Chamber
Plenary, 22 Apr 2009
22 Apr 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
High-speed Rail Services
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 the existing rail network is laid out and how it currently works. The east and west coast main lines from Scotland to London are at capacity. That is the fact that drives us forward to see the essential need for a new route, which we must start to build from both ends.
As other speakers have said, the benefit of such a route would be that it would pick up commuters who currently need to fly. According to the Department for Transport in London, between 2002 and 2006 some 64 per cent of journeys between Scotland and London were made by air. We need to reverse that, just as the French have done with their TGV between Paris and Marseille. Therefore, both Glasgow and Edinburgh need to be served by the new line. It cannot serve Edinburgh then Glasgow or the other way round. We need to look at the route carefully and think about the use of Carstairs on the way south.
Some important technical issues are raised by the report. At the present time, the continental trains that might be best for such a route cannot fit on our railway system. Therefore, as well as building the new route, we need to adapt the railway system in other parts of the country to cope with those trains. I know that, to make it possible for certain sizes of container to be transported from Elgin to Mossend, Network Rail had to spend about £4 million in accommodating bridges, lowering tracks and modifying particular parts of the line. We are not talking about a cheap piece of work, but we need the high-speed trains to be able to go far beyond the proposed high-speed line.
A second technical point is about the quality that is required on the new line. Over the past week or so, a campaign in The Herald has highlighted the problem of the quality of our railways. Anyone who has travelled on the Eurostar recognises that there is a step change in the customer experience. We need to ensure that we deliver that for high-speed travellers across the whole of Britain in due course. To bring high-speed rail to Scotland, we need to be able to promise people that they will receive that quality of service. Therefore, it cannot be the case that the service runs just from London to Birmingham.
As the committee convener mentioned, certain things can be done just now, including tackling the important issue of the fares structure. On the Eurostar, I have experienced situations in which only first-class seats are available on particular days. To attract people to use the railways, we must simplify the fares structure. We must not exploit people by charging them more on Fridays and then have them return on a terribly slow journey on a Sunday because weekends are notorious for interruptions to the service. If we are to have a high-speed rail system, it needs to be able to deal with those issues. It is appalling that First ScotRail currently allows a lucky few on the internet to book a £19 single on the Caledonian sleeper to London while it charges 10 times that amount for a first-class seat and bed on the same route.
We have to have a simplified and cheaper system to get people travelling. We should sort out the present complexities now, so that when high-speed rail arrives, the system is much better. When my stepdaughter wanted to go to Inverness, she had to pay £50 because a cheaper fare was not available. She then found out that if she travelled with three friends, she could get all four tickets on the same route, travelling on a Friday, for £42. The present situation is an outrage and needs to be sorted out. I make those points in the context of a debate on the high-speed rail report because they have to be made. That is the background to the problems that we are trying to deal with.
Ultimately, Scots need to have a European rail network of a high standard, with a route that takes us from the north of Scotland through to St Pancras so that high speed 2 links up with high speed 1. That is what we were denied so long ago—a route that would join Scotland to the continent. High speed 2 is a means of doing that. UK policy must not be focused on rail travel between London and Birmingham. If the union means anything, it means that Scots should not remain at the end of the line. Instead of being served by a branch line, we should be in the main stream of Europe. The debate allows us to make progress in that direction.
In debating high-speed rail, we need to take into account how the existing rail network is laid out and how it currently works. The east and west coast main lines from Scotland to London are at capacity. That is the fact that drives us forward to see the essential need for a new route, which we must start to build from both ends.
As other speakers have said, the benefit of such a route would be that it would pick up commuters who currently need to fly. According to the Department for Transport in London, between 2002 and 2006 some 64 per cent of journeys between Scotland and London were made by air. We need to reverse that, just as the French have done with their TGV between Paris and Marseille. Therefore, both Glasgow and Edinburgh need to be served by the new line. It cannot serve Edinburgh then Glasgow or the other way round. We need to look at the route carefully and think about the use of Carstairs on the way south.
Some important technical issues are raised by the report. At the present time, the continental trains that might be best for such a route cannot fit on our railway system. Therefore, as well as building the new route, we need to adapt the railway system in other parts of the country to cope with those trains. I know that, to make it possible for certain sizes of container to be transported from Elgin to Mossend, Network Rail had to spend about £4 million in accommodating bridges, lowering tracks and modifying particular parts of the line. We are not talking about a cheap piece of work, but we need the high-speed trains to be able to go far beyond the proposed high-speed line.
A second technical point is about the quality that is required on the new line. Over the past week or so, a campaign in The Herald has highlighted the problem of the quality of our railways. Anyone who has travelled on the Eurostar recognises that there is a step change in the customer experience. We need to ensure that we deliver that for high-speed travellers across the whole of Britain in due course. To bring high-speed rail to Scotland, we need to be able to promise people that they will receive that quality of service. Therefore, it cannot be the case that the service runs just from London to Birmingham.
As the committee convener mentioned, certain things can be done just now, including tackling the important issue of the fares structure. On the Eurostar, I have experienced situations in which only first-class seats are available on particular days. To attract people to use the railways, we must simplify the fares structure. We must not exploit people by charging them more on Fridays and then have them return on a terribly slow journey on a Sunday because weekends are notorious for interruptions to the service. If we are to have a high-speed rail system, it needs to be able to deal with those issues. It is appalling that First ScotRail currently allows a lucky few on the internet to book a £19 single on the Caledonian sleeper to London while it charges 10 times that amount for a first-class seat and bed on the same route.
We have to have a simplified and cheaper system to get people travelling. We should sort out the present complexities now, so that when high-speed rail arrives, the system is much better. When my stepdaughter wanted to go to Inverness, she had to pay £50 because a cheaper fare was not available. She then found out that if she travelled with three friends, she could get all four tickets on the same route, travelling on a Friday, for £42. The present situation is an outrage and needs to be sorted out. I make those points in the context of a debate on the high-speed rail report because they have to be made. That is the background to the problems that we are trying to deal with.
Ultimately, Scots need to have a European rail network of a high standard, with a route that takes us from the north of Scotland through to St Pancras so that high speed 2 links up with high speed 1. That is what we were denied so long ago—a route that would join Scotland to the continent. High speed 2 is a means of doing that. UK policy must not be focused on rail travel between London and Birmingham. If the union means anything, it means that Scots should not remain at the end of the line. Instead of being served by a branch line, we should be in the main stream of Europe. The debate allows us to make progress in that direction.
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...