Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Official Report 838KB pdf

---

Modernising Scotland’s Transport Infrastructure

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08270, in the name of Keith Brown, on modernising Scotland’s transport infrastructure: meeting the challenges of the 21st century.

15:10

This Government’s investment since 2007 in modernising our transport infrastructure is transforming our strategic transport networks. I have said before, and I say again, that there was underinvestment in Scotland’s transport infrastructure for decades. We have to try to make up for the lack of investment in previous decades, at a time of unparalleled budgetary constraint.

In just six years, 23 major improvements have been made to our motorways and trunk roads across the length and breadth of the country. Some 26.5 route miles of new railway have been built and six new stations have opened, the most recent being Conon Bridge, in February. In addition, our investment in the strategic networks will ultimately support the low-carbon agenda, by providing efficient links for public transport and the new generation of low-carbon vehicles, which will help to remove traffic from local roads, improving conditions for active travel and encouraging modal shift.

On active travel, we have added 215 miles to the network since 2007. The network contributes £71 million to the Scottish economy in health savings and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 115,000 tonnes a year.

It is acknowledged that air pollution shortens lives, and transport is a major contributor to air pollution. In the context of climate change and air pollution, what is the Scottish Government doing to encourage local authorities to set up low-emission zones? I apologise if you were intending to raise the issue in your speech, minister.

I remind members to speak through the chair.

I will come back to that point. I was talking about the general area when I said that our action on the transport network helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 115,000 tonnes. In addition, for example, we have worked with Glasgow City Council on low-carbon hybrid buses and on the potential for retrofitting buses to reduce harmful emissions. Glasgow and Edinburgh both have issues with air quality.

In this financial year, 2013-14, we are giving Sustrans £10 million for community links and national cycle network routes. Over the next two years, we will increase that by £20 million, adding to the £58 million that has been spent in this spending review period.

The elements that I talked about represent a total investment in completed schemes of more than £2 billion. However, that is not the limit of our ambition. As I speak, one of the biggest investment programmes in recent times is well under way, with more than £4 billion of work under construction or in procurement. That includes the Queensferry crossing, which is the largest transport infrastructure project in more than a generation. The work is creating thousands of jobs for the hard-pressed construction industry and is building the platform that Scotland needs if it is to compete in the 21st century and secure long-term sustainable growth.

Our transport networks are vital to our economy and to bringing together all communities across the country. We are the first Government to have committed to linking all our cities by dual carriageway—a standard that is pretty much taken for granted in many modern developed countries but was apparently not accepted in this country in previous decades. Our plans to dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness and the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen represent an investment programme to 2030 of some £6 billion.

On our rail networks, we have a £5 billion investment programme to 2019. That huge sum includes more than £3 billion capital investment in the rail infrastructure. We are undertaking investment to support the operation and maintenance of the existing tracks and to support substantial enhancements between Edinburgh and Glasgow, between Aberdeen and Inverness, and on the Highland main line.

Together, those investments in road and rail will better connect our cities and help to create growth and jobs across the country.

The minister mentioned the £3 billion that is being invested in rail through the capital investment programme. How much of that budget is for rail between Edinburgh and Glasgow?

The budget for the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme is currently about £650 million, although we want to do some additional work on the programme that might take it over that figure. Other work will also be on-going between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Tavish Scott’s question hints at the amendment that he proposed in relation to further work between Edinburgh and Glasgow on, for example, the high-speed line. However, we are of the view that the improvements that we are making to lines north of Edinburgh and Glasgow will benefit from EGIP freeing up capacity for points north and that high-speed rail will benefit the whole of Scotland if it comes to Scotland from London, as we think it should.

The completed projects are expected to generate billions of pounds in benefits over the next 30 years through better journey times and reliability, improved safety, reductions in emissions and better choice, all of which will improve the quality of life of people who live and work in Scotland. Businesses will reap the benefits, too, through reduced operating costs and improved access to key housing and employment sites.

We can see the benefits now. The Airdrie to Bathgate rail link and the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line are giving people more choice in using the train rather than the car, and patronage is running well above the levels that were initially predicted. The Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, which was projected to carry around 80,000 passengers a year, carried more than 400,000 passengers in its first year.

Roads are also a fundamental part of transport infrastructure—they help public transport and active travel, too—and the new M74 through Glasgow is cutting journey times by more than 15 minutes. Claudia Beamish asked about air quality. Previously, in the mornings and afternoons, people could be stopped for long periods at the Kingston bridge, but they now have far better journey times and a far smoother journey. Air quality is improved by our having made that investment, so it has been important for the environment as well, and the project provided a much-needed catalyst for the regeneration of the east end of Glasgow.

The Government’s infrastructure investment plan sets out our investment priorities for the future. In the short term, it is stimulating the economy and boosting the construction sector. Construction Scotland says that, for every £1 that is spent on construction output, a further £2.94 is generated in the economy. The largest of the current projects is the Queensferry crossing, which has been under construction—under the water, in many places—for more than two years and is under budget and on programme. That project not only is providing a vital future crossing across the Forth, but currently employs around 850 people on site, with 365 Scottish businesses having benefited from the project. Between them those businesses have been awarded orders worth about £143 million to date—money that is going straight back into the Scottish economy. Moreover, the latest projections put the cost of the project at around two thirds of its original budget, which was between £1.75 billion and £2.3 billion. The current estimated cost is around £1.4 billion.

We shared the frustrations of people in the Aberdeen area that were caused by the legal challenges to the Aberdeen western peripheral route, but both that project and the Balmedie to Tipperty project are now out to tender, with construction on programme to start in the autumn next year. When it is completed, that project will bring significant benefits to the north-east, including around £6 billion of additional income and more than 14,000 jobs over the 30 years after it opens.

I agree with the minister, and I welcome the importance that he places on the AWPR. However, I ask him again about the junction of the A90 and the A96 at the Haudagain roundabout—a project that he has endorsed for the Scottish Government to undertake. I have not heard any good reason why that project cannot be brought forward soon. Is he prepared to reconsider the matter?

Rather than give the member a good reason, I suggest that he read the report that was produced by the engineers. That report said that the project would be best done after we have completed the AWPR, not just for engineering reasons but because of the enormous disruption that would be caused by undertaking the work on the Haudagain roundabout just now. My opinion has not changed and I have ensured that the local council is aware of that.

Does the minister agree that Lewis Macdonald should listen to the Labour leader of Aberdeen City Council, who has accepted the Scottish Government’s timescale for the project, and that when Lewis Macdonald was the minister with responsibility for transport in the Scottish Executive he did nothing to advance the Haudagain roundabout?

Many of the projects that I have mentioned were insufficiently progressed under previous Administrations.

However, I am keen to encourage people to move from road to rail as we move on from the AWPR to the Borders rail project. Passenger journeys on our railways are up 30 per cent to around 83.3 million since the start of the franchise in 2004, and that is driving the need for investment in capacity and opportunities to improve the frequency of services. The Borders railway is the longest new domestic railway to be constructed in Britain for more than 100 years. That project will strengthen local communities across the Scottish Borders by reintroducing a fast and efficient rail link with seven new stations.

I mentioned EGIP. It will also transform our railway network. Passengers will benefit from improvements in service choice and faster journey times on modern, attractive, more energy-efficient trains as well as fully refurbished stations at Glasgow Queen Street and Haymarket, where the £27 million upgrade will open to passengers next month. The first phase of EGIP electrification—the £80 million electrification of the Glasgow to Cumbernauld lines—will be delivered in time for the 2014 Commonwealth games, helping people to get to the venues.

I note that the minister is near the end of his speech and there has been little mention of buses. Are the buses not running this afternoon?

If James Kelly had been listening earlier, he would have heard that I mentioned buses at the start of my speech.

Buses also run on roads, and investment in roads is related to that in buses. That is one of the reasons why we are investing in that infrastructure. We do not have complete motorway between our two major cities, but that will now change with the M8 Baillieston to Newhouse upgrade. That project will further improve connections and, along with the recent M74 and M80 upgrades, complete some of the long-standing gaps in central Scotland’s motorway network.

In terms of jobs, the M8 project will be of a similar scale to the M74 completion, which directly supported 900 construction jobs at its peak, with the large majority of the workers coming from the local area, including a number of modern apprentices. I met many of those apprentices during the construction of the project.

That investment serves a critical purpose during these difficult financial times, but continued investment is still needed. Therefore, it is right that we are planning further transport projects now, laying foundations so that we can build on them tomorrow. We all know that rail lines and roads are not built overnight. We need to do in-depth planning to ensure that we deliver the right scheme at the right price and keep impacts on communities, businesses and the environment to an absolute minimum.

I will say a word on keeping costs down. I once met a previous transport minister from the Parliament in Waverley station. He commended the Government on having brought some of those projects in on price and on time and said, “You must have to meet with these people every week.” That is exactly what we do. I was appalled to hear in the debate on high-speed rail in the House of Commons that the United Kingdom Government anticipated a six-monthly report—in fact, it ruled out a six-monthly report, preferring annual reports. It really is necessary to keep on top of such projects.

We make no apologies for taking the necessary time early on. We need to get it right—it would be a false economy to do anything else. Too often, other public infrastructure projects have been rushed and not properly planned, which has resulted in delays and cost overruns when they get to construction. Our track record speaks for itself: the £690 million M74 was completed ahead of time and under budget and the £320 million M80 upgrade was on time and on budget.

We intend to continue to apply that robust approach to future projects, such as the A9. We have set a demanding programme to have the 80 miles of dualling on the A9 completed by 2025 and we are on track. Last month, draft orders were published for the first stretch between Kincraig and Dalraddy, and orders for the Luncarty to Birnam section will come forward early next year.

We are the first Government to commit to full dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness. Estimated at around £3 billion, it represents the biggest transport infrastructure project, by cost, in Scotland’s history. To go back to the point that Tavish Scott raised, the cost of the project is in excess of the combined cost of the Forth replacement crossing, the M74 and the Borders rail project.

Earlier this year, I announced our outline strategy for the A96 dualling programme between Inverness and Aberdeen by 2030. That identified design and development work to be progressed over the next few years. I was in Nairn on Monday at the public information exhibitions.

In my closing speech, I will speak about high-speed rail as well, but I underline the ambition that we have for the future. We have an unparalleled record of successfully delivering critical and complex projects.

I commend the motion, and I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the record levels of investment being made by the Scottish Government on major transport projects, with over £4 billion of work under construction or in procurement, including the Queensferry Crossing, Borders Railway and the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route, and future plans for the dualling of the A9 and A96 and developing the National Cycle Network, and agrees that these projects are vital to transform Scotland’s strategic transport networks and stimulate the economy now, securing long-term sustainable growth and providing a modern and efficient transport system fit for the 21st century, giving people a choice and helping secure a low-carbon economy.

As members might have noticed, we are short of time in the debate.

15:24

The debate is important and timely, given the level of discussion and the lobbying and campaigning by transport organisations and individuals who have an interest in transport infrastructure. Many of them have expressed concerns about delays, project cuts and an absence of transport infrastructure planning. I hope that the proposed cross-party group on rail will be a vehicle for people to put their transport expertise to good use by informing decision makers.

The first thing that struck me when I saw the Scottish Government’s motion was the absence of any reference to buses. The minister mentioned them, but that was only because of interventions by two of my colleagues. The vast majority of public transport journeys are by bus, yet the Government’s support for bus services has been frozen at £53.8 million for the next three years, which is a real-terms cut.

Bus operators’ costs are going up. Where people can get on a bus, fares are rising, too. Across Scotland, the picture is one of service reduction and withdrawal, closed bus depots and isolated communities.

Given what Mark Griffin says, does he propose increased expenditure on buses? If so, will he propose that during the budget process?

I will come on to a positive suggestion for how the Government can improve bus services across Scotland. I genuinely hope that the minister will take it up.

Time and again—in surgeries, on doorsteps and at a packed public meeting in Cumbernauld in the summer—people tell me that they believe that bus companies are operating in the interests not of the public but of directors and shareholders. Public opinion in my region is that buses are not operating in the spirit of providing a public transport service and I am sure that similar representations have been made to other members in their constituencies and regions.

Does the member share my disappointment that, when the SNP group on Aberdeen City Council proposed a publicly funded bus company in the city of Aberdeen, the Labour-led administration rejected that out of hand?

Similarly, I hope that Mark McDonald will support Iain Gray’s proposed bus re-regulation bill. That would provide a solution for commuters in Aberdeen that would overcome the issues.

If buses are an issue, as Mark McDonald pointed out, I am genuinely surprised that the Government’s motion does not mention buses. I hope that the minister will clarify how the Government does or does not value buses as part of Scotland’s transport infrastructure.

One constructive thing that the minister could do is commit the Government to taking on lain Gray’s proposed member’s bill on bus regulation.

Will the member give way?

I have taken a number of interventions and I would like to make a bit of progress.

lain Gray’s bill would give transport authorities much more power over how bus services are run and would include a new franchising power to tender contracts for profitable and non-profitable routes together, without seeking ministers’ consent or having to demonstrate market failure.

Bus operators are cherry picking the most profitable routes and cutting quality and customer service to reduce costs, while abandoning smaller and more remote communities. Instead, we could have a strategic transport plan in regions across Scotland, to ensure that our bus network is fully integrated with other modes of transport such as rail and with park-and-ride and cycling facilities and to ensure that we have a sustainable service that connects our communities to employment and leisure opportunities.

We know that the Scottish National Party used to support re-regulation of the bus market, and it is not too late to revisit that. I again ask the Government to get round the table with members who have an interest in the bus market and particularly in re-regulation to see what can be delivered.

I repeat that I am surprised that the motion did not mention buses, but I am not so surprised that other aspects of transport infrastructure were excluded from it. Our amendment speaks about having transport infrastructure that is fit for the 21st century and about the challenges that we face in achieving that. I have mentioned bus re-regulation, so we can look at the next challenge that the amendment mentions, which is

“reducing journey times, increasing capacity and increasing the frequency of rail journeys between Scotland’s cities”.

That challenge is partly addressed by the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme—or at least, it would have been, if the original project had gone ahead. The project has been slashed—or phased, in civil service speak—and a lot of its benefits have been lost. Passenger capacity may be increasing but the increased frequency of services and the promised journey time reductions certainly will not be achieved. Parts of the project that would have increased capacity in the network have been dropped, such as the Garngad chord or the Croy turnback facility.

The Dalmeny chord has also been cut, which means that instead of trains being able to bypass the Winchburgh tunnel during electrification works, they will be diverted via Dalmeny, increasing journey times and pushing people from rail to road. That will cause timetabling issues for services to and from Fife and will cost taxpayers an estimated £10 million in compensation payments to the franchise holder—and that is only if Transport Scotland’s initial estimate of 44 days of disruption turns out to be correct.

Questions remain over the cost benefit analysis of the revised Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme. In Audit Scotland’s recent report, “Scotland’s key transport infrastructure projects”, it asked how ministers were able to approve changes to the scope and cost of the project without an updated and approved outline business case. In that report, Audit Scotland says that Transport Scotland expected to have a full business case prepared and completed by May 2013. Perhaps the minister can tell the chamber where Transport Scotland is with that business case and whether members will be allowed to access that document to scrutinise the decision making around the project changes.

Another challenge that we face in building a transport network fit for the 21st century is how we connect our major airports to our city centres and how the lack of foresight, planning and plain common sense by this Government has made that task harder. We heard last week about how the Scottish Government was a partner in a study into the options for linking Glasgow airport to the city centre by public transport. One of those options was a rail link, and we know that there is interest in the private sector in developing that rail link and that the Government is aware of that interest since it has been working jointly with the interested party on the airport access strategy document.

Yet, while working with that interested party, this same Government chose to sell off the land that would make that project possible. We are now being told that the Glasgow airport rail link is “ill-conceived”—a dramatic shift in policy from the Government that previously described it as desirable but not affordable.

I hope that the Scottish Government does not continue with that policy and will work with the promoter of the new GARL project to remove any barriers that might remain, without taking any liability on the public purse, which, until just over a week ago, was the Government’s main objection.

On this side of the chamber, we will continue to challenge the Government on transport infrastructure, as we have done in our amendment. We will push to ensure that the Government shows the ambition that we really need in order to develop a transport network fit for the 21st century—one that serves our communities, joins up our cities and connects city centres to strategic airports, while improving connectivity, increasing active travel and reducing our carbon emissions.

I move S4M-08270.1, to leave out from “welcomes” to end and insert:

“recognises the work required in the transport sector and the need for a fully developed infrastructure investment plan with defined project timescales to meet the challenges of the 21st century and believes that these challenges include re-regulating the bus market to better serve the travelling public, reducing journey times, increasing capacity and increasing the frequency of rail journeys between Scotland’s cities, improving public transport links between Scotland’s city centres and airports, improving connectivity, including by road, and increasing the opportunities for active travel to stimulate the economy now, securing long-term sustainable growth and providing a modern and efficient transport system, giving people a choice and helping secure a low-carbon economy.”

15:33

It remains an eternal source of embarrassment to the politicians who were responsible that between 1997 and 2007 there was a hiatus in construction on our trunk road network. It was not an accident; it was a deliberate act of policy. First a Labour Government and then a coalition Government, here in the Scottish Parliament, decided to prioritise other things.

The road-building programme, which had seen substantial developments on our trunk road network, waited for 10 years. When the current Government came to power, first as a minority back in 2007, it was that Government that put roads back on the agenda. For that reason, I have told the minister many times that there is little that I can criticise about his road-building programme and I will rightfully continue to praise that change in policy. However, that alone does not constitute the modernising of Scotland’s transport infrastructure for the 21st century. There is still much that we have to discuss and agree on.

Looking at the road-building programme, I still believe that there is one glaring omission from the priorities that the Government has identified. Although linking Scotland’s cities with dual carriageways or motorways is important, the priority should be to ensure that we complete our connections to the rest of the United Kingdom. Despite the differences of opinion on either side of the border, it should be a priority for our Government—and for our transport minister, by forging links with his counterpart south of the border—to see that the A1 is upgraded to become part of an east coast motorway network. Edinburgh and the east of Scotland have a great deal to gain from being linked to the north-east of England.

Similarly, this Government has failed to address the issue of accident blackspots, which are always on the minds of members of the Scottish Parliament. It remains a surprise to me that this Government and this minister will not act to deal with the problem surrounding the junction of the A90 and A937 at Laurencekirk. The pronouncements from Transport Scotland in recent months only make me think that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Among the Government’s other priorities that the minister mentioned in his opening speech, there is of course the issue of buses, which was raised by the Labour Party. I have supported the changes that been made to the bus service operators grant, as I believe that they are constructive and positive. However, they are underfunded, and many of the problems that are described by the Labour Party and used as an excuse for re-regulation are in fact caused by changes in the funding level.

That brings me to the Labour Party’s amendment, which lists wholesome projects and priorities that we should all consider in the longer term. However, the determination to pursue the concept of centralised planning and the re-regulation of our bus industry are enough to frighten off a poor innocent Tory like me. I believe that we should work constructively with the bus companies here in Scotland. We should face the fact that it was deregulation that created the business opportunity for companies such as Stagecoach and First Group—two of the biggest transport groups in Europe—to get in there and become the successful businesses that they are. Let us praise those companies and not make the mistake of condemning them by attacking the regulatory system—or the lack of it, as is currently the case.

I am worried that the motion before us is not a plan for modernising our transport infrastructure in its entirety. As I state in my amendment, it gives the lie to the idea put about by John Swinney and others that there is a huge lack in capital investment. In these difficult times it seems rather clear that the Government, since it chooses to mention £4 billion of expenditure in its motion, is able to find investment resources for priorities when those come along.

The other great project that has been discussed across Britain as a whole is high-speed rail. Many members in the chamber, including some in the Government, have bought into the idea of a high-speed rail network. We have reached a critical phase in the project and, if it is to go ahead, we must now understand how it will develop, what it might cost and how that cost will be broken down between Scotland and England in future.

If the minister gets his way, and Scotland becomes an independent country, I cannot see why a UK Government would wish to extend the high-speed rail network any further north than Manchester or Leeds. We need some explanation of how Scotland, if it becomes an independent country, will benefit from that beyond simply being able to access that rail network by train.

If this Government believes that high-speed rail can come to central Scotland and deliver benefits to places such as Aberdeen and Inverness, we need some explanation of how it will pay its share, because there has never been a project that looks more like one for the United Kingdom.

I move amendment S4M-08270.3, to insert at end:

“; recognises that this level of investment shows that Scottish Government assertions about the lack of a significant capital budget are unfounded, and welcomes the UK Government’s commitment to modernising transport as evidenced by the commitment to delivering high speed rail.”

In moving to the open debate, I advise members that we are extremely short of time. Therefore, although it was indicated that speeches would be of six minutes, if members could take around five minutes, I might be able to call all those who have indicated that they want to take part in the debate. Otherwise, I am afraid that I will not be able to call everyone.

15:39

I am of course delighted to support the motion.

I listened to Alex Johnstone, who is such a nice fellow, but in reading his amendment I am reminded of the adage that, once one gets rid of objectivity, sense and clarity, the rest is a piece of cake. His amendment’s invocation, as he has just expounded, that

“this level of investment shows that Scottish Government assertions about the lack of a significant capital budget are unfounded”

suggests that he has amnesia, given that we also need to spend on other areas such as health and education. His amendment also welcomes

“the UK Government’s commitment to modernising transport as evidenced by the commitment to delivering high speed rail”,

but that welcome will be understood only by those who live in Leeds or south of Leeds. Regarding his statement about who pays for HS2, does he not think that Scotland already pays a disproportionate part of its taxes to the UK revenue? However, I welcome the efforts that have been made by the Minister for Transport and Veterans to take HS2 beyond Leeds and Manchester to Scotland.

It is easy to applaud the minister because he is our minister, but I applaud him not for that reason but because he has done what is generally widely accepted as a great job of carving, from a minimal capital resource budget, some project deliverables across that spectrum of reduced spend. Those projects include the Queensferry crossing, which, incidentally, was endorsed by Audit Scotland as being of sound management, on target and on budget. That tells me that he has achieved that success only through good and sound management, involvement and practice.

I will turn, if I may, to some of the achievements and opportunities in the south of Scotland. First, the Borders railway project, which the minister mentioned, will lead to the reopening of the Waverley line, which from 1849 onwards ran from Edinburgh through the Borders and was later extended to Carlisle. Following the Beeching report, the line was axed along with many others in 1969 and its reopening was not even considered for some 30 years. I pay tribute to the previous Scottish Government and the Campaign for Borders Rail, which ensured that this rural Borders phoenix would rise again.

The re-establishment of that important rail link will open up and reconnect the Borders communities with each other and with the nation’s capital and, in so doing, will make its contribution to climate change targets. In addition, the Borders rail link will deliver the £33 million of economic benefits that will flow from its construction and, more important, open up the Borders to deliver many more social, economic and environmental benefits. Who knows whether, with more control over our own spending in the years to come, the extension of that line to Carlisle, perhaps with spurs to Stranraer, will fully open up the south-west and restore the line to what it once was? I will also say in passing that, in my dealings with Network Rail and ScotRail, I have been very impressed by their professionalism.

As well as our rail strategy, the futuristic connectivity of our airports, ports, rails and roads will drive our sustainable development so that we meet our economic growth targets as we go forward. Of course I applaud the decision to buy Prestwick airport, but it is not just about that airport and its confidence in supporting other airports on maintenance, repair, overhaul and cargo. Going forward into the 21st century, we need Prestwick airport to be part of an aviation framework in which, colluding with our island airports, it can provide worldwide direct flights and communications to and from Scotland. Who knows whether, with its unique runway capabilities, Prestwick airport could see future intergalactic and space flights? Of course, that is a matter for current and on-going conversations.

A much more immediate possibility is that we could link all our transport infrastructure with our tourism and export possibilities. For example, it is unacceptable that Scotland hosts 50 cruise ships per year, whereas Copenhagen hosts 500. Development of our ports is critical and I would like to see, for example, deep dredging of Troon and Ayr harbours, which could be developed in partnership with my favourite airport, which I mentioned. The same could apply to Edinburgh airport and Leith or Cockenzie, for example.

Additionally and briefly, pulling exports from the north of England for worldwide distribution from east and west of Scotland ports and airports would at one stroke reduce carbon emissions, costs and time and expand our huge export capabilities. An integrated and efficient physical connectivity related to our broadband ambitions can, and will, make us truly fit for the 21st century.

15:45

In meeting the transport challenges of the 21st century, the question is always this: which ones should we meet first? Connectivity for the Aberdeen city region should be a fairly high priority for Governments in Edinburgh and London, because few places contribute more per head of population to either the Scottish or UK economies. Aberdeen City Council is the first council to raise more for the Scottish Government in business rates than it receives in Government grants. The oil and gas industry, which is largely based in the north-east, contributes a quarter of all corporation taxes in the UK and accounts for billions of pounds in export earnings. Barriers to economic growth in Aberdeen are bad news for the whole country, so reducing those barriers should be a top priority for government at every level.

Three weeks ago, we learned an uncomfortable truth about the potential economic impact of HS2, which is a major project that has cross-party support here and at Westminster. The UK Government asked KPMG to calculate the impact of HS2 on city regions across the country, including those that would lose out as a result of other regions becoming better connected with London and each other by high-speed rail. KPMG concluded that the Aberdeen city region could be the hardest hit in the UK, with economic output reduced by as much as £220 million a year.

However, HS2 does not have to be bad news for Aberdeen, any more than for Scotland as a whole. The Scottish and UK Governments can do things to mitigate the displacement effect—which will apply not just to Aberdeen but to other places in the country, including Bristol and Cambridge—by ensuring that Aberdeen becomes better connected to London and to the northern end of the high-speed network.

Does Lewis Macdonald concede that the KPMG study was probably a desktop exercise that did not take into account the oil and gas sector in Aberdeen and the north-east?

I have looked closely at the methodology—or at as much as has been published, which is very little. It is important to remind Maureen Watt that the second-largest concentration of oil and gas jobs in the UK is not in Shetland or the Moray Firth but in greater London, so we should not assume that oil and gas jobs cannot be displaced to elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Top of the list of mitigating measures that the Scottish Government should take is a cut in journey times on the intercity routes between Aberdeen and the central belt. Ministers identified how to do that in the strategic transport projects review in 2008: by removing the one short stretch of single track at Montrose and building a new line from Inverkeithing to Halbeath, with the ultimate aim of linking the Aberdeen to Edinburgh and Aberdeen to Glasgow lines at Perth. Those options were flagged up, but they have not been given the green light. As long ago as the then Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s consideration of national planning framework 2 in 2009, I raised the absence of the Halbeath project from the framework, but there is still no firm commitment from the Government to those projects as we move towards NPF3.

Top of the list for the UK Government—and of vital importance to the Scottish economy—is that it maintain and strengthen air links between Aberdeen and London. HS2 will make many domestic air routes redundant, not just between London and other English cities, but perhaps ultimately between London and Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, high-speed rail can never substitute for air travel between the north of Scotland and London, simply because of the sheer distance that is involved. More passengers fly from Aberdeen to Heathrow every year than to the hub airports at Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris, Copenhagen and Dublin put together. Heathrow is by far the most important destination for the Aberdeen economy, which is why the north-east of Scotland transport partnership—Nestrans—has this week called for guaranteed access for Aberdeen flights to landing slots at Heathrow, and for such slots to be written into any future development there.

It is open to the UK Government to protect those slots, especially given that the European Union is currently reviewing its landing slots regulations. Under current rules, that would not be possible in the event of Scottish independence, since Aberdeen and London Heathrow would then be in separate countries, but it is in the UK’s interests as well as in Scotland’s interests to protect Aberdeen’s international competitiveness.

If the Scottish ministers want to help Aberdeen’s economy, there are things that they can do with the powers that they already have. They could confirm that expansion of Aberdeen harbour is a national priority by giving a fair wind to those plans—the TV celebrities at the Crown and Anchor would expect no less—and they could help to fund a feasibility study into a light rail link from Aberdeen international airport to the city centre, as the city council has invited it to do. If ministers were to look again at the Scottish transport appraisal guidance report on the Haudagain roundabout they would find that there is no reason not to progress with it.

Their taking those steps and mitigating the impact of HS2 would show that ministers understand that Aberdeen’s transport needs go beyond the western peripheral route and that investment in Aberdeen’s transport infrastructure is not an optional extra but is essential to the future success of Scotland as a whole.

15:50

It is interesting that in this debate on transport infrastructure for the 21st century, so far almost everybody has referred to motorised transport, although I note that in his opening remarks the minister talked about the money that is going to the national cycle network. I want to talk about delivering safe streets for cyclists and pedestrians, because I believe that that is intrinsic to our 21st century transport infrastructure.

The issue is about shared space for different modes of transport, equality of access to that space and prioritising who gets that access. I want to be very clear in this short speech that to talk about cycling and walking as modes of transport is not to be fanciful—this is not Fiona going back to her hippie roots—but to be incredibly practical.

Among other things, this is about climate change, which the minister talked about in his opening remarks, and in order to address climate change we need to effect behaviour change and bring about modal shift. It used to be that talking about modal shift meant talking about getting out of cars and on to the bus or the train, but increasingly we need to talk about getting out of motorised transport and on to your feet or bike.

A big behaviour change or shift that we have to make is to convince the public that they have a false sense of security if they think that when they are in their car they are safer than they are on a bike or out walking. That is especially the case when asking parents to get their kids to walk or cycle to school.

How do we make the change so that people understand that shared space equals safe space for all the users of an area? I am very proud of two of my parliamentary colleagues, Sandra White and Dennis Robertson, with their proposed members’ bills on responsible parking and use of blue badges. They are getting us to think about how we all share and use the space of the streets in which we live.

I want to talk about something much bolder and broader in my constituency: a huge attitude shift. In Bishopbriggs there is a strong lobby of people who want Bishopbriggs to be the first 20mph town in Scotland—not a zone or limited area, but a 20mph town. Some fantastic campaigners are working on that.

In the chamber I have often referred to East Dunbartonshire’s Cycle Co-operative, which has achieved the amazing figure of 20 per cent of primary school pupils cycling to school every day. That is quite something to have achieved—and that is without a 20mph town. ED’s Cycle Co-operative is talking about how to get the parents of the other 80 per cent to believe that it is safe to let their children walk or cycle to school.

I am absolutely delighted that ED’s Cycle Co-operative has just received from the climate challenge fund £160,000 to go towards a project called good moves Bishopbriggs. The Cycle Co-operative is a group of people who know what they are doing and are already effecting change. However, they have been defeated in their attempt to get 20mph as the limit throughout Bishopbriggs. I have to get a bit technical here, Presiding Officer, members and minister.

You are in your final minute.

It is fair to say that the guidance for setting 20mph limits can be confusing and requires much cross-referencing across a number of documents and traffic regulations. In 55 seconds I could not possibly list all the pieces of legislation that must be looked at. However, it comes down to focusing on whether physical or psychological calming measures are necessary in order to have 20mph zones.

Paragraph 5 of Scottish Executive development department’s “SEDD circular no 6/2001: 20MPH speed limits” states:

“It is for local traffic authorities to decide on the number and type of measures which should be employed in each particular case.”

The problem in Bishopbriggs is that we cannot, even with all those different pieces of legislation, convince East Dunbartonshire Council to do that. It keeps on saying that it is not possible and that the regulations do not allow it to take that action. However, the “Cycling Action Plan for Scotland 2013” clearly says that we want more 20mph zones. In Bishopbriggs, we want a 20mph town. I therefore ask the minister whether the regulations could be simplified and the guidance made clearer so that we can stop buck-passing and achieve that modal shift to safe shared space.

15:55

I make the point to Alex Johnstone that when Sarah Boyack became the first transport minister under devolution, she did not inherit a transport policy, but a roads policy. Such was the nature of policy at the time; previous London Governments with responsibility for transport policy left only a roads policy to this Parliament.

I am still supportive of Governments that move to much more balanced spending in order to address—as Fiona McLeod has just rightly recognised—the importance of other forms of transport, including cycling and using our feet, but principally bus and rail. I do not think that that is a wrong approach. I disagree quite profoundly with Alex Johnstone and the Tories on the matter, as I have since 1999, when Murray Tosh was the Conservatives’ transport spokesperson.

Keith Brown has got the matter broadly right. I hope that he realises that we all have greater challenges to face when organisations such as Transform Scotland write, as it has for the debate—I am putting a quotation to him just as I had them put to me when I was a minister—to say that the

“Government’s own transport indicators demonstrate that its policies have failed to move people on to public transport, failed to reduce congestion and led to an increase in climate emissions.”

Any Government’s objective must be to look at the balance of spending between road and rail—or “motorised transport”, as some members have called it—and to consider how to best to achieve the greatest impact in moving the greatest number of citizens in the ways in which they want to be moved.

I have some sympathy for the minister on bus re-regulation, not least because—Lewis Macdonald will remember this well—I resisted it when I was in government, which did not make me particularly popular among the Labour group. However, I was an awful lot more unpopular with the SNP because it was Glasgow members including Sandra White and Nicola Sturgeon who were leading the charge on bus re-regulation.

It is, of course, for the minister to sort out his policy and for his Government to decide what it wants to do on Iain Gray’s bill. However, there may be some merit in some of his proposals. I therefore suggest that the bill should get the proper parliamentary hearing that such a measure, which is aimed at addressing a fundamental issue, deserves. That would, at least, recognise the nature of the particular problem.

I will not and do not accept that we have a year-zero approach to what happened before 2007. The Larkhall to Milngavie rail line opened in 2005. It was the first line to open in 25 years, which is a considerable tribute to the promoters and all who were involved. However, it is not fair to say—I do not suppose Keith Brown really believes this, but we have to do politics—that nothing happened on rail before 2007. A lot of good projects came forward, and that is a good example of a project that happened.

That is not my position. I made the point that there had been a lack of investment for many decades, but there were undoubtedly initiatives. When I was at Clackmannanshire Council, we proposed the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail link, which I acknowledge was supported by the Scottish Executive of the time.

I will try to keep the consensual tone going by saying that I accept that. I want to make particular mention of the organisations, including Keith Brown’s council at that time, that played an important part in moving that project forward.

I have two points to make around journey times, which a number of members have mentioned. It is the fundamental issue that the minister will have to address when he looks at the new approach to tendering for the ScotRail franchise that Transport Scotland announced just the other day, with the short list for those who will bid to run our rail services. Journey times are fundamental to helping the competitiveness of rail in comparison with road. We all have our own examples. In the context of Aberdeen and the north-east, Lewis Macdonald rightly mentioned a road that—like the A9—I drive along a lot. At the moment, travelling by rail from Inverness to Edinburgh or Inverness to Glasgow is not competitive with travel by car or by bus. I put my son on the bus between Edinburgh and Inverness a lot. I believe that, when it comes to future investment, a close look has to be taken not just at capacity on rail routes, but at journey times. I encourage the minister to think about that issue and to address it through his budget.

Infrastructure investment is not just about dualling major pieces of trunk road infrastructure, much as I appreciate that politically that is a highly attractive thing to do. If we do not cut journey times by rail between our major cities, the balance of spending will not matter, because we will not encourage the shift away from road that most members hope people will make by giving them the option of using extremely good public transport systems to get them from, for example, Aberdeen to Edinburgh.

16:01

We have had an interesting whirlwind tour of Scotland’s transport infrastructure, with Lewis Macdonald talking about the Haudagain roundabout, Fiona McLeod proposing that Bishopbriggs be a 20mph town, Chic Brodie—in an interesting and memorable contribution—discussing intergalactic travel and Tavish Scott giving us a valuable history lesson, in which he told us about significant transport decisions since the inception of devolution. And they say that transport infrastructure is boring.

We all realise that transport is vital for the functioning of Scotland’s economy and for connecting communities across the country, but there is always a debate to be had about how we balance competing transport priorities within the budget that is available. There is no doubt that if Scotland is to cement its future as a modern sustainable economy and society, we must ensure that we have an integrated transport network that is truly fit for purpose—one that will allow us to maximise Scotland’s opportunities for commerce, leisure and tourism, and to unlock our full potential. Most of all—as we have heard—such investment is essential to our transition to a low-carbon economy.

As we have also heard, a well-functioning transport infrastructure can bring about modal shift, as we move from the car to alternative forms of transport—whether to active travel such as walking and cycling, to public transport such as green buses and rail, or to other forms of sustainable transport, including electric cars and car-share schemes.

Securing a transport infrastructure that is fit for purpose requires not only focus and insight to meet the challenges head on, but the vision to look ahead at our future needs, and the discipline to manage effectively the decisions that we must make. The Minister for Transport and Veterans has certainly risen to the challenge. The Queensferry crossing is a major capital investment, but it is necessary to safeguard a vital connection in Scotland’s transport network. The project is currently under budget and on programme. That crossing will bring additional economic benefit of around £6 billion, and it is reassuring that the project’s management has been commended by Audit Scotland. The existing Forth road bridge will continue to operate, but as a corridor for use by cyclists, pedestrians and public transport. That is the good example that we wish to set, but it is not the only such example.

We have heard about the Scottish Government’s commitment to inject £3 billion into Scotland’s railways in the next five-year period. In addition to £3 billion investment in rail infrastructure, there will be an additional £1 billion of Government-backed industry investment in strategic network enhancements and further funding of £1 billion over five years for ScotRail’s Caledonian sleeper service. There will be more rigorous standards for train performance and a dedicated franchise to secure the future of the sleeper service.

Network Rail will be required to oversee delivery of the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme, the reopening of the Borders railway, the first phase of improvements along the Aberdeen to Inverness corridor, phase 2 of improvements to the Highland main line, and the development of a rolling programme of electrification following the completion of EGIP. I defy anyone to suggest that that is anything other than significant infrastructure investment in our railways.

That investment forms part of the largest and most substantial transport investment programme that Scotland has ever seen, and the Scottish Government deserves credit for it, but the goal that we must work towards is to secure a fully integrated transport network. That means improving connections across the country and ensuring that the rail timetable is synchronised with local buses and ferries, and that the necessary infrastructure is in place to connect train and cycle journeys.

I agree whole-heartedly with my colleague Fiona McLeod that cycling is neither an afterthought nor an add-on, but should be an integral part of our transport strategy. In advance of the debate, the city cycling Edinburgh forum and Spokes highlighted the importance of cycling as a mode of local transport as well as its being a means of achieving our shared objectives on congestion, carbon emissions and public health. That is why the Scottish cycle network is so important and why we need to learn lessons from not only other European countries and cities but from our English neighbours as they embark on construction of urban cycle networks in their cities.

I liked Fiona McLeod’s idea of a 20mph town, which echoes the call from Spokes for at least one cycle-friendly town or city in each Scottish local authority area. I am glad that the City of Edinburgh Council has made good on its pledge and commitment to use 5 per cent of its transport budget to fund active travel; that will rise to 6 per cent and even higher over the coming years. I am also glad that the Government has released £3.9 million of investment for shovel-ready projects for cycling and that £300,000 of that money has already been spent on resurfacing North Meadow Walk for the benefit of my constituents and those in the neighbouring Edinburgh Central constituency. I am delighted with the additional £20 million over two years and the leveraging in of additional local authority funding to bring that figure to £35 million.

I would be grateful if you could close now, Mr Eadie.

A focus on integrated infrastructure and sustainable travel will help Scotland to achieve the sustainable transport future that I believe everyone in the chamber wishes to see.

16:06

I am grateful for Jim Eadie’s excellent and thoughtful speech because I sometimes worry for the Scottish Government and its need not just to suppress all criticism but to constantly seek praise, even if today that praise is just from its own back benchers and, I believe, Alex Johnstone. Patting oneself on the back for roads that have not yet been built strikes me as odd when surely it is the Parliament’s job to scrutinise the Government’s decisions and question their value for money and their benefit to Scotland.

This could—or even should be—a consensual debate. After all, Labour and the SNP share a Keynesian approach to the economy in their keenness to invest in infrastructure projects and a rejection of the Conservative-led UK Government’s approach that has kept us in the doldrums for four years. However, once we move beyond the macroeconomy or strategic level, serious questions that the Scottish Government needs to answer about the detail of its infrastructure programme start to arise.

The minister might not recognise the hollow ring to his motion, but there is no shortage of other—dare I say—more objective observers offering a more balanced perspective. For example, the Queensferry crossing received overwhelming support from this Parliament—and, indeed, still has that support—but as the Jimmy Reid Foundation, the Community trade union, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and others have pointed out, should we not be concerned at the manner in which the contracts for steel, cement and construction went abroad rather than to local companies? It is right to highlight the Borders railway but surely in a debate on Scotland’s transport infrastructure it would simply be wrong not to talk about the strategic importance of rail links to our main airports.

Concerns and questions about whether projects are on time or on budget are being raised not just by Opposition parties. The Auditor General, who recently reported on our key transport infrastructure projects, has said:

“The Scottish Government considers”

its spending on five key infrastructure projects

“affordable in the long term, but it has not fully demonstrated the reliability of its analysis in this area.”

She also said:

“Reporting of the building cost estimates for three projects has also been incomplete or inconsistently presented”

and

“the timescale for ... completion”

of the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme

“has increased by over two years”.

Finally, she pointed out:

“for the Borders Railway and EGIP projects, Transport Scotland did not ensure that business cases were complete and up to date at all stages. Consequently, at certain decision points, it had not fully demonstrated the viability, value for money and affordability of the projects.”

Such observations hardly fill one with confidence in this Administration’s competence; indeed, that worry was compounded when the permanent secretary—the Scottish Government’s chief civil servant—had to apologise to the Parliament’s Public Audit Committee for failing to disclose half a billion pounds that this Government is spending on these very projects.

By the way, the permanent secretary’s excuse was that the Scottish Government’s figures did not include the costs of purchasing the land necessary for the infrastructure projects to go ahead. This Administration seems to have a very strange attitude to land purchases. As we know from the Glasgow airport rail link, it is happy to pay hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of pounds to buy land, but it thinks nothing of scrapping whole projects and then selling the land off for the tiniest fraction of its cost. Now we know that it does not want even to declare those purchases to the Parliament’s Public Audit Committee. We do not have to wonder why.

The minister seems to think that we should simply applaud his list of as yet unbuilt roads, but when we look in more detail at the transport infrastructure projects, rather than being reassured we see that the Government’s lack of transparency on costs and its failure to provide information on affordability raises even more questions.

The motion refers to more than £4 billion-worth of work, but the Auditor General for Scotland estimated that the SNP Administration is committing us to £7.5 billion of spending over the next 30 years from the five big transport projects alone. She further highlighted that, for four of those revenue-financed projects, more than £5 billion of the estimated committed costs have not been reported publicly by the Scottish Government.

Instead, we are supposed to be reassured by the finance secretary’s intention, which was outlined in admittedly slightly more detail in this year’s budget statement, to limit future revenue-financed investment—that is private finance initiative, public-private partnership or non-profit-distributing projects for the rest of us—to less than 5 per cent of its expected future annual budget.

The Scottish Government has not told us, for example, why it set the level at 5 per cent. We know that repayments will be from the resource budget alone, but in calculating the 5 per cent cap the capital budget is also included, as are the non-cash departmental expenditure limit and the local government allocation, despite the fact that the local government share of future revenue commitments is excluded. That is some way to calculate 5 per cent.

I thank the member for sticking to his time.

16:11

The KPMG Scotland business instinct survey has shown that the energy, tourism, and food and drink sectors will contribute the most positive impact to the Scottish economy in the next 10 years. That does not just mean in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen; it means across the country. Indeed, I am looking for an all-Scotland policy, and I want to look at some of the issues that the Government is raising positively to help us to have that all-Scotland policy, and to raise other matters of some concern.

Of course people need to have transport choices, but the choice is not necessarily to go faster; it can be about reliability and recognising that distance is one of the issues that we have to deal with. Indeed, if something is going to be sustainable in the future, it must be low carbon. The approach has to include trains, for example, rather than encouraging people to travel long journeys by road.

On roads and dualling the A9 south of Inverness, can the minister give us an idea of how the interim process involving the average speed cameras will work, given that average speeds will be higher than they are on the A77? People are looking for some help on that to understand how it will work.

Looking further north to my constituency, we can see that various climate change issues crop up. Extreme flooding has led to the need for a £1 million 30-week project on the A9 at the Portgower mill culvert bridge, beside the house of a friend of mine, Margot Macgregor, who has a massive building site outside her windows—it makes a change from the water from the burn being up to her kitchen window and frightening the life out of her. That extra piece of work is necessary. There are no other easy routes to the north. The A9 is the main road, and without it there are massive detours. We are therefore very pleased that such £1 million projects, which have to be slotted in, have been slotted in. That is welcome.

After 40 years of talking about the Berriedale braes on the A9 into Caithness—that section of road is perhaps the only alpine section of trunk road in Scotland, and it is very difficult to deal with—we have made progress through the stages in the past three years, with the help of the local estate. It came up with a simple plan that did not involve a massive flyover, which we could not afford. It has worked with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the Scottish Government, the Highlands and Islands transport partnership and Highland Council to get to the stage of the technical survey. That is being done now, and I hope that that will deliver a shovel-ready project in the near future. Those things help long communication lines in Scotland to get access to the main road networks, and it is important to see them as things that need to happen soon.

I will briefly mention rail services in the time that I have left. We are glad that Conon Bridge station is opening, but we could have other stations on the north line. We need better rolling stock and for long journeys we need access to the electric sockets that the electric trains in the Glasgow and west of Scotland area have so that we can plug in our computers and get proper broadband. It is appallingly difficult to get any kind of broadband on the journey between Perth and Inverness or on journeys further north.

The potential for freight traffic on rail is exemplified by the whisky trains that are now going to go south from Elgin via Aberdeen. Every time that one of those trains goes it will mean that 29 lorries will be taken off the A9, which is a great innovation. However, the freight facilities grants must be rolled out to other things. As Direct Rail Services is moving nuclear waste by rail, let us hope that we can get the rolling stock to bring things up to Caithness on the return journey.

On air travel, I am very concerned about Flybe’s cuts in the number of its staff. We are at the end of the line in the north, so the regional airlines that provide lifeline services to Wick airport in my constituency and to the islands are an important part of our infrastructure. We would like the minister to take great care to ensure that the services continue. I heard a correspondent on the radio talking about some services having public service obligations, but very few of those lifeline services have public service obligations. It is important that we get such things lined up if we are to see integrated transport to the far north in the future.

16:16

Members have raised a variety of important points, but I will focus my comments on one or two aspects of our future strategy.

The Government’s motion is very much focused on the investment that has been made in our transport infrastructure. However, as welcome as that is, it must be matched by a comprehensive and joined-up strategy in order to drive sustainable economic growth, and the strategy must focus on the commuter.

It has been some time since the Scottish Government’s previous national transport strategy was launched—I think that it was in 2006—but one of the strategy’s key aims was the improvement of journey times and connections. That was welcome, and improvements have undoubtedly been made as a result, but there are clear weaknesses. For example, it has been noted that the Edinburgh gateway tram and rail interchange at Gogar represents a missed opportunity for a park-and-ride facility. Similarly, the newly opened Bathgate to Airdrie rail link has led to a significant increase in traffic at Bathgate train station and, although the station is only three years old, it appears that the parking capacity is insufficient. That just goes to show how important it is to think through all the implications of future infrastructure spending.

I am no great fan of management buzzwords, but nonetheless we need a joined-up approach to transport planning. The approach of improving connections that the existing Government strategy calls for is far too narrow; there is a need for a more comprehensive but individually focused plan. We need to start with the basics and ask: who is travelling? Where are they going? How do they want to get there? What is preventing them from doing that? How can we make it easier? We need to know not only who uses the train but who is not using it and why. How are they getting to the train station? Are there people who would take their bike if the facilities and bicycle routes were safer?

All those questions need to be asked. The commuter must be at the centre of any joined-up transport strategy, and we must understand the entirety of their journey from door to door and what can be done to make it quicker and easier. I feel that we can make a good deal of easy improvements at relatively low cost; large-scale investment in infrastructure is not the only route to improvement.

Future transport needs, as well as present demands, should also be about shaping policy. Rail Future Scotland is already lobbying for the restoration of double track on heavily used and high-frequency routes such as the recently extended Milngavie line. I was interested in the recent comments of Paul Tetlaw of Transform Scotland, who described the Highland main line as a “slimmed down Victorian railway” and called for the twin tracking of the route and electrification, which I think was a personal commitment of the First Minister at the most recent general election.

Such points raise questions about whether we are future proofing existing infrastructure projects such as the Borders rail link, for which only three stretches are twin tracked. The Campaign for Borders Rail and Transform Scotland have already criticised the proposed construction along the rail line of bridges that are suitable for only a single-track line, rightly questioning the consequences for overall capacity in the future.

We must avoid a situation in which we build infrastructure that is at capacity within a few years and there is then a need for costly expansion and improvement. Obviously, we cannot peer into the future, and we do not have inexhaustible resources, but we must look to deliver the best possible value for the taxpayer, and that will not be achieved by building infrastructure with a limited fit-for-purpose lifespan. In some ways, this is one of the biggest challenges in planning transport infrastructure—to make sure that it will fit our future needs rather than our existing ones.

It is also important to accept that the Scottish Government cannot deliver a comprehensive transport strategy on its own but needs to work with local authorities on planning and delivery. Resources must be directed according to local priorities that are determined by councils, and their use should not be dictated by central Government. In that context, it is important to keep a close eye on what local authorities are doing with the money that is available to them through things such as cycling, walking and safer streets budgets. We must accept that it is for local authorities to decide where their transport priorities lie, and we must not attempt to pedal in ring fencing by the back door.

That said, I note that cycling is a priority for some local authorities. In Edinburgh, there is a need to make it safer and easier to get around the city, and I welcome the steps that have already been taken. As a keen cyclist—although not so much recently, as members may imagine—I support action in the area. In my extensive travels to Europe on business, I have seen the facilities and initiatives that can be used to encourage safer cycling. I regret to say that, as with so many other forms of physical exercise, they do it with much more style on the continent. The biggest barrier to cycling in Scotland seems to be the perception that it is dangerous, which is almost certainly a result of recent high-profile fatalities. That is why we need to think a good deal more about how we can offer a safe environment for cyclists.

I was interested to note that, last week, London’s mayor Boris Johnson launched a new stretch of London’s cycle superhighway, which is fully segregated from other traffic. The cycling campaign group Spokes has already called for segregated cycle lanes, and that is one of the ideas that we should be fully considering.

You must draw to a close, please.

We must ensure that the funding that is available is put to the best possible use.

16:21

I am pleased to be speaking towards the end of this debate because, as convener of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, it has been interesting for me to hear views from members across the chamber on a matter that occupies much of our time in committee.

What strikes me most about the current Government’s infrastructure investment compared with that of previous Governments is that it is for the whole of Scotland. The Government is the first that has as a priority to connect all our cities with dual carriageways, and the effect of that should not be underestimated. It will be a key factor in convincing people that they can still live in rural towns and villages, many of which are not on rail routes, and be able to get access to employment further afield. I am pleased that the projects are progressing well and that, for example, consultation with communities along the A96 is taking place at present.

I have to take issue with those who complain about and oppose the dualling of these roads. I think that they come to the issue from a central-belt perspective. The central belt is already well served by a network of motorways and dual carriageways. Those who are against improvements to the road network to and in the north and north-east are clearly not subject to the daily frustration that my and other colleagues’ constituents face as they try to go about their daily lives. Those who are concerned about air pollution fail to take into account the increase in cars that have very low emissions and, although they are still in their infancy, the number of electric vehicles, which is increasing.

I am pleased that the minister mentioned the AWPR. In a survey by Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce this spring, 87 per cent of respondents identified the AWPR as the key infrastructure investment that will drive economic growth in the region. We have already seen the unlocking of many large-scale developments in the region because of the progress that is, at last, being made on this vital project.

Some of the briefings that we have received for this debate complain that more investment is going into roads than into rail, but transport economists and those who are involved in the rail industry tell us that investment in rail has not been higher in Scotland for years, and that the other parts of the UK are envious of the Scottish Government’s commitment to rail.

Spending of £4 billion since 2007 has supported new rail lines, new and better services, new stations and new trains. There were 83 million passenger journeys in Scotland last year, which represents a 33 per cent increase since 2004. Rail freight continues to grow and it is pleasing to see the recent move to rail of that most valuable of freight: whisky from Moray.

I am sure that not many members of the Scottish Parliament, with the exception of Alex Johnstone and the Tories, do not regret the deregulation of bus services, especially when we see how effectively, efficiently and cheaply Lothian buses work in Edinburgh. Would that we could have such a system in Aberdeen. However, Iain Gray and Mark Griffin have yet to say where the money for that would be diverted from.

Members mentioned ports and airports. I share Lewis Macdonald’s hope that expansion of the Aberdeen port will be included in future Government plans. Other members and I recently met representatives of the port; the project is exciting.

I appreciated Fiona McLeod’s speech. Cycling has a strong lobby in Scotland, but far more people walk, especially women and children. In the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s deliberations, I ensure that time and consideration are given to safe streets for walking.

Alex Johnstone mentioned high-speed rail, which he believes will be delivered to Scotland only by a Westminster Government. To me, HSR demonstrates most visibly the London and south-east-centric nature of the Westminster Government, which is not concerned about—or listening to what people are saying about—the economic future of the north-east or north-west regions of England, let alone that of Scotland.

Only in an independent Scotland, which has full responsibility for all modes of transport, ports, airports and air passenger duty, will the people of Scotland get the integrated transport infrastructure that they deserve and can fund.

16:27

The Government’s motion says that investment in transport projects is

“vital to ... stimulate the economy now, securing long-term sustainable growth and providing a modern and efficient transport system fit for the 21st century”.

No one can disagree with that. The primary focus of transport projects should be the provision of greater connectivity and easier journeys for commuters, and the creation of crucial jobs and security for families. The Labour amendment addresses the need for investment and modernisation, to benefit the consumer and the workforce.

Reregulation of the bus industry is necessary to address the challenges of the 21st century. The public want and deserve better buses, which is why I support Iain Gray’s proposed bus regulation (Scotland) bill. I am a frequent bus user, so I sympathise with people who depend on buses that rarely turn up on time and are overcrowded and often dirty.

Iain Gray’s proposed bill aims to give transport authorities greater power to determine how bus services are run without having to seek ministers’ consent. Too often, we hear of a bus service being reduced or withdrawn, however much the community depends on it. If successful routes were tendered with less successful routes, local people could benefit and would not have to fear that they might lose a service.

If members doubt the value of the proposed bill, I urge them to speak to their constituents. During the past few months, that is what I have been doing. I asked people in Renfrewshire for their opinions on the bus services and the better buses bill. Every reply that I received backed the bill and set out people’s negative experiences on the buses—and that is in a large urban area, not far from Glasgow, so I can only imagine the misery that bus services cause for people who live in more rural areas.

The knock-on effects of poor services on health, employment and education are a challenge that remains unmet in the 21st century. Given the Government’s ambitious carbon reduction targets, a rigorous national strategy needs to be developed, to get more people out of their cars and on to public transport. However, that can be a realistic goal only when we have a connected public transport system that meets the needs of people in rural and urban areas.

I ask members not only to consider their constituents’ concerns about bus services, but to remember that far more bus journeys than train journeys are taken each day, despite the fact that the Government focuses more often on rail.

Scottish Labour’s debate last week on the Glasgow airport rail link highlighted why an independent audit is required to investigate the loss of £30 million from the public purse. During the debate, I cited the recent Audit Scotland report “Scotland’s key transport infrastructure projects”. One of the key recommendations for the Scottish Government is that it should

“refine and develop its plan for scrutinising, challenging and monitoring major investment projects”,

which would undoubtedly lead to more accountability and ensure that we would not have a repeat of the waste of taxpayers’ money that was caused by the cancellation of GARL.

Over recent years, a number of projects have faced delays and cancellations by the Government, undermining the development of our rail networks. Although the Borders railway project is to be welcomed, it suffered a number of delays and cost increases. That is another example of why Audit Scotland recommended that the Scottish Government should “improve” its “openness and public accountability”. However, it was not only the Scottish Government that was under fire from Audit Scotland. Transport Scotland has some recommendations that it needs to take on board, despite its having some

“good corporate governance structure for major investment projects”.

I await both Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government meeting the deadline that has been set in the recommendations.

It is only right that, in debating the challenges for our transport system in the 21st century, we remember the wider role that the system plays in all areas of people’s lives. From health and education to leisure, business and employment, a well-connected, well-planned network of roads, rail and buses can make lives simpler and safer for both young and old.

16:31

In his opening speech, the minister mentioned the unparalleled budget restraints that have been placed on the Scottish Government. Those restraints are not in dispute, except in the Tory amendment. However, politics is about priorities and competing demands, and it is evident that the motor lobby has a very strong voice that has been listened to.

I am disappointed that there has been no mention of ferries, which are a vital part of our infrastructure. Given the fact that the motion talks about “strategic transport networks”, it is strange that there has been no mention of ferries. There is good news for the Scottish Government in relation to the Raasay ferry, which has an innovative design and was built in Scotland. I would like to see that replicated, with a replacement programme that would put our shipbuilding yards to some constructive use, and an enhanced, less polluting fleet.

I was heartened to hear the minister say that he is keen to encourage people to move from road to rail. Of course, the practicalities of rail travel will shape people’s view on whether it is worth while. I received a detailed email from a constituent who travelled twice on the Inverness to Aberdeen line at the weekend. He outlined the various challenges connected with his journey and said that

“26 got on at Insch, 50 at Inverurie and 15 at Dyce. We became a sardines tin!”

That is good news in that plenty of use is being made of the service, but he had a similar experience on the return journey. That raises the question why, 10 years after we were promised that the short platforms at Elgin and Insch would be lengthened, that has not happened. That is what people are interested in—they want practical opportunities to use rail.

As things stand, it is quicker to use the train than to travel by road between Inverness and Aberdeen. It is, therefore, disappointing that the Scottish Government seems intent on reversing the position with its plans to dual the A96. How does that square with the minister’s assertion that he wants to encourage people to move from road to rail? A cost benefit analysis must be done on that. The phrase “modal shift” is used a lot, not just about freight, but about passengers. What analysis is done? We must make rail an attractive option, and part of doing so will involve considering how it integrates with other policies—not just transport policies, but policies on the environment and planning. For example, how transport links with developments such as those at Kishorn will be important.

Reference has been made to the briefings that members have received. I will talk about the one from Friends of the Earth Scotland in the context of the damage that air pollution does to health. We all want to encourage more cycling and walking as well as more and better public transport, but those things will require less traffic.

The minister’s mention of retrofitting is welcome. That is a practical example of what we should encourage: inspecting, repairing and replacing in that order, not going straight to replacing.

Unusually for me, I will commend something from the United States. Smart Growth America, which is on the internet—I can show the link to the minister—has carried out research that says:

“Public transportation investments generate 31 percent more jobs per dollar than new construction of roads and bridges, and repair work on roads and bridges generates 16 percent more jobs per dollar than new bridge and road construction.”

The research goes on to say:

“Fixing existing infrastructure produces a higher return on investment than new construction because repair:

•prevents the need for reconstruction later, which costs 4 to 14 times as much;

•saves money by reducing damage from potholes and vibrations;

•Keep existing communities vibrant. Neglecting existing places while building new infrastructure drives growth out, and means the public ends up buying two of everything.”

I do not think that we have the money for “new construction”, so I commend the inspect, repair and replace approach.

Mention has been made of the Borders rail line. It is welcome and a good example of consensus being built. In a previous debate, I also commended the additional Oban to Glasgow rail service, with which there is excellent connectivity.

Members talked about shift, but the shift will require infrastructure. Members also talked about the north rail line. It is now at capacity and I understand that that is why freight now goes east and south, rather than west and south.

Rail and cycle hubs are very important, too, but their design is important. The right design must form part of the franchise so that there are storage areas for cycles and other things. I have been in touch with the minister on those matters.

The national cycle network is very much to be welcomed. I ask the minister for more of that, please.

16:36

This has been a good, constructive and wide-ranging debate. It has covered a lot of subjects, although I have been criticised for not covering everything in my opening speech. I will try to cover one or two more points in my closing speech, but it must be said that, in such a debate, we cannot all be expected to cover everything.

The first issue that I will cover is cycling, which is in the Government motion, for which I intend to vote at 5 o’clock tonight. Cycling was covered at some length by my colleague Cameron Buchanan, who highlighted the fact that it has a lot to offer. Fiona McLeod also mentioned it extensively, and I accept what she said. I was interested in her suggestion that she would make Bishopbriggs the first 20mph town in Scotland. I have occasionally driven out of Edinburgh at rush hour, and I think that it has already beaten her on that, as the traffic is significantly slower than 20mph.

I need to cover one or two key issues, and I will dwell on rail for a moment. Scotland’s rail industry is becoming more and more important. Even if we ignore rail freight and look simply at the demand that passengers place on our rail services, we realise that demand is rising fast.

It is vital that, as we develop new routes, we ensure that they have the scope to provide services for larger numbers of passengers. Successful new stations and station expansions have resulted in significantly better improvements in passenger numbers than were shown in the business cases. We have scope to do a great deal with a limited resource to encourage rail travel.

We must also do more to cut journey times on the longer routes in Scotland. Passengers from Aberdeen and Inverness remain concerned that nothing is being done to shorten journey times between those cities and the central belt. If we are to take traffic off the roads, that is where the challenge lies. However, the railways themselves—the infrastructure on which the trains run—will be expensive to improve in those areas. There are many proposals that need to be considered and enacted quickly to achieve the objectives that we want.

A public transport idea that has not been touched on, but which has been discussed in committees several times over the years, is a Scotland-wide travel card. I throw that in now to see whether the Government is at the stage of taking that forward. We have spoken before about the possibility of having a card that is roughly equivalent to the Oyster card in London. Technology has been developed for the concessionary fares scheme in Scotland that begins to move us in that direction, but there has been concern that we are not quite ready to make the leap. We have not discussed the subject for a while. I ask the minister to take the opportunity to tell us whether any progress has been made.

Before we leave rail, I must mention high-speed rail again. I have significant concerns about where the money will come from to bring the benefits of high-speed rail to Scotland and pass them on to cities that are further north. The costs that are involved are likely to be extremely high. It is time that the Government told us exactly what funding mechanism it might choose to provide that level of rail development for its prospective independent Scotland. That might be covered in the independence white paper, although I doubt it. I look forward to hearing more from the Government about how that funding might be dealt with.

We are taking exactly the same approach as the UK Government took, which is to do the work first, then look at the funding once we know what the routes and the project comprise. That seems the sensible way to proceed.

It seems a sensible way to proceed, but it does not account for the fact that, if Scotland became independent, responsibility for a significant proportion of that rail network would fall on Scotland, because Scotland would be considered to have accrued the benefit.

We have had light-hearted moments in the debate. Chic Brodie produced the best remark of the debate when he suggested that we might develop intergalactic travel from Prestwick airport. I hope that that is a possibility in the long term, but I also hope that it does not lead to his suggesting that Ayr should be the site for a future Starfleet academy. I assure him that, thanks to the work of the BBC’s “Chewin’ the Fat” programme, Carnoustie is well ahead on that campaign.

I am overwhelmed. [Laughter.]

16:42

I welcome the opportunity to close the debate. As Jim Eadie said, transport infrastructure is an important issue. It is not just about how people and groups get from A to B but about how we support our economy and how we tackle and bring down climate change emissions. It feeds into key parts of the Government’s programme.

Given that, I was keen to look at the Government’s transport strategy, which the Scottish Parliament information centre helpfully provided in the material for debate. When I opened the strategy document, I saw a foreword from the minister and a photograph of him, looking lean and keen. The only problem was that the minister was Tavish Scott. I thought, “Surely he can’t have joined the SNP.” I then saw that the date on the strategy was 2006, as has been pointed out. That was the last time that a transport strategy was produced. Strategies are not the be-all and end-all, but that is something of a flaw.

The Government has produced countless strategies—recently, we had an afternoon to debate the play strategy, which I am not against. I would have thought that a starting point for today’s debate might have been a proper transport strategy.

Does Mr Kelly not think that we should give Transport Scotland credit for producing a fairly comprehensive corporate plan up to 2015?

Looking at the infrastructure plan, one might think that having 103 transport projects is something to be welcomed. However, if we examine the detail, we see that 68 per cent of those projects have no business case.

That brings me to issues highlighted by Ken Macintosh and Mary Fee, such as Audit Scotland’s report on transport infrastructure projects. Audit Scotland noted that, with the exception of the Forth crossing, the Government had not informed Parliament or the public of the future estimated financial commitment on the main transport projects; indeed, with respect to EGIP and Borders rail, the business cases were not complete or up to date. There are real issues there. As members have enjoyed pointing out, vast sums of public money are committed to those projects, but it appears that we do not have a proper monitoring system in place to see how the money is being spent.

As Cameron Buchanan correctly pointed out, we need a properly thought-through plan that involves the local authorities and assesses what needs to be done and against what timescales it will be achieved.

My colleague Mark Griffin was right to point out the glaring omission of buses from the SNP motion. It would seem that the SNP is not all that keen on buses despite the fact that many journeys in Scotland take place by bus. Many communities that are isolated and not near a rail station really require bus routes.

It is no accident that the SNP does not want to discuss buses because its cuts—

Why, if Labour is serious about reforming public transport, did James Kelly’s Labour colleagues in Aberdeen vote down the possibility of a publicly owned bus company in the city, building on the model of Lothian Buses, which could have been delivered without the need for any change to legislation?

The key issue for Mr McDonald—and Ms Watt, who also mentioned buses—is Iain Gray’s bus bill. I would welcome Mr McDonald’s support for that bill, which will make a difference to communities throughout Scotland. The bill will give more power to local authorities such as Aberdeen over routes and bus companies. The minister and Maureen Watt asked how that would be funded. One of the interesting proposals in the bill is the cross-subsidy of routes to support those that are being axed as a result of the lack of funding from the SNP Government.

The SNP Government recently captured £800,000 from Scottish Water in order to publicise the benefits of the white paper. I would rather see money and civil servants being used to help to support bus services in Scotland’s communities than being used in a project that would separate us from the rest of the United Kingdom and—as Alex Johnstone said—put at risk any potential benefits from high-speed rail.

On rail services, we have seen changes to EGIP, including cuts of £350 million, and criticism from Audit Scotland that the timescales have slipped. There is not a proper and detailed plan on how EGIP will—

Does that mean that at budget time the member will come forward with a proposal to spend £1 billion on bus reregulation or to put additional money into EGIP—or is it just talk?

I gave some practical suggestions for where the money could be found. The point for the minister is that he needs a proper transport strategy, including for EGIP. It would be useful if he came to the chamber and detailed when each of the phases will be delivered, because that has not happened today.

We need a proper transport strategy—a plan that delivers for all Scotland’s communities and includes all modes of transport, including buses, cycling and ferries.

16:50

I thank all those who have participated in what has generally been quite an interesting—and sometimes even consensual—debate. The major transport projects that I mentioned at the start will play a crucial part in connecting people and businesses throughout Scotland, and they therefore deserve the attention and recognition of Parliament.

Jim Eadie mentioned that transport infrastructure can appear to be boring to some people. I think some members tend to see a transport debate coming and find a way to transport themselves somewhere else; perhaps that is the object of the intergalactic travel and teleporting that Chic Brodie mentioned.

Transport is important to Scotland’s economy and for connecting people in different communities across the country. We are transforming our strategic transport networks to realise the vision of a modern and efficient transport system that is fit for the 21st century. Our transport system connects our cities by fast and safe road and rail networks, and delivers high-quality and complex projects on time and on budget. Since 2007, there have been 23 major improvements to our motorways and trunk roads network.

With regard to buses, it is true to say that we have held substantially to previous investment levels, and certainly to those of previous Administrations. It strikes me that, given the 26 per cent cut to our capital budget—despite what Alex Johnstone’s amendment says—and the 11 per cent cut in our resource budget, the fact that we have, by and large, maintained the same level of expenditure on buses through BSOG and the concessionary travel scheme shows a good record of support for buses.

That is even before I mention the green bus and the bus investment initiatives; the Glasgow fastlink; and the £300 million project to upgrade the subway in Glasgow, which does not involve buses but is about providing local transport.

Unlike Tavish Scott, I do not have to worry about my popularity with the Labour group, so I will say one or two things that will not win many friends among its members.

First, we have heard tonight four or five demands from the Labour group, none of which is costed, and none of which Labour will ever propose in a budget, because in order to do so it would have to find money from somewhere else. I think that it was Nye Bevan who said that the language of politics is the language of priorities, and setting priorities is what we have to do. If you want to spend money on something else, you have to say what you will take out and where the money will come from.

I will give members an idea of the scale of the commitments that the Labour Party wants to see. First, it wants the reinstatement of the GARL and EARL projects, and—I think, from what has been said—an additional £350 million for EGIP. It wants lower bus fares, more buses and bus investment, lower ferry fares and more road equivalent tariffs—which, of course, Labour never wanted when it was in government, although the current Government is progressing that. Money has been demanded for additional rail services, more ferries and more routes, and for the air discount scheme. We should not forget the demand for bus reregulation; the best estimate that we can make on the bare bones of what is there already is that it would cost approximately £1 billion to reregulate bus services in this country.

Everyone knows that there is not the slightest prospect of the Labour Party lodging a single amendment that proposes to do any of those things. That is the extent to which Labour is duping people by saying that it supports those things when it has no intention of putting its money—or taxpayers’ money—where its mouth is.

The minister likes to tell the Labour Party how it should behave in opposition and he talks about it duping people. Perhaps he could look at the manifesto on which his party was elected, which committed to a full Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme, and tell us how the Government should fund its own manifesto commitments.

I have said from the start that I cannot help it if the Labour Party chooses not to listen: we will do the full EGIP. Labour did not do it when it was in control, but we will certainly carry out that massive investment in Scotland’s central belt.

Of course, we have some idea of where the Labour Party’s priorities lie. Its latest proposal is to have trams in Aberdeen, and we have heard that again today; I think that it was described as light rail. That is the Labour Party’s priority, which we do not share—

Will the minister give way?

No, I want to make some progress first.

In addition, despite what has been said today, we hear constant doom and gloom from Labour members. Ken Macintosh said that the Government is talking about its projects and praising itself. We are not—we are logging what we have done and what we intend to do. We have heard nothing but negativity in the responses from Ken Macintosh and—to a certain extent—Mary Fee.

All that I am saying is—

Will the minister give way?

Not just now.

Given that we are managing to deliver the Forth road crossing, which is the biggest transport project ever undertaken in Scotland, with a saving of about £700 million, one might think that that would merit a passing acknowledgement from the Labour Party, but no. Labour’s history of transport projects in previous years was one of constant overruns, failure to complete—in the case of the M74—and delays to completion.

I will give way now.

Mr Brown talks about projects as if they were already done. Which of these projects—the Borders railway, the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the dualling of the A9 and A96—has been done?

I do not know whether Ken Macintosh has visited the Borders recently, but if he does so he will see construction across the length of that route, which is something that the Labour Party never achieved during all its time in office.

Lewis Macdonald made some fair points about the need to mitigate the effects of HS2. The best and most effective mitigation for HS2 is HS3, whereby high-speed rail would come to Scotland. I think that Maureen Watt was right to say that the study that was done was pretty flawed in not taking into account oil and gas. With HS3, there would not be a disbenefit to Aberdeen, Dundee or anywhere else in Scotland.

Does the minister accept that, even at the point at which high-speed rail arrives in Glasgow and Edinburgh, the benefits for the north of Scotland will be realised only with investment in the rail infrastructure between the north of Scotland and the central belt?

Both for high-speed rail coming to Scotland and for our Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme, we have said that the benefits will come from the capacity that will be released for other routes to the north and south of Scotland. That is a fair point to make.

On Rob Gibson’s question about average-speed cameras on the A9, when I visited Thurso and Portgower earlier this week, I saw the work that is being undertaken there and on the Berriedale Braes—there is no other way to get to Thurso. One misconception that appears to exist is that the average-speed cameras will involve a reduction in speed limits, but that will not be the case until we get to the construction part of the project, when limits must be reduced to ensure the safety of those working on the road. The average-speed cameras will come in in the next year, and the final procurement and timescale for that will be published shortly.

Coming back to high-speed rail, I think that Alex Johnstone asked why, post-independence, the UK Government would contribute to the cost of investing in high-speed rail in Scotland. Incredibly, he said at one point that the benefit of high-speed rail coming to Scotland would accrue only to Scotland. That is fundamentally to misunderstand the basis of high-speed rail. Even the UK Government acknowledges that, as well as for London, Manchester and Birmingham, there will be profound business and economic benefits for the whole of the current UK if we have a high-speed rail link.

Recently, we found out that the UK Government minister’s position is that high-speed rail coming to Scotland is

“not top of my to-do list”.

That may be the UK Government’s position, but surely the Secretary of State for Scotland’s role is to put Scotland’s case, so it should be at the top of his to-do list. Rather than threatening people with losing shipyard jobs or failing to pass on money for agricultural purposes, his job is to fight for the Scottish interest, so that issue should be at the top of his list.

Bringing HS2 to Scotland is the most profound thing that we can do to connect the railways between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Let us not forget, of course, the extent to which the north-east of England feels let down by the lack of recognition given to the benefits that high-speed rail could bring to that area. Great things could be achieved by high-speed rail. We cannot say exactly what the costs would be, as I said to Annabel Goldie earlier, but we are doing the same as the UK Government did in undertaking a study to show us the routes and the costs involved. We will produce that information. We asked the UK Government to do that two years ago, but it took until last month for it to do that, whereas it should have been produced much earlier.

In conclusion, even if we do not quite have the intergalactic ambitions that Chic Brodie mentioned, we certainly have ambitions. I mentioned the 26.5 miles of new railway that we have built and the six new stations that we have opened. The total investment in completed schemes—to pick up a point that was raised previously—is £2 billion at this stage. We have more than £4 billion of work under construction or in procurement and we are making available £6 million for dualling the A9 between Perth and Inverness and the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen. We are the first Government to commit to dualling both those roads, which should have been done decades ago. The investment of £5 billion going into our railways should give the lie to anyone who says that we are not concentrating on public transport investment.

Together, those investments in road and rail will better connect our cities and help to create growth and jobs across this country. That is the reason why I ask members to support the motion.