meant literally hundreds more emails cluttering my inbox 20 to day alone for my local area. The delays have been going on for weeks, but they got much worse from the 22nd of October. Bond Hill road bridge was being replaced and this was a significant engineering undertaking that unfortunately ran over. Morning rail services were all cancelled, but there was no contingency plan. It was nothing short of chaotic. That accounted for half a day's disruption. It doesn't explain what followed, which was nine consecutive days of disruption. Trains cancelled, trains delayed and trains just randomly stopping before the end of the line. One such incident related to me was a train from Helensborough to Edinburgh. It got far as Dalrych in Dumbarton. It waited there for an hour, doing nothing, and then it went backwards to Cardras before telling the 78 passengers to just get off. You couldn't make this up. Another constituent has just texted me to tell me that services from Stirling to Glasgow are cancelled right now. She doesn't know how she's going to get home on time. It comes as no surprise to me to learn that the level of cancellations were the worst on record. However, those figures relate to the period up to the 13th of October. Let me make a prediction now. It's going to be much worse for the next accounting period if my local experience is anything to go by. Explaining to your employer that you were late because your train was cancelled or delayed is believable once or twice, but nine days in a row stretches credibility. The missed lectures, the missed hospital appointments, four hours to get to Glasgow when it normally takes 30 minutes. The funniest moment, and you need a sense of humour, Presiding Officer, to deal with this, was when I was told of Japanese tourists in Glasgow Central Station taking pictures of the display boards showing all the delays. They were doing this because it was clearly a novelty to them, because the trains in Japan run on time. When the trains do arrive, there are three carriages instead of six, and commuters get squeezed in like sardines because they stand in room only. However, instead of standing up for passengers, the SNP Government is running for the hills. SNP ministers relax ScotRail's performance targets. What happens? The service gets worse. SNP ministers give them more money. What happens? The service gets worse. SNP ministers allow them to raise prices. What happens? The service gets worse. When will the SNP wake up and understand that they need to be on the side of commuters? Frankly, my constituents have had enough. Can I suggest that ScotRail gives those who have experienced the most cancellations, the most delays, a refund? Not one that they need to apply to after the event, but by offering half-price travel now up to Christmas from Helensburg, from Dumbarton and in every other area affected. If they cannot make the service demonstrably better in the next few weeks, then it is time for the franchise to end. John Mason, to be followed by Liam Kerr. I think that we can start by saying that we have an extremely good rail network in this country. I have travelled by train in a number of European countries and the networks in cities like Athens or Rome are much poorer than Glasgow, while our rolling stock is clearly much better than some in Lisbon and St Petersburg. Yes, our railways do face challenges, but let's keep it in perspective. Especially in Glasgow, when you combine the 59 train stations and the 15 subway stations, we have a total of 74 rail stations. My favourite means of transport is rail, which is why I head up the cross-party group on rail. On Saturday, I decided that I would do all my travelling by rail and left the car at home. I used the train five times on the subway twice. That included a conference in the morning, shopping in the city centre, football in the afternoon, a concert in the evening, and I got home all seven. It was excellent services. All seven ran on time. In my constituency, we now have direct links to Edinburgh, thanks to the very successful Airdrie Bathgate rail line that reopened under the SNP. The electrification of the whifflet line means more destinations from stations in my constituency through central, low-level and to other stations. All 11 stations in my constituency are now electrified. We recently got a new road bridge over the railway at Baylorston, which has greatly improved local traffic. It is true to say that while that electrification was going on in my constituency, I got complaints about the noise of pile driving at night. While the bridge was being replaced, local buses were diverted and people were not happy. It seems to me that both locally and nationally, if we are serious about our railways and we are going to invest to improve them for the future, it is inevitable that there will be temporary disruption, temporary delays and temporary cancellations. ScotRail has delays and cancellations, but many are out with its control, as we have heard. Overall, I think that it gives a good service. A recent WREC committee meeting heard from one academic that we should realise how good ScotRail is compared with Northern Rail, so I looked at the PPM figures. Arrivals in five minutes in October, ScotRail 81.2 per cent, Northern 74.3 per cent. September, ScotRail 86.3, Northern 82.8. August, ScotRail 90.6, Northern 82.2. In February, I was down in Cardiff for a city break. Some of the trains down there I think that you could describe as quite quaint, like the one coach one that goes to Cardiff bay, but I reckon that they would just love to have a system more like ours. So while of course we want improvements, maybe we should be positive about some of the good things that we have. On the question of public ownership, no, if Labour want a full debate, they should give us a proper two hours and not one hour ten minutes. On the question of public ownership, I am keen on that in principle. We should not have sold off gas or electricity or public transport and in an ideal world I would be up for a return to public ownership. However, I do not think that ownership is the only factor. At that same rec committee the other week, Lothian Buses, who are widely admired, told the rec committee that it would make no difference whether they were privately or publicly owned. As I said, I do favour public ownership and it should be possible to make public sector efficient and customer focused. However, there are risks with public ownership. Politicians can be scared of making difficult decisions. There is a temptation to keep making subsidies and that is what happened during my lifetime in the past. I remember when we had corporation buses in Glasgow and there were still disputes and complaints that one area was favoured over another. Similarly, I remember British Rail and it did not always have a great reputation. They were not seen to be customer focused or ambitious in any way and their food offering was the butt of many jokes. Again, Network Rail is publicly owned but appears to be the cause of a lot of the delays and cancellations. As others have said, according to the briefing from Abelio, 62 per cent of delay minutes in 1819 are Network Rail responsibility and 28 per cent are ScotRails. Looking forward, we expect to increase by 10 per cent daily services by the end of 2019. In conclusion, let us be clear of the reasons for the problems. Thank you, Presiding Officer. No one could pretend that Scotland's rail system does not have significant challenges. It does, and Jamie Greene was right to call out the SNP amendment for its naivety and standard buck passing. The Labour's solution is to strip the railway's operation from the incumbent franchisee and nationalise the railway. Colin Smyth stated that the reason for this was because passengers were fed up with overcrowded, overpriced and unreliable trains. No doubt. However, let's test whether those are solved by the proposal for public ownership. As Smyth says, the trains are overcrowded—that's true—in the central belt, and at certain very specific times of the day. What is the solution? You could put on more rolling stock to make longer sets, but Labour seems to have forgotten—or perhaps they are not aware—that ScotRails fleet is entirely leased, almost exclusively from three main rolling stock companies. Even if the current platforms could accommodate the larger sets, at what cost to rent more kit, is that kit available? Maybe you could just run more trains at those specific times, but where do you get track capacity on a system that is pretty much sweated to capacity? The East Coast's main line has no available space and Glasgow Central could not handle more or longer trains without significant infrastructure investment. More sets means more rolling stock and more leasing costs to the taxpayer. I suppose that this nationalised company could buy the rolling stock to run the services, as John Finnie might have been driving at, but at what cost? If it is not going to do that, you are just running the exact same model, in which case change of ownership has failed to solve the problem of overcrowding. How about the idea that the break clause should be exercised because tickets are overpriced? Let's assume that I am trying to be kind here that Colin Smyth can solve his overcrowding without increasing the rolling stock, so that the running cost is the same. How does your new public owner get the price down? Three basic ways—hike taxes and hypothecate them to the railway, cannibalise them from another budget such as health and education or cut investment. I would be interested to hear in closing if the first two are on the cards, but I assume that Labour appears not to know that the margin on running a railway is only around 2 to 3 per cent. That is a less and less attractive... Will I have time, Presiding Officer? You won't get it back? I won't get it back. I'm very sorry, Mr Finnie, perhaps later. In brief, change of ownership will not deliver the price reductions that the member seeks. Finally, we hear that it is unreliable. It's a fair point. Passengers are rightly angry about cancellations, delays and breakdowns. However, Labour proposes to address that by exercising a break clause and having a nationalised operator, except that a significant reason underlying the delays and cancellations last year was Storm Alley. On performance failures, ScotRail suggests that issues with infrastructure, which is the responsibility of the publicly-owned network rail, account for about 37 per cent. Just how would a nationalised company fix an engine or a set any more quickly than any other company? Unless Labour really proposes to run trains in unsafe conditions in a storm, the fact is that a publicly-owned company would have exactly the same reliability figures, it would have exactly the same issues of overcrowding and it would have exactly the same pricing constraints. By all means, it proposes a break clause, that Labour has got to do better than simply leave what happens next hanging and demand nationalisation without even being brave enough to put it in their motion. We should focus on the positive interventions that would actually make a difference to Scotland's railway, as the amendment in the name of Jamie Greene does, and we should demand that the SNP should stop with the excuses in theirs. Clare Baker, to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. I am pleased with the opportunity to speak in this afternoon's debate. I have been raising the concerns of my constituents over the performance of ScotRail in this chamber for many months and I am glad that it is a Labour debate that is providing the time to say that enough is enough and it is time for radical change on our railways. It was an interesting contribution from John Mason MSP from Glasgow, but I am disappointed that no SNP members from Fife are contributing today because they will be contacted by the same constituents who regularly contact me with complaints about our train service, and they, the same as me, will see weak and weak out social media frustration that commuters have with the service. The Fife Circle is an important service with people who are working, socialising and studying in Edinburgh, and it is an important route if you are travelling onwards and need to make connections. This is a service that I have had complaints about cancellations, delays, skipping stations, overcrowding and ticket prices for over a year. I have tried to be constructive and find solutions for my constituents. Earlier this year, I held a Facebook live chat with ScotRail's senior management at their head office, putting my constituents' questions to them on overcrowding, cancellations, delays and station skipping. I do appreciate that ScotRail agreed to take part in this discussion, and following complaints that I raised, I recognise that progress was made on reducing stop skipping, which had been rife. However, the other promises made have not been delivered on. The minister says that we are on the cusp of change, but passengers in Fife have been putting up with overcrowding, and the crush hour campaign from Dunfermline Press has been highlighting this uncomfortable and stressful experience. This is hugely disappointing and frustrating for commuters, who are continuing to pay significant sums of money and portion of their income for public transport. In a move that could be seen to immolate commuters, a Fife affair was temporarily introduced. I do not begrudge anyone who took benefit of it, but it only applied at times more limited than off-peak and so did not compensate the commuters who had been experienced in the greatest difficulties. I regularly ask ScotRail for performance figures. The published figures disguise the true experience of commuters who are travelling at peak times. By focusing on figures for peak times, I know that more than 100 peak-time five-circle services heading to Edinburgh in the morning and coming from Edinburgh in the evening were cancelled between April and September this year. In recent weeks, reports from constituents on social media suggest that this quarter's figures will be worse. In recent weeks, it has become increasingly unreliable with people stranded at stations, often in the cold and in the dark, and no replacement bus services have been provided. Trains in Fife are now frequently cancelled with crew issues being given as a cause. That is not good enough, and it is an unfair reflection on the hard work of ScotRail employees and ScotRail need to urgently resolve the on-going industrial dispute. Aside from the inconvenience that has been cancelled and delayed trains, there are consequences for my constituents. People are late for work, not always with sympathetic employers. Families are late for collecting their children from childcare, resulting in fines and fees. People are now taking the decision to change their travel arrangements, leading to more people wanting to park in Enver Keaton and Cercode with their more trains, but not enough capacity for parking. Those decisions also increase our carbon footprint because people are no longer confident of using their local train station and are driving short distances to the bigger stations with multiple trains. It feels as if five commuters are being shortchanged, and I know that many feel that they are receiving a second-class service compared to other parts of the central belt. What does the Government do when ScotRail is performing poorly and letting down passengers? It lowers the target and it waves away the consequences. In opening the debate, Colin Smyth set out how we can take different steps to do this better, to create rail services that put passengers before profits, and to end the current contracts sooner rather than later and bring our trains back into public ownership. Let's agree to do that tonight. Kenneth Gibson, to be followed by Rachael Hamilton. Railways require serious scrutiny, yet this afternoon's debate is an exercise in rank hypocrisy from Labour, which was in power for 13 years from 1997 and made no effort whatsoever to return the railways to public ownership. When Abelio won the ScotRail contract in 2014, Labour insisted that the SNP Government decided not to include a public sector bid for the service. However, under UK legislation, the Scottish Government did not have the power to make such a decision when the 2013 draft franchise was tendered. We have always opposed restrictions preventing public sector bids for the ScotRail franchise, with our 2015 Westminster election manifesto stating that we believe that the public sector organisation should be able to bid to operate rail services as allowed in EU law, but currently prevented by UK legislation. A 2016 manifesto to this Parliament also pledged to ensure a public sector bid for future rail franchises. I am not sure which part of that statement is confusing to Labour or indeed the Greens, but let me be clear. It was pressure for SNP MPs that led to the power to allow public sector bids for rail franchises being included in the Scotland 2016 act. Once again, Labour is calling the Scottish Government to do something that, time and again, it has proven that it is unwilling to do. When the railways bill, which was sliced up British rail into more than 100 separate companies, was published in 1993, Labour pledged to re-nationalise the railways upon returning to office, yet Tony Blair and his colleagues made no attempt to deliver the promise. However, on the past, we can see what Labour is doing right now in Wales. In clear contradiction of its 2016 Welsh assembly manifesto, Labour awarded the Wales and Borders rail franchise to a joint venture by French operator Coulas in Spanish-owned AME. Mick Cash, general secretary of the RMT, said in her quote, that the RMT is appalled and angry that a Labour administration in Wales would even consider a proposal that mirrors the failed public-private partnership on London Underground, which collapsed in total chaos. I understand that Mr Bibby was muttering for a minute or two there, so I am happy to take an intervention. If he can explain exactly why Labour broke its promise for 13 consecutive years, to re-nationalise the railways, why should we believe you now? Neil Bibby? Mr Bibby, your microphone is not on, Mr Bibby. Sorry, back to Mr Gibson. In cancellations experienced by many of the old users across Scotland. However, Scotland lives amongst the best-performing rail operators in the UK. Let me turn to what Richard Clinic says in this month's rail magazine and I quote when he looks at what is happening in England. The answer to the mess, run the railways like in Scotland, where tracking trains of one managed director and government decisions are made with customers at heart and by those who know the railways. Problems are tackled head-on and usually dealt with quickly. There may be short-term pain but the result is long-term gain. Constitutions travelling from my constituency in North Ayrshire have already benefited from significant Scottish Government investment, which has delivered new and additional train services, new rolling stock, investment in stations, including a 50 per cent increase in services with greater connectivity between North Ayrshire towns, new class 380 rolling stock, improving passenger comfort, with spacious seating, wireless air-conditioning, power sockets for laptops, luggage provision, space for cycles and wheelchairs, more parking ride, better waiting facilities, an additional CCTV for upgrades. They hate listening to good news, new customer information screens, longer platforms, platform validators for smart cars, cycle parking, all of which improve overall passenger experience, and there is 28 per cent more rolling stock. The SNP Government cannot rest and it is committed to greater improvements and spends twice what the UK Government does per capita on rail services showing its commitment. Time, Mr Gibson. Just to finish, ScotRail Alex Hynes said today to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee that cross-border services delays increased by 80 per cent last year as a result of the shambles caused by Govia Thameslink in Northern Railway down south. I wonder if Labour and Summing Up will explain how earlier ScotRail can impact on that. What we need is a live-stream service. People are not interested in who is to blame and that's where our focus should lie, improving services for the people of Scotland. Thank you, Mr Gibson. Point of order, Edward Mountain. Presiding Officer, thank you for taking a point of order. I really think that if members are going to quote what they heard at the Wreck Committee this morning, they would be best to quote what was actually said, not what they want here. The quote that 80 per cent of the delays in Scotland are due to cross-border services alone is fundamentally not true and therefore the member has misled Parliament. I wonder if he would care to reconsider what he has just said, because it is not what we were told this morning at the committee. Thank you. No, Mr Gibson, please sit down. Mr Gibson, please sit down for a second. I'm not... Mr Gibson, we're not having a debate through the chair about this. It's a point of order for me. The point of order is not a point of order. It's a point of debate that the member has made. However, let's not extend this point. So we're called Rachel Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just wish that Labour had made this debate a little bit longer, considering the passion that is being felt in this chamber today. Scottish commuters and passengers expect a reliable rail service. It's got to be punctual, efficient and deliver value for money. The picture today that we're all hearing could not be further from that. We all agree that performance of ScotRail in the past year has fallen well below expectation, as constituents regularly inform me. In fact, it's fallen to its lowest in 20 years. It's not only my constituents lambasting ScotRail. It is a Scotland-wide problem. Whilst the border's rail has been a conduit for travel beyond my constituency of Ettrick-Roxburn-Berwickshire, opening up the area to the rest of the rail network, it has not been straightforward and simple. Whilst things are improving, the border's rail has been plagued with stop-skipping, late trains, cancellations and a lack of adequate ticket purchasing machines on the platform. That is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that more than half of border's rail way trains arrive late at Tweed Bank. Frankly, that is not good enough and it's not going unnoticed. I get loads of emails and letters from my constituents complaining about the poor service that they've experienced on this line. Reliability is only one example of the litany of failures. Winter resilience on this line is also paramount, given the geography and the rural nature of the line. We need more robust measures in place to ensure that we have a reliable service during those winter months. Blaming others or leaves just does not help. To top all this off, should the train to Tweed Bank be cancelled from Edinburgh, there are very few alternatives in the way of reaching my part of the borders, leaving border as stranded in the capital. Rolling stock has been less than satisfactory with cold, substandard trains and commuters complaining of lack of carriages at peak times. The refurbished rolling stock has been promised by the December 2018 timetable change, but it's not before time. All those factors considered, the border's railway falls well short of the high standards that we expect from a modern-day service. Performance and standards should be constantly scrutinised and monitored, and many are rightfully concerned about the trajectory that ScotRail is currently travelling on. Recently, Michael Matheson gave ScotRail a free pass by granting ministerial waiver on standards and agreeing not to enforce compliance breaches against Abellio until June 2019. He did not inform Parliament of that, and shifting the goalposts is unacceptable to my constituents. Moreover, the economic impact of poor performance is stark and train delays cost the Scottish economy up to £233,000 a day. Poor performance is just not helping local businesses and individuals. Let me be unequivocal. We are not calling for nationalisation, as the Labour motion suggests or they are talking about. We want greater transparency and accountability, and accountability to passengers and staff is what is absolutely crucial. Those benches believe that a public sector operator taking control of ScotRail franchise will shift huge risk, potentially costing taxpayers millions of pounds. The increased risk—I understand the costs at the moment, and they are obviously fines to be paid, and that is our cost to the taxpayer. However, we do not know that there has been no cost analysis done of that, and that is why, probably, it is not specifically mentioned in your motion. Scotland needs a competitive structure for the railways. We all know that, which offers affordable fees and a quality service. However, we should not rush into simplistic solutions—it is not really simplistic—but hurried solutions as a temporary remedy, as Labour suggests. It might deliver even poorer results, and it might cost, as I said, the taxpayer, ideally. I cannot help but to mention that we have had so many false promises from the Scottish National Party Government, and I just want to ask Paul Wheelhouse, perhaps in his closing, that he could point to that. However, did Councillor Parker mention his disappointment about the investment and the delay in the reinstatement at Fiesl, Linton and Reston station, which would serve Berwickshire greatly? I will close there. Thank you very much. I am afraid that every member, or nearly every member, has gone over time, just slightly 10 seconds, 15 seconds or whatever, points of order. The cumulative effect has been that I am afraid that Stuart McMillan will not be able to hear your contribution and recognise that that is not very fair, however, I have little choice. We will move to closing speeches. I think that this has been an interesting afternoon. Not a debate, just a statement of political positions, and for that I think that we have done Scotland down. Let me be clear. I think that the public do not want politics on trains. They want trains that are reliable, trains that run on time, and I do not really believe that they care at this stage who runs them, providing they turn up when they say that they are going to be turned up, they are clean and tidy and they work. This Government this afternoon has tried to use this debate to promote a form of nationalism. Give us control over network rail and everything will be better. There is no evidence that that assertion is correct, but it probably sounds good and allows a bit of flag waving. The Labour Party has hidden behind their calls for demanding the end of a break clause to be triggered without saying what they would do when that break clause is triggered. To me, that is a true political answer, not bold enough to say what they really think, which, let's be clear, some of their members spoke about, which is nationalism—sorry, nationalisation. The position is the same. One wants nationalism and the other wants nationalisation. SNP and Labour have given two options, and let me tell you, neither of them will make the trains run on time. What we need is another option, which is proposed by this party, and that is effective management. No, I'm sorry, I will not take interventions this afternoon. No one else have it and I don't have time. If the SNP believes that, after being in charge of the railways for 10 years, that this is the best that it can do, I don't believe that it's good enough. When the break clause is to be triggered, let's discuss it. Let's not prejudice it now. Let's determine then if ScotRail has measured up. I did have the opportunity to go through a whole list of speakers this afternoon, and frankly, they're just political points. One person said, don't worry, everything's going to be all right. Another one said that it's all Labour's fault. The next one said that it was all about overcrowding and ticket prices. Frankly, it doesn't get us anywhere, and I know that we're short of time. I don't believe that today's debate has done this Parliament credit, but it's certainly not easy listening for this MP Government, and nor should it. They have been in charge for 11 years. Under the SNP, the performance of ScotRail is getting worse and worse, year after year. Today, we have heard how they have made contract payments early. Strange message to tell the general public that. We don't get trains to run on time, but what we'll do is play the contractor early. I don't think that's anything to be proud of. What sort of message does it send to the public who travel by rail and pay for a service that they don't get? As for Labour's idea, I just want to say that to break the contract and then nationalise the industry, I have a very clear message for you. I don't think that anyone believes that nationalisation is going to work, and Liam Kerr gave a very good reason why it's just not as easy as that. I don't think that we are clear in what we should be saying, and I want to make it clear what this party is saying. That is that we expect ScotRail and the ScotRail Alliance to be held to account by the Government who should show management and leadership, which clearly they are not doing at the moment. The patience of rail travellers in Scotland is not without limit, and we believe that you both have to end up your game, because if you don't, when it comes to renewing both of your contracts, the Scottish public will give you a fairly stern warning that what you've done is not good enough. I call Paul Wheelhouse to close with the Government. We have had a lively debate, but I do want to acknowledge that there has been frustrating experience for many passengers. I have taken target face value of what Claire Baker was saying, and I am certainly good engagement with her local constituents. The Government listens to those matters, but I really do play a crucial role in connecting our communities and enabling opportunities and spurring sustainable economic prosperity across the country. However, you would be forgiven for thinking that ScotRail is the best-performing large train operator in the UK even now and performing above the GB average. Indeed, Mr Mountain, in his closing remarks, might want to reflect on the fact that GB performance has been getting worse year after year, and he does not seem to allocate any blame to the UK Government. I am sorry that I do not have time. I wish I could, Mr Neil, but as I set out my opening remarks to the Government's record investment, we are seeing the first steps towards delivering transformational change across the country, reducing rail's carbon footprint, delivering more trains, new trains and exciting intercity product that delivers what passengers want when travelling between our seven cities, more services and more seats for passengers, including, as important to stress the point that I made earlier, the role of rolling stock in Fife, in the Borders, in Glasgow, in Verklyde for Mr McMillan's benefit. Feedback on the quality of travel experience on the new electric Hitachi trains and the recently introduced refurbished high-speed trains has been extremely encouraging. Once more are in service, we will see existing refurbished trains moved across the country to help to provide more capacity. Transform Scotland goes far to stay on its website. ScotRail franchises is delivering the largest tranche of improvements of the railway in Scotland, delivering memory. Many of the improvements that are happening now, new electric trains between Edinburgh and Glasgow, proper intercity trains, improvements to rural services and a whole host of timetable improvements, are all key demands that Transform Scotland had for this franchise. The Government will continue to work closely with ScotRail and its train suppliers and manufacturers to ensure that our requirements are delivered during 2019, and all parties are clear on our disappointment that the delays in introduction of the new trains into Scotland are unacceptable. I should emphasise that, at the start of the contract, we have ensured that both the new electric and refurbished high-speed trains have protected contractual rights to remain in Scotland beyond the life of the contract and unlock long-term value. That is an important point, because it means that it provides us with the ability to stabilise our Scottish fleet and not be at the mercy of the UK Government model of franchising, which has seen some of our diesel fleet in Scotland depart the country to serve contractual commitments elsewhere. We recognise that performance is not where it should be, and the system-wide Donovan recommendation, which is designed to improve performance on a sustainable basis, must be the primary focus for both Network Rail and ScotRail. It should be recognised that a significant proportion of ScotRail's performance over this year has been directly impacted by the increase in Network Rail's infrastructure failures. That is the reason why we have provided assistance to ScotRail. I am happy to discuss that further with other members who have raised that. However, the Network Rail's disruption counts for 63 per cent of the disruption since the start of the financial year. We recognise that there has been unprecedented weather and the cross-border timetable issues that have been raised in England, all of which are out with ScotRail's direct control. Collismis and his colleagues do the public a disservice if they do not recognise that. I set out our position clearly on the sensible rationale to devolve essential railway functions to Scotland, increasing local focus and accountability, and to increase the ability of Scotland's railways to perform at their best for passengers and businesses alike. Paul Tetlaw of Transform Scotland also stated that it is now widely acknowledged that the separation of infrastructure from the operation of the trains was a serious mistake and that the creation of ScotRail Alliance is clearly the right approach and puts Scotland ahead of most of the UK. I am sorry, I do not have time. We believe that through its recently announced rail review, the UK Government has an opportunity to deliver the full devolution of rail to enable the Scottish Government to structure our railways to meet Scotland's needs. It is only right that Network Rail becomes more accountable for that. This Parliament has secured the powers to allow public sector bodies to bid for future Scottish rail franchise. It is something that the Labour Party resisted when it was in office. Alongside our commitment, I repeat that this should be accompanied by a fully devolved infrastructure manager accountable to this Parliament. We are committed to the success of the ScotRail franchise and look forward to working with our delivery partners to deliver a resilient and reliable railway for Scotland's rail passengers. I commend our amendment to the chamber. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anna Collin, please close for the Labour Party to wind up the debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today's debate has laid bare the failure at the heart of Scotland's railways and the complete lack of answers from the Scottish Government. Beaker after speaker exposed the way that the Abelio ScotRail franchise is letting down Scotland's rail passengers. Jackie Baillie highlighted the utter chaos and disruption faced by passengers in Dunbarton. Clare Baker revealed the misery being faced by five commuters who are receiving a second-class service service, both standing up for their constituents and Scotland's rail passengers. What a contrast to SNP MSPs. Jackie Baillie and Clare Baker highlighted the real-life examples that bring home the scale of failure. They graphically illustrate the reality that performance is lower in every measure than at any point in the franchise. Reliability is the worst on record. Punctuality targets have not been hit since 2015 and are now below the franchise breach level. The minister showed today that he either does not know or will not say when ScotRail will hit those targets again, although the office of rail and road tellers will have to wait until 2022. Failing to deliver on performance, ScotRail has racked up almost £10.5 million of fines on rail passengers who are being asked to pay the price of that failure with rising fares for trains that are less punctual, more unreliable and more overcrowded. Instead of holding ScotRail to account, the Scottish Government is letting them off the hook. Striking secret deals have given them a licence to fail on their franchise responsibilities. Today, we have heard that the Government clearly intends to continue to let ScotRail fail and to let that franchise run until 2025. Extending the franchise beyond 2022 should not be a given. It needs to be earned, yet everybody accepts that it seems that SNP and Tories believe that Abilio have failed to earn that right. Instead of accepting that failure today, SNP, MSP and MSP have rehashed their rehearsed excuses for failure. It is all the fault of Network Rail. It is cross-border services that Kenny Gibson tells us. It would be easy for me to repeat the point that was made by Jamie Greene that disruption caused by extreme weather is attributed to Network Rail, not to ScotRail skewing the disruption figures, or that Transport Scotland says that failures caused by incidents outside Scotland only actually reduce ScotRail's overall performance by 0.2 per cent, at a time ScotRail is nearly 5 per cent below target, despite the misleading contribution of Kenny Gibson. I am not going to defend— I am not going to defend— Can we keep the conversations down, please? I am not going to defend the failings of Network Rail or the cross-border privatised rail company. It is both a remnant of the current fragmented rail system that I want to see end. Labour's position is clear that we need to bring both those who run our tracks and those who run our trails together as one under public ownership. What Kenny Gibson and other SNP MSPs did not say when it comes to performance is that one of the key causes for disruption, one of the reasons given by ScotRail for plummeting performance and its application to have its performance targets waived is the fact that it no longer routinely skips stops. In other words, ScotRail cannot hit its targets because they are doing—sorry, I do not have time, unfortunately—but ScotRail cannot hit its targets, they say, because they are doing what every passenger expects them to do, stop at the stations they are supposed to. Kenny Gibson also, as SNP MSPs often do, when he cannot defend his own Government, decided to talk about Wales. He claimed that the Welsh Government chose to award the Wales and Borders franchise to a private operator rather than taking it into public hands. What Kenny Gibson did not tell us probably because, frankly, he does not know that the Welsh Government does not have the power to set up a public sector bid. Despite repeated calls from the Labour-led Welsh Government, it does not have the same exemption that we have here in Scotland. But, frankly, I can assure Kenny Gibson, who is more concerned about the plans of the Welsh Government than his own Government, that Welsh Labour will continue to push for those powers. More importantly, the Welsh Labour Party, the Scottish Labour Party and the UK Labour Party will continue to push for full nationalisation of our railways.  Mike Rumbles highlighted that the Scottish Government is handing out advance payments to Belio because failing performance means that they are not making as much cash as they expect. I wonder what the Government's response would be if our nurses or doctors or teachers all asked for next year's salary to be brought forward. The financial difficulties faced the franchise are also revealed by the contribution of John Finnie, who exposed the fact that loans are being given to the company with interest rates of 8 per cent, ensuring that they make a tidy profit and loan repayments at the Scottish taxpayers' expense. Enough is enough. It is time to put an end to Scotland's rip-off railways. We need to end the private rail franchises at the earliest opportunities and bring them under public ownership. That is not a return to some 20th century model of nationalisation, as the Tories will have us believe, but a modern 21st century vision of public democratic ownership that puts passengers first, not profits first. It is a vision where workforces will be the managers of change, not its casualties, where public services serve the people, not the profiteers, and where we have a joined-up transport system that helps our economy, not hinders it. Today, the Parliament can get on board with that vision. We can tell the SNP to stop acting as cheerleaders for failed Tory privatisation, and we can unite to fight for a railway system that delivers from passengers, not from the profiteers. That concludes our debate on the ScotRail brake clause. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 14761, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revision to tomorrow's business. Does any member wish to speak against this motion? No, he does. Could I ask Graham Day to move the motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that motion 14761 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is business motion 14738, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the Bureau, setting out a business programme. Could I call on Graham Day to move the motion? Thank you. No one has asked to speak in the motion. The question is that motion 1478 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of business motion 1479, on the stage 1 timetable for a bill. Does anyone wish to speak against this motion? No one does. Could I ask Graham Day to move the motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The question is that motion 1479 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are agreed. The next item is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. Could I ask Graham Day on behalf of the Bureau to move motions 14740 on the approval of an SSI and 14741 on a committee meeting at the same time as a meeting of the Parliament? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. Those ones will be taken at decision time to which we now come. The first question this evening is that amendment 147171.3, in the name of Jean Freeman, which seeks to amend motion 14717, in the name of Alex Rowley, on investing in social care for Scotland's future, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to motion division, sorry, and we'll cast our votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 14717.3, in the name of Jean Freeman, is yes, 92, no, 28. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 14717.1, in the name of Miles Briggs, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Alex Rowley, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 14717, in the name of Alex Rowley, as amended, on investing in social care for Scotland's future, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 14717, in the name of Alex Rowley, as amended, is yes, 91, no, 28. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Paul Wheelhouse is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Jamie Greene will fall. The next question is that amendment 14720.3, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, which seeks to amend motion 14720, in the name of Colin Smyth, on the ScotRail brake clause, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 14720.3, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, is yes, 60, no, 60. There were no abstentions. As the result is tied, I will cast my vote against the amendment and therefore the amendment falls. The next question is that amendment 14720.2, in the name of Jamie Greene, which seeks to amend motion 14720.3, in the name of Colin Smyth, on the ScotRail brake clause. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a division again and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 14720.2, in the name of Jamie Greene, is yes, 27, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 14720, in the name of Colin Smyth, on the ScotRail brake clause, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 14720, in the name of Colin Smyth, is yes, 34, no, 85. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 14740, in the name of Graham Day, on the approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No, we are agreed. The final question is that motion 14741, in the name of Graham Day, on a committee meeting at the same time as Parliament be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We'll move on now to members' business, in the name of Maurice Golden, on the special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and we'll just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.


Hi, I'm going to show you how to Turn on your Wi-Fi on your Gullake laptop So when you leave school, you can connect to your home network or whatever network you go to First thing you want to do is start up in your Windows 8 mode like normally log in with your Windows 8 password And then once you're all logged in and ready to go You're still not connected to the Wi-Fi. So when you're at home, you'll go down to this bottom right hand corner To the Wi-Fi connection network connection symbol click on it This will come up. You'll find your Wi-Fi at home. Select whichever one you're going to connect to. I Would recommend if it's one at home you always connect Automatically so you don't have to deal with it each time click connect if you had a security key You'll have to put that in go ahead and click next And your home network go ahead and then you should be all set it'll be connected You'll be able to hook up to your Wi-Fi wherever you go, and you'll be all set so that way You'll have internet on your computer whenever you need to when you're out of school. Hope that helps. Thanks