Official Report 503KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is a discussion of our response to recent developments in relation to high-speed rail services. Members have been provided with a paper that outlines some of the recent developments and looks at options for us. Obviously, we do not know what the UK Government’s stance will be after 6 May. We are not looking for a discussion here today that involves people defending their particular priorities for what the UK Government ought to do. The issue is what our stance should be after the UK general election, regardless of the outcome. One suggestion is to see whether we can take evidence from the Glasgow-Edinburgh collaboration initiative. I am not sure whether people have views on whether that should be done formally or informally. The other suggestion is to approach whoever the UK transport minister is after the election.
Discussions with Lord Adonis are always business-like. Indeed, he sent us important information about the likely stance of any alternative Government, which will be practical as well—there may be tweaks here and there. However, the question about having access to a fast rail service from both Glasgow and Edinburgh is quite important. A Glasgow-Edinburgh collaboration is a different matter. I would be very wary about that. We must make it quite clear that we are still looking for discussions that allow both Glasgow and Edinburgh services to become high speed, and that it is not about a link between the two cities.
I thank members for their comments. I assume that we are content for the clerks to explore inviting the appropriate UK Government minister to come and give evidence. In advance of that, we will explore with the Glasgow-Edinburgh collaboration initiative what the most suitable format would be, based on the range of people that it would like to bring before us. It may want to have a much bigger group to discuss the issue with us, in which case a round-table format or an informal briefing might be better than having a witness panel. However, we will explore the options and keep members up to date.
Apart from anything else, time does not permit discussion of this. I assume that we have all read the paper. I am happy with what I will call the recommendations in paragraph 21. However, I think that we should try to keep the issue moving along.
I agree with Rob Gibson’s point, but I am satisfied that what has now emerged into the public domain shows that we have won the argument about having a Y-shaped service that will enable high-speed trains to start in and return to both Glasgow and Edinburgh.
I agree with Charlie Gordon and support the recommendations in paragraph 21. I know that we have a very tight work plan, but I think that it would be useful to have some informal sessions at least. As Charlie said, we can keep the issue moving along, and try to do so in public sessions. However, if time does not permit that, informal briefings are certainly better than nothing. Having said that, I would like the committee to keep the issue on the formal agenda.
Previous
Budget Strategy 2011-12