Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Official Report 504KB pdf

---

High-speed Rail

The second agenda item is evidence on high-speed rail from the Minister for Transport and Veterans, Keith Brown, and Peter Lloyd, rail policy executive with the Scottish Government. Welcome, gentlemen. I invite the minister to make any opening remarks.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the emerging plans for high-speed rail in the United Kingdom and Scotland’s response. The committee will know that, at the end of January, the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin, announced the UK Government’s initial preferred route for new high-speed rail lines to Manchester and Leeds. That of course built on the earlier announcement on the route from London to Birmingham.

The route is currently being developed to detailed design level to support the passage of what will be a hybrid bill to approve the scheme. I understand that the bill will be submitted to the UK Parliament by the end of this year. Indeed, the UK Government’s plan is that the phase 1 hybrid bill will receive royal assent in 2015, with construction work starting as early as 2016. The design and approvals process for phase 2 will follow closely behind that.

The Secretary of State for Transport and his Cabinet colleagues stand firmly behind the proposals. There is no doubting that the UK Government has a real commitment to high-speed rail. For our part, we have voiced our support for the development of high-speed rail, but we have done so with a caveat. As our partnership group for high-speed rail, the fast track Scotland group, has clearly stated, the case for high-speed rail in the UK is significantly stronger when Scotland is fully connected to the new network. That recognises Scotland’s strong economic contribution and the strength of the Glasgow-Edinburgh city region. The convener, Maureen Watt, witnessed the strong support that there is in northern England for faster rail connections with Scotland at the faster and further high-speed rail conference in November last year.

The business case also recognises the environmental benefits of Scotland’s inclusion and the ability of high-speed rail to capture domestic aviation’s leading market position. However, there are threats to realising those benefits. From 2026, new services will run from London to Glasgow on new high-speed lines where those are available, but then they will have to run on the existing network. Over existing tracks, the services will actually run more slowly than the trains that currently operate on the west coast main line. Therefore, any improvement in journey times to Scotland will be modest. The situation will improve when high-speed rail lines eventually reach Manchester and Leeds, as proposed for 2032, so journey times will be better but, north of Manchester, nothing as yet is planned to improve line capacity.

Incidentally, Network Rail says that capacity will be exhausted by the mid-2020s. There will be little scope to provide additional services on the line and to meet rising passenger demand. We have always said that it does not seem sensible to spend all the money that it is proposed to spend on high-speed rail and then have to undertake a substantial upgrade to the west coast main line because of capacity problems, particularly given that billions of pounds were spent on that line just over a decade ago. It seems to us that there is a more efficient way to spend public money.

The phasing of the high-speed railway’s construction is also of concern to us. In 2026, when phase 1 is completed, journey times from London to Birmingham will fall from one hour 24 minutes to only 49 minutes, which is a 42 per cent time saving. In 2032, when the Manchester to London line is completed, the journey will take one hour and eight minutes. That is an hour quicker than at present, which represents a 47 per cent saving on today’s journey times. At that point, Glasgow to London journey times will fall to three hours and 38 minutes, which is a saving of less than 20 per cent.

In Scotland, we will not have overall journey time reductions of the magnitude that will be enjoyed by others until a full high-speed line connects Edinburgh to Glasgow. There is real potential for an extended period of relative economic disadvantage that would fall not just on Scotland; it would also impact on the north of England. That was identified in “Fast Track Scotland”—and the partnership group that prepared that report is made up of leading businesses and civic and transport groups. That is why we have been pressing for high-speed rail to be developed both faster and further than the current plans, and it is why we are playing our part in the plans so far.

Our approach has been twofold. First, I have already agreed with the UK Government on Scotland’s leading role in planning for phase 3 of high-speed rail—north of Manchester and Leeds. We will work with the Department for Transport in developing route options for high-speed rail to Scotland. As you will be aware, Patrick McLoughlin has already spoken of his ambition of achieving London to Scotland rail services within a three-hour journey time, which was reflected in last month’s command paper. That paper reiterates the need for a study to address both journey time and capacity benefits on lines to Scotland. My officials are progressing the proposals with the DFT and we will be able to provide updates on the terms of the study, and on the timelines and outputs, once they have been agreed.

Alongside that, we have already announced planning for new high-speed rail infrastructure in Scotland, which will link Edinburgh and Glasgow—crucially, planning ahead, with provision to link that line to the south and the existing west coast main line in the interim period, before new cross-border infrastructure is delivered. That would provide faster access to the cities for current cross-border services, as well as the new high-speed services that are planned for 2026.

A new line of this type would not only benefit Edinburgh and Glasgow, important as those benefits would be in terms of reduced travel time and economic advantage. A new line would provide a step change in rail capacity across the central belt. Separating cross-border services from internal services would free capacity for better local and commuting services. A new line providing the majority of end-to-end Edinburgh to Glasgow journeys could relieve pressure on existing services and could allow better connectivity for communities on existing lines. It could allow for the development of new stations and better train paths and times for services between the central belt and Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth and all the intermediate stops. Those potential benefits will be considered in our outline business case planning, which will report to me in spring 2014.

I do not doubt the UK Government’s commitment to press ahead with a high-speed rail project, and we have to plan ahead to ensure the greatest and earliest benefits to Scotland from those proposals. That is why we have adopted a twin approach, with partnership planning for high-speed rail from the north of England to Scotland—I hope to go to the north of England again in the next few weeks to build that case with some of our partners there—and our wish to realise the benefits of a new line from Edinburgh to Glasgow at the earliest possible opportunity, and to spread those benefits as widely as possible across Scotland.

I ask the minister to expand on how, specifically, the Scottish Government is engaging in the development of HS2 at a political and official level.

We had a number of meetings with the previous transport secretary, Justine Greening. We asked her to come to Scotland to discuss the issues, and we exchanged a number of letters and correspondence. There have also been a number of phone calls, including with Patrick McLoughlin, and we have been putting the case for us to be involved as soon as possible. We have been trying to work in concert with the partnership group for high-speed rail. That has been a real strength, as the group includes businesses, trade unions, civic partnerships and those who are very much involved in transport. That adds a different dimension to the representations that we have made to the United Kingdom Government, in which we have highlighted the broad base of support in Scotland.

In the meantime, as we are a bit further away from some of the more contentious issues that require to be dealt with, especially along the furthest-south parts of the proposed new line, we have the opportunity to keep that unity going and that is what we have tried to do. Substantial discussions have taken place between DFT officials and Scottish Government officials, we have had debates in the Parliament and letters have been sent. We have had fairly constant dialogue with UK ministers to put the case for Scotland to be included at the earliest possible opportunity.

The minister made clear in his introduction how he reacted to the latest announcement on phase 2 of the HS2 project. I am inclined to agree with him that the project must be tackled on a UK-wide basis. Does he not see that it is very much a UK project and that any break in the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK might simply mean that Scotland would have to bear a much greater part of the cost?

Absolutely not. If we look at how the UK has dealt with rail services in Scotland in the past, we can remember promises from previous UK Governments that Euro services would go from Scotland straight to Paris. A train from London to Paris can take two hours, but it still takes four hours to go from London to Edinburgh or Glasgow. It cannot be said that the development of rail services and particularly of cross-border rail services has been well served by previous UK Governments.

Across Europe, there are high-speed and non-high-speed rail services between any number of countries, so it is perfectly possible to adapt such services. If we wanted to be superficial, we could say that Belgium, France, Holland and Germany have managed—despite being different countries—to develop high-speed rail services far better than we seem to have managed to do in the UK. Future constitutional change can do nothing but help the possibility of improving the services that we have.

Would the minister expect a future UK Government to engage in the construction of railways in an independent Scotland?

The question raises a vital point. People sometimes assume that our arguments are all about the benefits for Scotland, but having proper high-speed services to Scotland would have massive benefits for London and the rest of England. The potential for benefiting both countries in respect of the amount of trade that is carried on is huge, and that would persist, regardless of the constitutional settlement.

A couple of years ago, the Parliament visited America for tartan day. I was there and I was struck by the fact that American plans for developing a high-speed rail link relied on a route into Canada and on close co-operation. Do you have comments on or knowledge of how two economic units approach such matters to achieve their interests?

The USA and Canada have substantial co-operation, which they realise benefits their economies and both countries. I think that I am right in saying that the Canadian national railways were developed by a Scot many years ago. The USA and Canada seem to have no problem in collaborating.

Interesting thinking is coming from the United States. Professor Richard Florida has had the idea of mega-regions, which he says can benefit the economies of areas hugely if they are served by high-speed rail. He does not specify countries; he talks about areas—usually served by large cities—that can benefit massively from improved rail links. That is not about borders but about developing the economic potential in areas. We can learn a lot from how the US and Canada co-operate.

On the point that Mr Johnstone made, since we and business have been totally ignored and carriages that were built and promised for Scotland have been used elsewhere, is it more likely that we would get a better deal—such as a vital route through the Channel tunnel—as an independent country than from relying on folk who make promises that never materialise?

10:15

There is no doubt that there is some cynicism because of past commitments that have not been fulfilled. However, Justine Greening previously and Patrick McLoughlin have seemed willing to address the issue. We have had a fairly constructive discussion with the UK Government.

It remains the case that neither the previous Labour Government nor the current UK Government has committed to bring high-speed rail to Scotland, but it is promising that the current Government is engaging with us constructively.

We have said to the UK Government that we can do a lot to help out. We can crack on fairly quickly with the development of high-speed rail; in fact, we have announced our own proposals for Edinburgh to Glasgow which, in a way, might be much quicker to start on than it will be to implement high-speed rail in some of the more problematic areas such as the Chilterns. There is no reason why a line has to be started at one point and move in a linear fashion to another point. It can start at different points, which is what we are doing with the Borders rail project.

It is important to keep a constructive discussion going. I do not think that constitutional change will be a driver. It is understood that Scotland will have to contribute financially to high-speed rail in any event, so it is as well to maintain a productive relationship with the UK Government right through the process.

The estimated completion date for phase 2 of high-speed rail is 2033, which is a long time away. Does the Scottish Government hope to get something under way within the next decade or so? Is that a possibility?

We will do that. Our proposal is to have the Edinburgh to Glasgow electrification completed by 2024. The date that I have been given for the completion of phase 2 of high speed 2 is 2032. To underline the point that you made, convener, we have said to the UK Government that we do not think that we have to wait that long; in fact, we think that there are real benefits to be had from moving more quickly on high-speed rail.

We have not accepted the position that we will not start looking at further development until 2032; we are pushing for it to happen just now, and I have tried to point out where that is in the UK Government’s interest as well as in Scotland’s interest.

You said that the business case will be produced in 2014. Is that the timescale for having more information about indicative routes, costings and so on? Will that information be part of your business case or will there be further detail earlier?

I think that the 2014 business case that I referred to was for our Edinburgh to Glasgow proposal. Obviously, how that would tie in with the routes going south is important. We will receive that business case in spring next year.

I know the west coast main line fairly well and I wonder how and by how much high-speed rail will reduce times. At the moment, people can change at Carlisle, Lockerbie or Carstairs, where the route branches between Edinburgh and Glasgow. I cannot envisage how going up to Glasgow and taking the high-speed train from there to Edinburgh will make the journey faster than changing at Carstairs or Lockerbie.

I will ask Peter Lloyd to comment on that. Part of what the Glasgow to Edinburgh proposal is about is showing our eagerness to get on with things. There has been mild criticism in the past, with people asking what Scotland was doing. We are putting our cards on the table and showing a real level of commitment. The Glasgow to Edinburgh proposal will make improvements, which Peter will talk about, although not nearly as many as should be made if the part between the central belt of Scotland and the rest of the west coast main line going south is improved. By 2024, when we hope to have established the Edinburgh to Glasgow high-speed link, the west coast main line will have reached capacity and will be clogging up.

The proposition that we will test through business case planning will include a direct Edinburgh to Glasgow line as well as an option of a connection to the existing west coast main line.

There would be an advantage to cross-border journey times from bypassing the congested parts of the existing rail network. That would improve cross-border journey times and support the introduction of high-speed services that will run on a high-speed line to Birmingham and then Manchester, and then continue to Scotland. There are journey time benefits to be investigated.

As the minister alluded to in his statement, separating cross-border traffic as part of that scheme could benefit the existing network, as it would release capacity and enable the delivery of better local commuting services across the central belt.

I can certainly see that if you separate the fast services and the commuter services, you will be able to improve the commuter services. My difficulty is in understanding how that will work in 2024, when the line will link to the west coast main line, given that we will still have the freight, the other slower stopping services and so on on that line.

There will still be considerable capacity problems on the west coast main line. We will work with the DFT and HS2 Ltd on the planning of, if you like, phase 3 of high-speed rail—the parts from Manchester or Leeds northwards. That might not be the west coast main line; it might be an eastern line or a western line. That will come out through the appraisal of the options. We cannot rule anything out at this time, given those processes.

What the secretary of state has offered in his command paper is a joint study that will consider connections northwards. Under the terms of the command paper, that could involve building an entirely new line or parts of a new line or upgrading the line. The options are open under the terms of the study.

Good morning, minister. The Scottish Government published an update to its infrastructure investment plan earlier this month but it does not refer to the proposed Edinburgh to Glasgow high-speed line. Can you tell me why it was not included?

As the cabinet secretary has said, the proposal came forward very recently and we are not at a stage where we can put it in. Just as the UK Government does not yet know how it will fund its high-speed rail proposal, we have to work out, first of all, the costing for our proposal and what the potential is. We are in the very early stages. It is perhaps just a question of timing as much as anything else.

Staying with the Edinburgh to Glasgow high-speed line, will you put some further meat on the bones of the proposal? In your opening remarks, you highlighted a number of potential benefits. If I heard you correctly, you said that rail capacity across the central belt could be improved and that there would be better connectivity, perhaps new stations and possibly improved journey times. Has a cost benefit analysis been done to allow us to put some figures on the assertions that have been made and to better understand not only the benefits but the costs of providing them? How do those compare with other transport investments that the Scottish Government is making?

It will have to be done on that basis, as the cost benefit ratios are a fundamental part of any major transport project that we undertake. We are just starting the process now, and we will have the report in the spring next year, but even at this stage it is possible to see the benefits. For example, we have a number of requests for additional stations on different lines between Edinburgh and Glasgow. If we agree to such requests, that inevitably has an impact on journey times because there will be further stopping and starting to pick up passengers at different locations.

The establishment of the high-speed link between Edinburgh and Glasgow will take the bulk of the direct services between those two cities. We will therefore free up capacity elsewhere, plus we will give the option to those who are most concerned with fast journey times. There is a figure, which I cannot bring to mind just now, that shows the economic benefit of every minute that is taken off journey times, and the benefit is pretty huge—it is surprisingly large. If the high-speed link takes the direct journeys, we can get the best possible journey times but also free up capacity elsewhere.

West Lothian Council would like a station to be developed at Winchburgh. One factor that we would have to consider now is the impact that that would have on journey times on the line, but that will be less of a consideration if people have the option of fast journey times. The proposal releases capacity and enables us to look at serving more places with the other lines that we have. We know that, but actually working out the costs and benefits will be part of the study that we have commissioned, which will come back in the spring next year.

Just for completeness and for the record, who is conducting that piece of work?

Who specifically? I think that Peter Lloyd can tell you—

Also, do we know how much it will cost?

It will be taken forward by Transport Scotland. We will identify costs. We are going into a tendering exercise to bring in advice on that at present. We can certainly update the committee on that later. It is an on-going process, but we hope to have it completed shortly.

The tendering process for the work has not begun, but you expect a report to be produced by the spring of next year.

A report will come to me in the spring next year. Yes.

Thank you.

In evidence to the committee in December, you said that Justine Greening had agreed that you could

“interact with HS2 Ltd—the high-speed rail company”.—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 12 December 2012; c 1197.]

Is the intention to establish a company to build the Scottish end of the high-speed line, which would operate along lines similar to those of HS2 Ltd? What is the delivery vehicle?

There is currently no intention to establish a separate company to do that. We do not want to duplicate what is already there. HS2 Ltd is a particular type of organisation, which was created for a specific purpose and considers all the planning, route development and costings. We would not necessarily want to replicate that.

It is unfortunate that we have not been involved in the process until now. We have to start with the people who are working on the high-speed rail proposals for phase 1 and phase 2 in England, because things obviously follow on from the routes and development that they are working on. At this stage, the best option for us is to work with HS2 Ltd. We asked to do that a number of months—possibly even years—ago and it is now happening, and we must see how that develops before we work out delivery options. We have no agreement from the UK Government to deliver high-speed rail north of the areas that I mentioned, and until we have such agreement we cannot have a clearer idea about delivery options.

You have said in the past that investment in the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvement programme was made in the context of an understanding of the impact of high-speed rail on the project and consideration of how best to facilitate the development of high-speed rail. You said that the two projects are complementary. Will they be developed in tandem, or will they be separate projects?

On the high-speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow, for which we have responsibility, we propose that the study that will take place when the tendering process is complete will take into account what EGIP is doing. In our announcement on EGIP, we said that we did not want to undertake work or incur expense that would be superseded by high-speed rail. We will have the benefit of a study that will be done in the full knowledge of what EGIP will produce, to ensure that the projects are complementary and expenditure is not duplicated.

Currently, there are about 82 million passenger journeys in Scotland a year, and we reckon that by the middle of the next decade the number will have risen to about 100 million. As the minister said, the majority of activity will be across the central belt. As we consider how the lines will cope with that demand we must consider how best to serve the needs of the end-to-end and intermediate markets—we cannot have fast journey times and additional stops.

The high-speed project will allow abstraction of a lot of demand from the existing lines and the improvement of local commuter services. We will have to model in more detail the effect on key junctions to the north and the congestion there. If the option is to deliver a faster Edinburgh to Glasgow connection on existing lines, there could be adverse effects in the context of realising wider benefits on the network. It is about abstraction and taking the bulk of the end-to-end Glasgow to Edinburgh rail travel market out of the existing network, which would enable the existing network to be used for more services that are developed to meet more local needs.

Can you provide an update on the work and current objectives of the Scottish partnership group for high-speed rail?

The group’s work so far has culminated in the report that it produced. It has been important in enabling us to get as far as we have done. UK ministers, in particular, are more receptive to broad-based representation, which includes the business community, councils and civic Scotland. We want to ensure that such representation continues. As I said, I hope to go to the north of England in the next few weeks, to continue to build the case that we have started to build with partners there. The partnership has a crucial role to play in ensuring that representations continue to be made to the UK Government.

The UK Government’s announcement was contentious, because the line will go through sensitive areas of England and there are very different views on whether high-speed rail is the best option. The unanimity in Scotland that is exemplified by the partnership group is reassuring for the UK Government.

That is not to say that, when we get to specifying routes, there will be no contention, because it is bound to happen. However, the partnership group has played a crucial role so far and will continue to do so. It is not for me to prescribe exactly what its role is. We will have to come to an agreement with the group about how it carries that out in future.

I have a question on an unrelated matter. Later on, we will take evidence on another issue that is in your portfolio so, while you are here, I ask you to provide clarification about suggestions in the press that the City of Edinburgh Council fears that it could be left with liabilities and that the Scottish ministers are not prepared to meet all the Forth Estuary Transport Authority’s liabilities in the event that it is wound up. Is the council right to be concerned?

I saw that this morning in the press and it puzzles me. We have made it clear that FETA will pick up all the compensation claims. That will be organised through the Scottish ministers.

I think that you will be asked to give the committee some evidence on that next week, minister, so we can follow up the point with you then. I thank you very much for your evidence.

I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the witnesses to leave.

10:31 Meeting suspended.

10:32 On resuming—