Chamber
Plenary, 22 Apr 2009
22 Apr 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
High-speed Rail Services
The committee's report and the debate on high-speed rail are well timed. During the past year, high-speed rail has moved up the political agenda in the UK and in Scotland. I hope that the committee's report has in some way helped to push the agenda forward.
I thank the many organisations and individuals who took time to provide us with their views, formally or informally, and I thank my fellow committee members and the committee clerks for their hard work, support and, at times, patience.
I ask members to forgive me if I do not have time to mention everyone who spoke in the debate. I hope that what I say will reflect their views. The committee found widespread support among witnesses for high-speed rail to Scotland and the debate has demonstrated the broad political consensus in favour of a line. Members highlighted the benefits of high-speed rail, which would bring much-needed increased capacity to our rail network and important economic and social benefits, and could allow more sustainable travel between Scotland and the rest of the UK and Europe.
I particularly mention the need to take account of the views of the travelling public. The committee took written and oral evidence from two passenger representative bodies: Passenger Focus and Passengers' View Scotland, who told us that passengers would warmly welcome high-speed rail. They also told us that rail users have other priorities, which include punctuality, value for money and increased frequency of services. It is important that those other priorities are not forgotten. For that reason, the committee recommended that the development of a high-speed line should not divert resources and attention from investment in improvements to the current rail network.
The committee highlighted the need to encourage public support for high-speed rail during the long and potentially costly construction phase. We urged the Government to give strong support to and champion high-speed rail projects and to see projects through to completion. The process might not always be straightforward, but it is essential that the Government articulates the advantages of a scheme, to ensure that its substantial benefits are not overshadowed by short-term problems that arise.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government has welcomed the report so positively. I am particularly pleased that it has taken on board some of the committee's key recommendations on the need for further work to identify the most suitable routes for high-speed trains; the need for a line to serve both Glasgow and Edinburgh city centres; and the importance of connectivity to the existing rail network.
The Scottish Government has said:
"We will endeavour to ensure that the High Speed Two Company works up a fully developed case for a high-speed route extending to Scotland."
The committee recommended that in its report. I hope that the Scottish Government acts as soon as possible to finalise its policy on high-speed rail and that it inputs into the work of High Speed Two in advance of its finalising its report to the UK Government.
I do not doubt that the committee will continue to take an interest in the Scottish Government's progress on high-speed rail; it might want to return to it in future evidence sessions with the minister or the cabinet secretary.
The committee is also pleased that Lord Adonis, the UK rail minister, and David Rowlands, the chairman of High Speed Two, have read the committee's report and understand the strength of feeling that a high-speed rail link should extend to Scotland.
The Scottish Government's response to the committee's report calls for
"robust long-term partnership working – with partners across the UK rail industry and the UK and Scottish political spectrum."
I was pleased to read the minister's comments that the committee's report represents "compelling evidence" that high-speed rail services not only offer lower passenger carbon emissions than aviation but shorter journey times, which can create a real shift from air to rail travel.
The committee's report has helped to gather strong arguments in favour of a high-speed rail link to Scotland. The committee will also pursue those important issues with Lord Adonis tomorrow and with the chairman of High Speed Two the following week.
Today's debate is just the start of the process. I hope that the Scottish Government will take forward the process of engagement with the UK Government and High Speed Two as a matter of urgency.
It is important that the Scottish Government builds on the cross-party support for high-speed rail and ensures that Scotland's interests are represented properly. [Interruption.]
I thank the many organisations and individuals who took time to provide us with their views, formally or informally, and I thank my fellow committee members and the committee clerks for their hard work, support and, at times, patience.
I ask members to forgive me if I do not have time to mention everyone who spoke in the debate. I hope that what I say will reflect their views. The committee found widespread support among witnesses for high-speed rail to Scotland and the debate has demonstrated the broad political consensus in favour of a line. Members highlighted the benefits of high-speed rail, which would bring much-needed increased capacity to our rail network and important economic and social benefits, and could allow more sustainable travel between Scotland and the rest of the UK and Europe.
I particularly mention the need to take account of the views of the travelling public. The committee took written and oral evidence from two passenger representative bodies: Passenger Focus and Passengers' View Scotland, who told us that passengers would warmly welcome high-speed rail. They also told us that rail users have other priorities, which include punctuality, value for money and increased frequency of services. It is important that those other priorities are not forgotten. For that reason, the committee recommended that the development of a high-speed line should not divert resources and attention from investment in improvements to the current rail network.
The committee highlighted the need to encourage public support for high-speed rail during the long and potentially costly construction phase. We urged the Government to give strong support to and champion high-speed rail projects and to see projects through to completion. The process might not always be straightforward, but it is essential that the Government articulates the advantages of a scheme, to ensure that its substantial benefits are not overshadowed by short-term problems that arise.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government has welcomed the report so positively. I am particularly pleased that it has taken on board some of the committee's key recommendations on the need for further work to identify the most suitable routes for high-speed trains; the need for a line to serve both Glasgow and Edinburgh city centres; and the importance of connectivity to the existing rail network.
The Scottish Government has said:
"We will endeavour to ensure that the High Speed Two Company works up a fully developed case for a high-speed route extending to Scotland."
The committee recommended that in its report. I hope that the Scottish Government acts as soon as possible to finalise its policy on high-speed rail and that it inputs into the work of High Speed Two in advance of its finalising its report to the UK Government.
I do not doubt that the committee will continue to take an interest in the Scottish Government's progress on high-speed rail; it might want to return to it in future evidence sessions with the minister or the cabinet secretary.
The committee is also pleased that Lord Adonis, the UK rail minister, and David Rowlands, the chairman of High Speed Two, have read the committee's report and understand the strength of feeling that a high-speed rail link should extend to Scotland.
The Scottish Government's response to the committee's report calls for
"robust long-term partnership working – with partners across the UK rail industry and the UK and Scottish political spectrum."
I was pleased to read the minister's comments that the committee's report represents "compelling evidence" that high-speed rail services not only offer lower passenger carbon emissions than aviation but shorter journey times, which can create a real shift from air to rail travel.
The committee's report has helped to gather strong arguments in favour of a high-speed rail link to Scotland. The committee will also pursue those important issues with Lord Adonis tomorrow and with the chairman of High Speed Two the following week.
Today's debate is just the start of the process. I hope that the Scottish Government will take forward the process of engagement with the UK Government and High Speed Two as a matter of urgency.
It is important that the Scottish Government builds on the cross-party support for high-speed rail and ensures that Scotland's interests are represented properly. [Interruption.]
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...