Hansard

The report of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee is indeed very welcome but, of course, it does not stand alone among the recommendations of the Parliament. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee considered the national planning framework earlier this year, and we, too, heard a lot about the importance of strategic rail connections to sustainable economic growth. We, too, agreed across the parties that there were three national developments that should have been included in NPF 2 but were not. One was the subject of today's debate: a high-speed rail link between Scotland and England, including facilities for rail freight. Another was the enhancement of rail services in the north of Scotland, in parallel with planned enhancements in the west, and another was strategic rail connections between the north of Scotland and the central belt.

Good reasons were given for promoting high-speed rail to England alongside improvements to services in the north of Scotland and to services between the north and the central belt. Those improvements, if not the high-speed rail link, were acknowledged by ministers as desirable, as we saw in their inclusion in the strategic transport projects review. Specifically, there is the building of a direct dual-track rail link between Inverkeithing and Halbeath in Fife, with new rail junctions at both ends to improve journey times between the north and the central belt. It was precisely that project that was raised with the committee by Confederation of British Industry Scotland, which had pressed for strategic transport projects to be included in NPF 2 and wanted to know why Inverkeithing to Halbeath was not one of them. I would be interested to hear more from the minister on that important point when he replies to the debate.

If we are serious about bringing the benefits of high-speed rail to the north of Scotland, another valuable improvement would be a new bridge and dualling of the railway at Montrose. That, too, would bring strategic benefits by cutting out avoidable delays. It is in the strategic transport projects review, and it would be useful to know how much priority the Government attaches to the scheme, and when it believes that the scheme can be taken forward.

Today, I am interested above all in how ministers intend to affirm the relevance of a high-speed rail link to travel to and from the north of Scotland. We have heard that high-speed rail can compete with air travel on the routes from London to Glasgow and Edinburgh if it can achieve a three-hour journey time—as on the Paris to Lille route, or the Barcelona to Madrid route. High-speed rail is clearly less well placed to compete directly with air travel between Aberdeen or Inverness and London, but a high-speed link could certainly make rail travel a more competitive alternative than it is now. It is currently possible to travel from Aberdeen to London by sleeper, going via Carstairs and Crewe, and getting into Euston station in good time for an early-morning meeting. Likewise, the sleeper service provides a good alternative for people who are travelling to the north—it is especially well used by leisure visitors to Kyle of Lochalsh as well as to Aberdeen and other destinations in the north. A high-speed link could surely offer other options for long-distance rail travel in both directions.

We have heard that the high-speed rail link between London and Paris has a journey time of just over two hours. We also know that there are existing rail links for freight between Scotland and Europe, for which the journey times are slower but which show the potential connections that might be made for passenger travel. If a high-speed rail link can be made a priority by both the British Government and Scottish ministers, overnight services that would bring benefits to the north of Scotland could surely be achieved along with benefits to the central belt.

At the moment, a rail journey from Aberdeen to London takes upwards of eight and a half hours, or longer overnight. An onward rail journey to Paris involves a walk of only a few hundred yards between King's Cross or Euston and St Pancras for someone wanting to take the high-speed train from there. Given the straightforward alternative of a two-hour flight from Aberdeen to Paris by Air France, not many people travel from Aberdeen to Paris by train. However, if it were possible to link up the high-speed train connections that exist south of London and those that are being discussed for north of London and to upgrade the strategic links between Aberdeen and the central belt, the opportunity of joining a sleeper train in Aberdeen and waking up in Paris might not be so far away as it currently seems.

I hope that, in responding to the debate, ministers will consider all those opportunities to secure benefits for the whole of Scotland. In that context, improving links to the north must be considered as a priority from the outset. In addition, all the operators of Scottish railway services—including National Express and CrossCountry Trains—must not only take their franchise commitments seriously but maintain their rolling stock, make their services user friendly and not sacrifice the customer experience in the pursuit of marginal savings here and there. The minister will know that it is, in part, his job to hold franchise operators to account. He will also want to be involved in planning the enhancement of all those services for the future. I hope that he will do so in the context of the benefits that are available for Scotland as a whole.