Chamber
Plenary, 22 Apr 2009
22 Apr 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
High-speed Rail Services
Like Patrick Harvie, I congratulate my fellow committee members and the committee clerks on the production of an excellent report. As Patrick Harvie and Stewart Stevenson emphasised, the report was consensual. It is important for us to recognise the political consensus on high-speed rail. We all need to put party politics aside, so far as we can, and drive ahead in the best interests of Scotland.
The committee cannot claim ownership or authorship of the move towards high-speed rail. A series of organisations in Scotland put forward the case. That said, I commend my colleague Charlie Gordon, who pushed particularly hard for the committee to undertake the inquiry. As an old railwayman, I am sure that he believes in taking forward the rail agenda at every possible opportunity.
The committee can, however, claim credit for advancing the argument about high-speed rail forming part of the national planning framework. As members will recall from the plenary debate on the framework, the chamber agreed to the Labour proposal that high-speed rail should be added to the list of national projects. I listened to what the minister said about the publication of the finalised NPF 2 later in the spring. I urge him to ensure that high-speed rail has a prominent position in the framework.
There are three main arguments in saying that the time has come for high-speed rail, the first of which is the core economic argument. If Scotland wants to be a player in international economic development terms, its connectedness is crucial. It is important that we acknowledge that high-speed rail cannot cut distance, but it can cut the time that it takes businessmen, tourists and others to travel between the south-east and Scotland.
High-speed rail is vital for Scotland, which has more to gain from high-speed rail than almost any part of the UK. It is crucial for Scotland to have links with our markets. Access to Scotland's markets in the south-east of England—one of the key metropolitan cores of the world—and continental Europe and other places is vital. We must be able to access and speak to our customers. The economic argument for high-speed rail is central.
Secondly, there is an environmental argument, which is unique to Scotland. As Patrick Harvie said, a time issue is involved. At present, it takes significantly longer to travel by train from Glasgow or Edinburgh to London than it takes to do the journey by plane. As a result, about 85 per cent of travel currently is by plane. Shortening rail journey times is the way to reverse the percentages. That is a significant incentive for pursuing high-speed rail, especially given the resulting emissions reductions.
The committee cannot claim ownership or authorship of the move towards high-speed rail. A series of organisations in Scotland put forward the case. That said, I commend my colleague Charlie Gordon, who pushed particularly hard for the committee to undertake the inquiry. As an old railwayman, I am sure that he believes in taking forward the rail agenda at every possible opportunity.
The committee can, however, claim credit for advancing the argument about high-speed rail forming part of the national planning framework. As members will recall from the plenary debate on the framework, the chamber agreed to the Labour proposal that high-speed rail should be added to the list of national projects. I listened to what the minister said about the publication of the finalised NPF 2 later in the spring. I urge him to ensure that high-speed rail has a prominent position in the framework.
There are three main arguments in saying that the time has come for high-speed rail, the first of which is the core economic argument. If Scotland wants to be a player in international economic development terms, its connectedness is crucial. It is important that we acknowledge that high-speed rail cannot cut distance, but it can cut the time that it takes businessmen, tourists and others to travel between the south-east and Scotland.
High-speed rail is vital for Scotland, which has more to gain from high-speed rail than almost any part of the UK. It is crucial for Scotland to have links with our markets. Access to Scotland's markets in the south-east of England—one of the key metropolitan cores of the world—and continental Europe and other places is vital. We must be able to access and speak to our customers. The economic argument for high-speed rail is central.
Secondly, there is an environmental argument, which is unique to Scotland. As Patrick Harvie said, a time issue is involved. At present, it takes significantly longer to travel by train from Glasgow or Edinburgh to London than it takes to do the journey by plane. As a result, about 85 per cent of travel currently is by plane. Shortening rail journey times is the way to reverse the percentages. That is a significant incentive for pursuing high-speed rail, especially given the resulting emissions reductions.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3883, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on behalf of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Commit...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
Green
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 witn...
The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):
SNP
I thank Patrick Harvie for securing the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to present my thoughts on the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change ...
Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab):
Lab
Like Patrick Harvie, I congratulate my fellow committee members and the committee clerks on the production of an excellent report. As Patrick Harvie and Stew...
Patrick Harvie:
Green
I do not disagree with anything that Des McNulty has said, but does he agree that we could do a great deal with the existing system? For example, we could si...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I ask Mr McNulty to watch the clock.
Des McNulty:
Lab
I agree with Patrick Harvie's point, which is particularly salient in light of today's announcement of fare increases between London and Edinburgh. Environme...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I am afraid that the member must conclude.
Des McNulty:
Lab
In that case, I will do so.
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
I begin by saying how much I enjoyed taking part in the inquiry. In some committee inquiries, the usual suspects come forward and can be rather on the weary ...
George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab):
Lab
I am encouraged by Mr Johnstone's comments. Will he confirm whether it is now the policy of the UK Conservative party to support a high-speed link up to Scot...
Alex Johnstone:
Con
I can confirm that. The announcement that was made at the time of the Conservative party conference last year concerned proposals to take the line north to L...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD):
LD
I thank the convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, fellow committee members and the committee clerks for their work on the i...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
We move to the open debate.
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
I thank the clerks for bringing together an excellent report and for keeping us on the rails.In debating high-speed rail, we need to take into account how th...
George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab):
Lab
I, too, welcome the debate. I congratulate Patrick Harvie and his committee not just on an excellent report but on—rightly and not before time—moving high-sp...
Alex Johnstone:
Con
Does the member agree that it would be extremely difficult to carry out that project if Scotland and England were two separate countries? Does he agree that ...
George Foulkes:
Lab
Absolutely. Alex Johnstone and I are again at one on the issue. Of course, he is absolutely right. I found the minister's use of the phrase "neighbouring Adm...
Patrick Harvie:
Green
Could George Foulkes confirm that those are separate countries that have managed to get over the issue of providing high-speed rail across borders?
George Foulkes:
Lab
But those countries have separate companies—France has a different railway company from Spain, for example. However, Patrick Harvie makes a good point, which...
Shirley-Anne Somerville (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
The evidence that was presented during its inquiry has left the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee in no doubt about the compelling case ...
George Foulkes:
Lab
Geography.
Shirley-Anne Somerville:
SNP
Yes, geography is a factor, but we are talking about principles and whether the Labour Government in London is interested in the principle of a high-speed ra...
Gavin Brown (Lothians) (Con):
Con
Given Shirley-Anne Somerville's enthusiasm for high-speed rail, does she think that it should have been in the strategic transport projects review?
Shirley-Anne Somerville:
SNP
There is no reason why it cannot be in future strategic transport project reviews, and it has been discussed and included within the draft national planning ...
Des McNulty:
Lab
Will the member take an intervention?
Shirley-Anne Somerville:
SNP
I am still dealing with the previous intervention.The draft national planning framework covers some of the strategic planning issues that are going through. ...
Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab):
Lab
The report of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee is indeed very welcome but, of course, it does not stand alone among the recommendat...
Christopher Harvie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
I thank the committee for its encouraging report. I am also pleased with the atmosphere of general agreement during the debate this afternoon. I declare an i...
Tom McCabe (Hamilton South) (Lab):
Lab
The case for high-speed rail and high-speed ground transport is unanswerable, and I warmly congratulate the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Comm...