Hansard

I thank the convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, fellow committee members and the committee clerks for their work on the inquiry.

In the 19th century, Daniel Burnham, the architect of modern Chicago, said:

"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistence."

We should take that approach to high-speed rail. It is time to act and make a big plan. What better way for the UK Government to signal confidence in the country than to embark on a major infrastructure project to unite the whole UK?

High-speed rail promises economic development benefits through opening up new markets, reducing travelling time and incidentally harnessing travelling time as useful working time. It promises rail capacity improvements on new and existing lines, and would of course have significant environmental benefits. A high-speed line connecting London to Edinburgh and Glasgow, with journey times of around three hours, and with good onward connections into our existing rail network, would inspire confidence, create jobs and provide a viable alternative to domestic and European air travel. We have witnessed the benefits of high speed 1; let us be ambitious about high speed 2.

I would like to turn some of the current thinking on its head. As the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said:

"It is only when greater distances are travelled that the speed element truly gives benefit. It makes a very large difference to lop two hours off journey time from Edinburgh or Glasgow to London (85% travelling by air currently) compared to (say) Newcastle (under 60% using air) which already has that two hour advantage. By the time we regard Birmingham to London the time savings are minimal."

How, then, can it be that while all parties undoubtedly are interested in high-speed rail, some parties plan to treat Scotland as an afterthought at a later date? I believe that any high-speed blueprint must be comprehensive and plan for Anglo-Scottish links from the outset, so that they are properly integrated.

Until recently, as has been said, Westminster was lukewarm about the benefits of high-speed rail, but the agenda has moved on a little, although I believe that that change was driven more by the need to soften the blow of a third runway at Heathrow than by a genuine commitment to a more sustainable transport pattern. Lord Adonis, despite seeming to have a genuine interest in rail, has let Scotland down by instructing High Speed Two to concentrate on a new line from London to the west midlands. However, perhaps his recent rail odyssey around Britain will have encouraged him to think again—I hope so. I know that we will all press the case with him tomorrow.

The committee report makes a number of recommendations: we should aim for a three-hour, capital-to-capital journey time; any new line must serve both Edinburgh and Glasgow in order to maximise the benefits for Scotland; and the termini must be in city centres, which will be a challenge, but we must overcome it.

The majority of the evidence that we heard suggested that high-speed rail should use conventional rail technology rather than maglev. I agree, because maglev is a distraction. Conventional rail is more flexible and will allow us to maximise connections by using existing rail where necessary.

It is worth emphasising that the development of a new link to London must go hand in hand with improvements to our regional rail networks. As someone from the north-east, I suggest that a high-speed link from London to the central belt will be of little use to businesses in Aberdeen and Inverness if the connecting journey takes just as long. All of Scotland must benefit from the high-speed link—I welcome the minister's comments on that—otherwise we will relegate our northern towns and cities to economic marginalisation.

The SNP manifesto pledged that the Scottish Government would

"match the best on offer elsewhere in Europe".

However, when questioned about his commitment to high-speed rail, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change recently said that the Scottish and Westminster Governments

"are starting to engage in parallel."—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 16 December 2008; c 1206.]

As the minister knows, parallel lines do not meet.

The minister's enthusiasm for rail is well known, but we need him to roll up his sleeves. As we say in the north-east, we need him to get yokit on the issue. Rivalries with Westminster need to be set aside. Real and sustained dialogue is required if Scotland is not to be shunted into a siding for many years. Edinburgh and Glasgow must be included in the blueprint from the outset. I look for a pledge on that from the Scottish and UK Governments.

When the American vice president last week announced plans to invest in high-speed rail, he said:

"This is a giant environmental down payment."

Can Britain match that? I believe that we must.