Petition
Transport Infrastructure (Aberdeen) (PE357)
Agenda item 4 is petition PE357, which was submitted by Aberdeen City Council and which concerns investment in transport infrastructure. The petition is supported by Aberdeenshire Council, the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, Scottish Enterprise Grampian and many others in the Aberdeen and Grampian area.
The committee had a very useful evidence session in Aberdeen in November. We heard evidence from the north-east Scotland transport partnership, which comprises many of the bodies that I have just mentioned. At that session, we invited witnesses to submit further written evidence that would be useful to the committee in forming its response to the petition. That supplementary evidence has now been received and circulated to members.
Members will know from the covering note on the petition that we have two possible options for action. Option A is for the committee to conclude its response to the petition by noting its contents and agreeing to bear the points in mind when considering transport budgetary issues. Option B is for the committee to progress the petition by taking evidence from the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning and to raise with her points that have emerged in evidence. If we wish to go for option B, we should agree a schedule for such a session around the same time as the transport delivery plan is produced. I understand that that is likely to be early in 2002.
Several members have indicated that they wish to speak to PE357. I will give that opportunity first to Nora Radcliffe. I note that Adam Ingram and Robin Harper have indicated that they wish to speak. I am also aware that three MSPs who are not members of the committee but who have interests in the Aberdeen area wish to speak.
I will try to outline why it is so important for the Transport and the Environment Committee to help to facilitate the petitioners' requests being met by the best means possible. There are two strands to the petitioners' argument. The note that we have received summarises the thrust of the NESTRANS submission, which is that the delivery of a modern transport system is an issue of strategic and national importance. I will briefly say why that is the case.
For a long time, the north-east has been one of the drivers of the national Scottish economy through oil-related business, agriculture and the knowledge economy—which is often missed. We have a strategic cluster of academic excellence in Aberdeen. We have an ancient university, a new university and world-class institutions in the marine laboratory, the Macaulay Institute and the Rowett Research Institute. Those institutions feed into the business community and into business development.
We have to maintain the academic excellence and the business of the north-east. To do that requires the infrastructure to be maintained. In recent years, as the infrastructure of other places has developed, the north-east has been left out and has fallen further and further behind.
The north-east has a vibrant economy and a cluster of academic excellence. We have got something good and we want to maintain it. One of the threats to that is the underinvestment in infrastructure to connect what is a driver of the economy to the rest of the country and to Europe. If members look at a map of the trans-European transport networks, they will see red lines all over Europe. They will also see a gap in the north-east. We want that gap to be filled.
It is important to say that the north-east has evolved and proposed a modern strategic transport plan for itself that is not based on roads. Although we are asking for the roads gap to be filled, as that needs major funding investment, that request is part of an integrated strategy plan that looks 15 years into the future. The plan is not predominantly road based. It feeds on the strategy that has been followed since the early 1990s, when the two local councils switched their priorities from improving urban roadways and city-centre parking to developing public transport, as that strategy contributed to modal shifts.
The north-east needs help to plug the gap in infrastructure caused by underinvestment. However, that has to be seen as part of an integrated plan involving all the other elements such as increasing investment in public transport, park-and-ride schemes and opportunities for cycling and walking. I hope that I have said enough about the importance of meeting the aspirations of the petitioners in whatever way we can.
I took Nora Radcliffe first, as she is a member of the committee and she also has a constituency interest in PE357. I intend to invite the members who have a constituency or regional interest to speak next. I will then move on to other members of the committee who have indicated that they wish to speak. I invite Elaine Thomson, who is the constituency MSP for Aberdeen North, to comment.
We welcomed the committee's commitment to meet in Aberdeen and to take full evidence from the various organisations in Aberdeen involved in NESTRANS. I hope that the visit and the additional information that NESTRANS has sent is starting to give the committee the full flavour and picture of the modern transport system proposal for the north-east. I hope that the committee now recognises the general importance of improving the transport infrastructure in the north-east.
As Nora Radcliffe pointed out, NESTRANS has developed a very good plan for a modern transport system, which covers all modes of transport in the north-east from sea, rail and road to cycle use, pedestrian and bus travel and park-and-ride schemes. Furthermore, part of its aim is to reduce and shift road transport, which means that the plan is not road based. My constituency in particular is severely affected by the lack of a good modern transport infrastructure. Such a situation can only worsen over the next five or 10 years as car use in Aberdeen increases.
The modern transport system plan has been put out for large-scale consultation, and has been accepted and endorsed by a large section of the community. It has the full backing of the business community and many other organisations in Aberdeen, including the NESTRANS partners themselves—Aberdeen City Council, Aberdeenshire Council, the local chamber of commerce and Scottish Enterprise Grampian. However, we need the support of both the Executive and the committee to develop the plan.
I want to expand on Nora Radcliffe's comments about the importance of an improved transport infrastructure to the Scottish and UK economy. The further evidence that the committee has received highlights several issues. For example, it points out that the north-east's gross domestic product, which is estimated at £7.2 billion, is the second highest per capita in the UK. I mention that fact to emphasise to the committee the sheer strategic importance of the economy of Aberdeen and the north-east to Scotland and the UK. Much of that has to do with the oil and gas industry; as that industry will be around for the next 20 or 30 years, we need an improved transport infrastructure.
The extra evidence also points out that Aberdeen was recently ranked second only to London on an index of competitiveness across the UK. However, another study has concluded that Aberdeen city is one of the worst locations in the country for business, simply because of its poor infrastructure, inaccessibility and high transport costs. We have to address that problem for the future of the economy in Aberdeen, the north-east, Scotland and the UK. I am not understating the case when I say that the development of a proper transport infrastructure in the north-east is probably the single most important project still outstanding in Scotland.
I urge the committee to consider taking further evidence from the minister on the NESTRANS proposals and to acknowledge their strategic and national importance.
I will call Richard Lochhead next—and, after reading the Official Report of a Public Petitions Committee meeting in which he was regularly referred to by the convener as Richard Leonard, I will do so carefully. I assure him that his consternation was shared by the real Richard Leonard, who was concerned at being confused with an SNP MSP.
As members see, the north-east of Scotland speaks with one voice on this issue and there is cross-party and huge public support for the proposals. The Parliament first discussed the issue on 8 May. I hope that the committee can find ways of expediting the whole issue, because it is a matter of urgency for the economy and quality of life of the north-east. The committee's recent visit to Aberdeen will have allowed members to hear the eloquent case put by local agencies, which have been working closely with one another as well as with all the political parties in recent years. We must congratulate them on the case that they have put forward.
Behind the request is a plea for justice for the north-east. Aberdeen is the only city without a peripheral route or bypass funded from the public purse. To a certain extent, the region is a victim of its own success. The oil and gas industry and the many other industries that contribute to the Scottish and UK economies have generated a lot of wealth, but we have not seen public investment coming back to the region. I draw members' attention to a sentence on page 3 of the NESTRANS evidence that is before them today. It says:
"Whilst the north east represents 8½% of Scotland's population and has approximately 11% of trunk roads, Scottish Executive spending on trunk roads in the north east has not reflected the same level of commitment with an inadequate share of total budget being allocated towards trunk road improvements in the area."
My final point is about the city's role in the region. We are not talking only about the city of Aberdeen; we are talking about the city as the centre of the region. At the moment, traffic from the fishing and agricultural communities in the far north-east has to pass through the city centre. That holds up delivery times and is a disadvantage when it comes to getting goods to market, particularly from the biggest white fish market in Europe, at Peterhead. It is a regional issue as well as a city issue.
Last week, a report was published that highlighted the fact that Aberdeenshire has the lowest level of rural public transport in the whole of Scotland. As a consequence, it also has the highest proportion of car ownership in the whole of Scotland. Rural bus services and other transport services are part of NESTRANS's overall plan. That is why it is so important that we highlight the challenges that face the region.
My final plea to the committee is to play a role in getting us the green light for the plans. Any support that committee members give today will be most welcome in the north-east.
The Scottish Parliament will be judged in the north-east by what it delivers for the people. Whether it is well judged or not, there is certainly a widespread feeling that the north-east does not receive a fair hearing down here. What the Parliament does with a request for a modern transport system will be the touchstone by which it will be judged by the people.
The modern transport system that has been proposed covers a wide range of means of transport. The Executive has supported moves to shift transport away from roads—or at least away from the car—to other means of transport. Money has been provided from the public transport fund for park-and-ride schemes, bus priority schemes and cycling. How popular such things are in the north-east is perhaps a moot point, but it is not so much a question of doing things that are popular as of finding an efficient transport system, which we do not have at the moment.
The fact that the proposals are widely supported in the north-east is very important. A key element is the western peripheral route. The Executive has not accepted that route as part of the trunk road network. The committee could encourage the Executive to do that. There is no sign, as yet, of any funding for the western peripheral route. There is no doubt that a significant upgrade is needed for the strategic road network in the north-east and the Executive will ultimately be responsible for that.
The same is true of improvements to the rail networks. Aberdeen has been the success story of Scotland over the past quarter century. There is no reason why we cannot continue to have that success, but that will happen only if we support the infrastructure. I urge the committee to do all in its power to encourage the Executive to make the modern transport system a reality.
I do not know whether being a graduate of the University of Aberdeen, a regular traveller to Aberdeen and a contributor to the Press and Journal means that I have to make a declaration of interests.
I hope you went on public transport all the time, Robin.
I did. I am happy to make such a declaration of interest.
The issue has become something of a running sore. It took two years for the committee to meet in Aberdeen. A meeting had been arranged there a long time before, but it was cancelled because of difficulties with public and road transport, oddly enough.
I am strongly of the view that the petitioners' concerns should be heard by the committee and that we should go for option B. We should find time to call the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning and put to her the points that have been raised in evidence to the committee.
I do not agree with everything in the NESTRANS proposals, but I agree with the bulk of it. What I do not agree with must be carefully listened to and publicly debated and the proposals must be progressed as fast as possible for the sake of the north-east.
First, I apologise for my non-attendance at the meeting in Aberdeen in early November; I was stricken with the flu at the time. However, I have read the papers thoroughly and with great interest and I am impressed with the case that the north-east has put. I would like the committee to support the petitioners.
Clearly, what we have been presented with is an integrated transport plan for the medium term. Modal shift is at the core of that plan so, in view of the broad thrust of policy, the plan ought to be supported.
It is equally clear that there is a missing piece of roads infrastructure in and around Aberdeen. The western peripheral route is emphasised as a key missing part of the roads network. I do not think that we should be shy in saying so and advocating additions to the strategic roads network as we see fit.
The obvious limiting factor is the cost of the proposals, which is £247 million. We need to consider the proposals in the context of the transport delivery plan that will be introduced early in the new year. That said, I would not like to see the north-east's case being submerged in the overall discussions about the transport delivery plan. I believe that the committee should take the position that the north-east's proposal is a priority for Scotland as a whole. The proposal should be right at the top of the priority list.
Looking at the options for action on the petition that we have available, I wonder whether we could amend option B. We could ensure that we take evidence from the minister prior to taking evidence about the transport delivery plan so that we can form a view about what priority should be given to the proposals.
I, too, welcome the petition, as I have done in the past. I was at the Public Petitions Committee meeting when the petition was first discussed and I heard the allusion to Mr Leonard. I am pleased that Richard Lochhead is in good voice today.
There is no question but that it has been established for a long time that there is a strategic need for the bypass. My party has supported that for a long time and will continue to do so. The need is no longer in doubt; in all honesty, the issue is about how to implement it. I would support any moves to progress the matter as quickly as possible. I support option B.
I will try to draw the arguments together. I pay credit to the quality of the presentation that we received when we were in Aberdeen. All the members who were present were impressed by the quality of the presentation and by the partnership that was demonstrated at that meeting between the local authorities, the economic development agencies and the private sector.
Much of the debate on transport has often focused on the environmental impact of transport. However, one of the important issues that has been highlighted by the petitioners and by Elaine Thomson and the other visiting members today is the role that transport plays in ensuring that we continue to develop our economy. As someone who represents a different region of Scotland that has some transport infrastructure issues to be addressed, I recognise the relationship between building our transport infrastructure and ensuring that we continue to have a vibrant economy.
I am picking up that members support option B as a way of progressing the issue. Option B is to take evidence from the minister before we conclude our treatment of the petition. That will be worth while. Adam Ingram said that we should do that before we deal with the transport delivery plan. Between now and the end of January, the committee will be busy dealing with the remainder of the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill. If we tried to squeeze evidence on the petition into any of those meetings, we might not spend as much time on the issue as it deserves.
The transport delivery plan may also give us an idea of how the Executive will address transport priorities throughout Scotland. It might not go into great detail, but it might give us an idea of how the Executive intends to proceed on transport. I expect that we will take separate evidence on the issues and will not combine them. It will be appropriate for us to wait for the publication of that plan before we take evidence on the petition.
I accept what you say, but I would not like the evidence-taking session with the minister on the petition to be submerged in or combined with evidence taking on the delivery plan. It would be appropriate to have a separate session with the minister on the petition.
It is my intention that we will take separate evidence, but it is appropriate to wait until the plan is available before we take evidence.
Do we agree to proceed with option B and to invite the minister to give evidence at a date to be negotiated between the clerk and the minister?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank members who are not committee members for attending. I am sure that they will all be back when we next consider the petition.
That is the end of the items that we will deal with in public. I thank the members of the press and the public who have attended the meeting.
Meeting continued in private until 12:56.