Alison McInnes debates Scotrail Franchise

I welcome the chance to debate the extension of the First ScotRail passenger franchise. Although I welcome the debate, I cannot help but feel that it is a debate that we should have had a long time ago, perhaps before the Government committed an extra £800 million of taxpayers' money. Back in the spring, before the Government made its decision, we might have been able to hold a constructive debate on the case for the extension. Instead, we are left with an inquest. How could Transport Scotland make its recommendation without a formal consultation process? How could the minister make such a huge decision-the largest contract that the Government has handed out-without ever seeing a documented business case? I do not have the answer.

Any member here, with the possible exception of those on the Government's benches, might easily fill the whole morning going over the shortcomings-no, the downright failures-of the process. As tempting as that may be, however, our time is brief and I will have to settle for the highlights, if that is not a contradiction in terms. What we get from them is a damning indictment of the decision-making process of this Government. Although the problems started before the minister got in on the act, we do not need to look much further than him for the root cause. If someone knows that the boss will say yes to whatever they present him with, why bother following what the rest of us would consider to be a proper process?

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney): Will Alison McInnes enlighten Parliament about what her last remark meant? I do not understand her point about the boss saying yes.

Alison McInnes: Mr Stevenson is less than thorough in some of his decision-making processes. Yesterday, he brought us an enormous document with absolutely no details in it. He seems to be less than interested in some of the details.

Audit Scotland's report is, as we well know, highly enlightening on the subject. It said that Transport Scotland established criteria

"to determine whether the extension should be awarded" and that it "considered risks during meetings".

But Transport Scotland did not think it necessary, or even sensible, to make any formal records of that.

Although a-now former-senior director holds shares in FirstGroup, we are assured that he had no vote on any decision and was not involved in the review. However, yet again, we have no record of any declaration of interests-other than those in the formal register-or of whether he absented himself from discussions.

There was no external consultation on the extension-although Transport Scotland had "concerns". Was it not even a little worried about the appearance that would be given by keeping things hidden from view? Multimillion pound decisions should not be taken-cannot be taken-in such a way. A lack of proper consultation leaves passengers and stakeholders disconnected from the process and can all too easily lead to unintended consequences, as has already been pointed out by Des McNulty.

I think that we are all agreed that Transport Scotland should know better. It should understand the need for proper procedure and for openness and transparency throughout. Perhaps the problem is that it also knows that this Government is not as concerned with those things as the rest of us. As we know, the minister blithely backed the extension, never asking to see a proper business case. Indeed, as far as we know, he never even considered the need for a consultation, and never saw a problem with the nature of Transport Scotland's work. In fact, if we consider his amendment, perhaps we can say that he was proud of it. The sad thing is that none of this surprises me.

Still, even after the catalogue of errors, the extension itself brings an opportunity in the form of £73.1 million to reinvest in transport projects-investment that the whole of Scotland could benefit from. That is, of course, if the minister does not have his way. It worries me that he may already have committed much of the money to improvements in the central belt. No doubt work needs to be done there-but not there alone. The franchise return funds must be used in a way that will benefit every region. Investing some of the money in improving services between Aberdeen and Inverness, Perth and Edinburgh, and Glasgow and the south of Scotland could play a huge role in making the railway an attractive alternative to the car for people across the country.

Almost as important as the decision on how to spend the funds is the manner in which it is made. The minister must make a commitment-here, today-to come back to Parliament following the current consultation. How to spend money in a way that will best benefit Scotland is a matter for this chamber, not for secret meetings behind closed doors.

I move amendment S3M-3075.2, to insert at end:

"requires the Scottish Government to conduct the next steps of the franchise extension process with the greatest possible transparency, and therefore calls on the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change to bring before Parliament the draft proposals on how the £73.1 million accrued through the franchise extension will be reinvested to allow close scrutiny of the plans before any further funds are committed."