Chamber
Plenary, 22 Apr 2009
22 Apr 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
High-speed Rail Services
The case for high-speed rail and high-speed ground transport is unanswerable, and I warmly congratulate the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee on its acknowledgement of that fact. I was genuinely disappointed that the Scottish Government's STPR failed to recognise the urgency of the case and effectively kicked high-speed rail and high-speed ground transport into the long grass.
I agree with what George Foulkes said a few moments ago. I listened attentively to the minister's warm and encouraging words, but in no sense are they reflected in the STPR. It is time that we started to mean what we say and say what we mean, given how far behind some of our competitors we are.
Our current situation attests to the nonchalant approach that has been evident in the United Kingdom. The issue has been discussed from every conceivable angle, committee after committee has been set up, and long-winded glossy reports have been produced, but little tangible progress has been made.
Our people in Scotland deserve better. Our Scottish determination should see that the benefits of high-speed rail and high-speed ground transport are spread across the whole of the UK. Our approach to high-speed rail and high-speed ground transport speaks volumes about our ambitions for our economic competitiveness, the seriousness of our approach to climate change and our determination to ensure that Scots are as economically mobile as they can possibly be while playing their part in protecting the environment for future generations.
To say that we are behind continental Europe and the rest of the world is an understatement of crass proportions. In 1981, France unveiled the TGV, which, with speed, comfort and competitive prices, interconnects France and travels across Europe to countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Switzerland—and now, through high-speed rail, the United Kingdom.
In less than 30 years, high-speed rail has to a large extent supplanted air travel as a fast and cost-effective means of transport between major cities in western Europe. By 2003, TGV had carried 1 billion domestic passengers, and it is predicted that by 2010 that figure will rise to 2 billion. We should stop to consider the fact that, in 2009, we are still discussing high-speed rail while some of our nearest economic competitors have enjoyed its benefits for almost 30 years. How many more debates, commissions and reports will we have before someone is big, ambitious and bold enough to get the work started and completed?
High-speed rail and high-speed ground transport present an enormous opportunity for our citizens. People such as us in places such as this exist to turn those opportunities into reality for our citizens: to let them be all that they can be and to exploit to the full not only their economic capability but their capability to enjoy the best quality of life. High-speed rail and high-speed ground transport will prove an enormous political advantage to those politicians who stop their chattering, back up their warm words and start building the infrastructure.
The fact that we stand here, in 2009, so far behind continental Europe and other parts of the world, is nothing short of a disgrace. It demonstrates the low level of our ambition. We need to raise our horizons, stop talking and start building to give our citizens the advantage that they deserve and have awaited for far too long.
I agree with what George Foulkes said a few moments ago. I listened attentively to the minister's warm and encouraging words, but in no sense are they reflected in the STPR. It is time that we started to mean what we say and say what we mean, given how far behind some of our competitors we are.
Our current situation attests to the nonchalant approach that has been evident in the United Kingdom. The issue has been discussed from every conceivable angle, committee after committee has been set up, and long-winded glossy reports have been produced, but little tangible progress has been made.
Our people in Scotland deserve better. Our Scottish determination should see that the benefits of high-speed rail and high-speed ground transport are spread across the whole of the UK. Our approach to high-speed rail and high-speed ground transport speaks volumes about our ambitions for our economic competitiveness, the seriousness of our approach to climate change and our determination to ensure that Scots are as economically mobile as they can possibly be while playing their part in protecting the environment for future generations.
To say that we are behind continental Europe and the rest of the world is an understatement of crass proportions. In 1981, France unveiled the TGV, which, with speed, comfort and competitive prices, interconnects France and travels across Europe to countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Switzerland—and now, through high-speed rail, the United Kingdom.
In less than 30 years, high-speed rail has to a large extent supplanted air travel as a fast and cost-effective means of transport between major cities in western Europe. By 2003, TGV had carried 1 billion domestic passengers, and it is predicted that by 2010 that figure will rise to 2 billion. We should stop to consider the fact that, in 2009, we are still discussing high-speed rail while some of our nearest economic competitors have enjoyed its benefits for almost 30 years. How many more debates, commissions and reports will we have before someone is big, ambitious and bold enough to get the work started and completed?
High-speed rail and high-speed ground transport present an enormous opportunity for our citizens. People such as us in places such as this exist to turn those opportunities into reality for our citizens: to let them be all that they can be and to exploit to the full not only their economic capability but their capability to enjoy the best quality of life. High-speed rail and high-speed ground transport will prove an enormous political advantage to those politicians who stop their chattering, back up their warm words and start building the infrastructure.
The fact that we stand here, in 2009, so far behind continental Europe and other parts of the world, is nothing short of a disgrace. It demonstrates the low level of our ambition. We need to raise our horizons, stop talking and start building to give our citizens the advantage that they deserve and have awaited for far too long.
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...