Hansard

In speaking to the motion and committee report, I begin, as is traditional, by thanking my committee colleagues who contributed to our work, the various witnesses who gave us evidence both written and in person, and the clerking team who supported us in producing the report.

The inquiry and report are timely. If I remember rightly, when we looked at our work plan originally we thought that we had a little more time than we ended up with. We thought that we would have a little time on our hands, so we looked for a topic that would fill a slot before deliberations began on the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. In the end, we were tighter for time than we expected, but I am glad that we alighted on the topic of high-speed rail when considering our work plan. Given the announcements from the United Kingdom Government during our inquiry, it could hardly have been timelier.

The question of high-speed rail stretches far back—as far back as the 1960s. While the UK was busy ripping up its railway system, other countries, including some of our European neighbours, were looking forward to a high-speed rail future. By the 1980s and 1990s, high-speed lines were being built and services began to operate. However, the UK's only connection to that emerging high-speed rail network was the Channel tunnel, and that remains the case.

For years, there has been no answer to the question of the future of investment in new high-speed routes, but that question is now rather closer to being answered. After the various studies conducted by Greengauge 21, Atkins consultants and others, the case began to be developed more fully. Last year, Network Rail announced a strategic review of the case for new lines, and in evidence to our inquiry expressed the hope that it would develop a business plan for one or more new lines with the option for them to operate as high-speed lines.

Soon afterwards, the House of Commons Transport Committee criticised the UK Government's position, which up until that point had not supported the case for high-speed rail. Then, towards the end of last year, as our inquiry was on-going, a welcome change of tone emerged from Whitehall. Just into the new year, the Secretary of State for Transport announced that a new company, called High Speed Two, would be established to consider the case for new high-speed rail services between London and the north-east of England and Scotland.

As those events gather pace, it is essential that Scotland fights its corner and makes the case clearly that if high-speed rail is to be built, it should be built all the way to achieve the maximum possible gain in journey times. Journey time was one theme of many witnesses' evidence. The idea was put to us with some force that a journey time of around three hours could be regarded as something of a tipping point, because it would encourage people to move from less sustainable modes of transport—aviation in particular—and start using the railways.

I think that I speak for several members in the chamber when I say that I already find the railways a convenient and comfortable way of getting down south. However, if we want to encourage modal shift and increase the use of that railway route, we should consider seriously that three-hour journey tipping point as well as the other factors that improve the case for high-speed rail.

How does that case break down? An economic case was put to us very clearly. Like many witnesses, many members will want to emphasise it. For some, it is a question of simply increasing all forms of connectivity, as the jargon puts it; for others, it is a straightforward transport case, more to do with improving the network—a natural extension of an incremental improvement in the existing network, which already faces congestion. However, it is possible to reduce journey times on the existing conventional network by only a small amount. We can carry on reducing journey times and improving reliability, but that will take us only so far, given the capacity problems that we already face. Before we even think about the economy or the environment, the transport case for a rail network that meets people's needs is clear.

I turn to the environmental case, on which there have been differing views. My attitude changed during the inquiry. There are questions to ask in considering whether high-speed rail is the best investment to make, given that it could cost tens of billions of pounds and take decades to get the system up and running. It occurred to me that people might ask whether their local commuter route or station should be the priority for investment. On a day when we are seeing increases in fares, we should ask whether reducing fares should be a priority.

People referred to the more-of-everything approach. It is clear that increased high-speed rail plus increased aviation does not result in a carbon saving. There was a question about the CO2 impacts of high-speed travel itself. The different technologies have different impacts on the environment. However, I am pleased that the committee agreed, without dissent, that high-speed rail can deliver environmental benefits. At paragraph 59 of our report we agree that

"High-speed rail will only deliver environmental benefits if it is introduced in the context of other policy initiatives such as proposals to reduce our reliance on aviation and the use of renewable sources of electricity to power trains."

That is a clear conclusion. It is clear that there is an environmental case for high-speed rail, as well as an economic case, in addition to arguments about simply keeping the transport system working properly. High-speed rail should not be seen as the environment versus the economy. In fact, this is one area in which we should say that environmental and economic initiatives can be taken in conjunction.

The committee appreciated the opportunity to engage with the UK Government. I am sure that the minister will say that the Scottish Government is also engaged in dialogue with the UK Government. Long after this committee report is debated, we will have to keep making Scotland's case in the debate about the UK's high-speed rail network. If we are serious about building high-speed rail from Scotland to the south—to England and on to the continent—we will need a business case, political consensus and a delivery process that makes sense not just on day one; we will need them to be capable of withstanding several changes of Government at UK and Scotland level to maintain the momentum and ensure that the idea becomes a reality. That is not straightforward or easy, but if we can begin to develop and express that consensus, we will have a chance to make the case.

The committee's report has raised questions about the details of routes, such as whether we go for an upgrade of existing routes or a new route, and how we get into city centres. I am sure that members and the minister will want to cover those points. I thank all those who contributed to the production of our report, which is a useful starting point in a debate that I hope will be consensual not just today but in the months, years and decades that it could take to get a system of high-speed rail from Scotland to the south up and running.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee's 1st Report, 2009 (Session 3): Report on the Inquiry into the potential benefits of high-speed rail services (SP Paper 219).