Official Report 833KB pdf
I encourage those who are leaving the public gallery to do so as quickly and quietly as possible.
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-18953, in the name of Ariane Burgess, on investing in rail to unlock the wealth and economic potential of the Highlands. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament believes that the Highland Main Line is a crucial transport link supporting tourism, freight transport and many vibrant communities; understands with concern that, despite this, two thirds of the 118-mile line, which it considers to be a critical route, remains single track and diesel operated, resulting in journey times that are reportedly similar to those from the Victorian era; believes that this results in frequent delays and causes limited capacity for passengers and freight; notes what it sees as the economic opportunities that can be offered by expanding and improving the nation’s rail network, including connecting communities and boosting sustainable freight capacity to support major industries, such as the whisky and forestry sectors in the Highlands; considers that the work of the Highland Main Line Community Rail Partnership has been fantastic in improving the rail network by finding uses for redundant buildings and supporting passenger services; acknowledges the work of Network Rail in exploring additional passing loops, and notes the view that the line should be electrified and dualled to develop more reliable and environmentally sustainable rail transport for communities in the Highlands and neighbouring regions, as well as inter-city commuters and tourists visiting the north of mainland Scotland.
12:51
Every week when Parliament is sitting, I take the train from Inverness to Edinburgh, and every week I experience a journey that feels stuck in the past. It is slow, often overcrowded and punctuated by frustrating waits as the train stops in passing loops to let other services go by. A journey that should showcase modern, clean transport instead exposes how little has changed since the Victorian era. It is not good enough. That is why I am grateful to colleagues who supported my motion to allow this debate to take place, and to the Highland Main Line Community Rail Partnership, which has worked incredibly hard to push for an improved rail experience on the line.
The Highland main line should be the backbone of the north for people and businesses, but that Victorian railway is delivering Victorian-era journey times. For most of its 118 miles, it is still single track, and the trains that use it run on polluting diesel. That means wasted minutes at every stop, unreliable timetables and a line that is unable to meet the needs of the people and the economy that it serves. It also produces more carbon emissions instead of cutting them. With anything that is almost 170 years old, there comes a point where change and renewal is needed. The evidence is clear that dualling and electrifying the line could cut journey times, improve reliability and reduce emissions, and it would be a game changer for our Highland communities.
In 2024, the central belt to Inverness rail routes created £87 million of economic benefit. That could grow significantly with an upgrade, meaning that any work would soon pay for itself. We could significantly scale up the current 15 passenger services a day. For communities in the strath, that would mean real commuting options, with frequent, reliable services to Inverness. For the wider Highlands, it would mean faster, cleaner connections to the central belt. In turn, that would improve wealth distribution, reducing its concentration in the central belt and spreading it along the main line to the thriving city of Inverness, into the Highlands and beyond. Likewise, instead of talking about Highland depopulation, we could see an increase in the number of people moving north. All of that would make Scotland’s path to net zero emissions so much easier, while improving people’s lives.
The economic opportunities from improving the main line cannot be ignored, either. Businesses need a resilient and modern freight artery that links Inverness and Perth to the rest of Scotland, as well as to England and Wales. We should be making it easier for companies to choose the climate-friendly option and move more of their goods by rail.
There is enthusiasm for doing so in industry circles. For example, a well-known supermarket already regularly uses the main line to move consumer goods. Imagine if major Scottish industries such as whisky and timber could also take advantage of an improved main line. It would mean fewer lorries on the A9, safer roads and lower carbon emissions.
Does Ariane Burgess agree that the situation could get even worse if the road is improved so that it is faster for freight and cars, while things stay the same for the railway?
That is why I have brought the debate to the chamber. We really need to look at rail. There has been a lot of investment in roads over time, but not enough in the Highland main line.
Another big business sector in the Highlands that would benefit from an improved main line is tourism. The sector contributes almost £11 billion to Scotland’s economy, and we need to make it easier for tourists to get to the magical landscapes of the north and west. The Highland main line runs through the Cairngorms national park, and the Cairngorms National Park Authority has the ambition that 25 per cent of its visitors should be arriving by public transport. Rail must be the spine of that strategy, enabling visitors not only to arrive sustainably but to be based in one town and then travel to explore the park by public transport, including rail.
This is about more than dualling a line. It is about a vision for the Highlands in which rail is the backbone that connects our communities, supports our economy and delivers our climate ambitions. We cannot settle for a 19th century railway in the 21st century. As I stated in the motion for debate, Network Rail’s work on passing loops must be acknowledged, but that work is picking at the low-hanging fruit. What rail users really need is much bigger change—namely, we need the Highland main line to be dualled and we need it, along with Scotland’s other key rail routes, to be electrified. That would make a major difference.
Look at high speed 1 in south-east England. Trains on that dualled and electrified railway can hoover up the 70 miles between London and the Channel in 45 minutes. Although the Highland main line route is a tougher landscape to navigate than that of HS1, trains could be sped up significantly, and a lot of capacity could be added if we dualled and electrified the line.
The Scottish Government has said that a journey time of two hours and 45 minutes is possible on the route and has previously promised the people of the Highlands faster rail, such as when it pledged in 2008 to shave 30 minutes off journey times on the main line. In the 17 years since, just four minutes have been saved. It is beyond time that the Government made good on that promise.
There are no official estimates for how much it would cost to dual and electrify the Highland main line, but I believe that there is a strong economic case to get the ball rolling and that the line would rapidly pay for itself.
Let us put our money where our mouth is and properly fund rail. Let us undertake scoping work and collect proper data on rail freight usage. Let us get spades in the ground. Colleagues, if we can find billions of pounds to dual the A9, we can surely invest in the Highland main line. The choice is clear: we can keep pouring money into roads and lock ourselves into higher emissions, or we can make a bold statement on rail to deliver cleaner air, safer roads and stronger communities. The Highlands deserve better. The people whom I travel alongside every week deserve better. It is time to dual and electrify the Highland main line.
12:58
I thank Ariane Burgess for securing the debate. I will start by saying something that is probably self-evident: I speak in the debate without much of a direct constituency interest—I see that Mr Leonard, too, is about to contribute, so I might not be alone in that regard. However, I am an enthusiast for rail travel; indeed, in recent weeks, I have become an even greater enthusiast for it. I freely concede that mine is a much shorter journey than the one that Ms Burgess has to undertake, but the railway is how I got to Edinburgh this morning and it is how I will get back home to Cumbernauld this evening.
I am an enthusiast not only for rail but for the part of the country that Ms Burgess has the privilege to represent. It is a wonderful part of our country and, more often than not, rail has been the mode of transport that I have used to get there. That has been for holidays—some of which I remember from my dim and distant childhood past and some of which have been taken more recently with my own family—or for work or, indeed, for the occasional party conference. I commend Inverness as a party-conference location and I hope that my party will return there at some point soon.
I recognise that the rail line that we are debating is a social and economic lifeline for the Highlands. In that sense, I have great sympathy for the improvements that Ariane Burgess suggests. They could create benefits by improving journey times and reliability and reducing emissions.
I reflect that there has been a significant amount of investment in rail infrastructure in the past couple of decades. That includes investment in the Stirling to Alloa line, which can be accessed by my constituents from Croy railway station and which was reopened in 2008—I recognise that that work was begun under the previous Administration—and in the Borders railway. My wife is a Borderer and that is another part of the country that I travel to regularly. There have been great benefits to the communities in the south of Scotland from that improvement, which has just had its 10th anniversary. The Levenmouth railway reopened last year, which will alleviate some of the pressure of commuter traffic from Fife.
That investment speaks to one of the challenges that the Government has had to face in relation to rail transport, which is to undo some of the savagery of the Beeching cuts of the 1960s. As Ms Burgess alluded to in her motion and addressed directly in her speech, the other great challenge is that there have been decades of chronic underinvestment in our railways under previous United Kingdom Governments. That is the fact of the matter.
I understand Ms Burgess’s point about Victorian infrastructure, and I reflect on that other great improvement, which relates directly to my constituency: the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme, which electrified the line between our two main cities, and the Cumbernauld line, too. That programme electrified the line between our two main urban population centres; the line was constructed in 1842 but only, finally, electrified under this Government in 2016. I make that point to express sympathy for the necessity to consider further improvements on the Highland line and to underline the scale of the challenges. The challenges involved in improving our railways across the country are considerable, because of the decades-long underinvestment from which now, thankfully, under this Government, we are catching up.
I see that I have to close, Presiding Officer.
Another challenge on which we have to reflect is that there is significant pressure on capital budgets, which have become constrained for a variety of reasons, including the UK Government settlements and the pressures of inflation. We must be realistic and recognise that context.
All that said, I agree that on-going rail improvements across the country are important. I commend Ariane Burgess for securing the debate to make sure that the Parliament has the chance to consider how those might impact the Highlands, which she represents.
13:03
I thank Ariane Burgess for securing the debate and, in particular, I welcome the framing of her motion and its focus on the role of rail in unlocking the economic potential of the Highlands. Maybe I should include the Islands in that, although I will not be calling at the moment for a rail bridge to Orkney—possibly to the Deputy Presiding Officer’s disappointment—or for a new tracked crossing to Skye, with or without tolls.
The impact of rail services does not stop at the last set of buffers. It is felt in communities beyond the last mile of track. We should remember that the whole region could feel the benefit of improved rail infrastructure, whether that is about transporting freight or making it easier for visitors to get around. The benefits of connections do not start and stop at the station platform. The economic argument has real merit. The Highlands and Islands has—to resurrect a familiar phrase—northern powerhouse potential waiting to be unlocked.
The Highlands has always been a region that has had to overcome the challenges of access. We should reflect on the incredible work and the driving ambition that gave us not only the Highland main line but the far north line, the west Highland line and the connection from Inverness to Aberdeen. Those enduring arteries were built in the 19th century, many of them by hand. Those thousands of hands lifted the Highlands out of isolation and, in many ways, built the base for the modern region and its economy that we see today. As others have said, previous generations have left us an incredible legacy.
However, as Ariane Burgess mentioned, it does not escape the notice of visitors that train travel often becomes a slog as you head northwards. The Victorian infrastructure may be sound, but it has largely escaped modernisation. I have been involved in campaigning on the dualling of the A9 road over the past two decades, and people have often talked to me about the dualling of the Highland main line, sometimes noting that the investment was going into road over rail. The truth is that our region needs investment in both, and that both are complementary. For example, in looking at freight, we must take a multimodal approach. Especially in the remote and rural parts of the region, road and rail must combine. If we turn our attention to the islands, we can add air and sea to the mix.
We should consider our rolling stock. Providing a comfortable space with areas to work and reliable wi-fi potentially offers more value to passengers than shaving 10, 20 or 30 minutes off journey times. We should also think about repurposing existing rolling stock. Some time ago, when Serco was running the sleeper service, I spoke to it about the potential to reuse the old, replaced sleeper carriages to provide an overnight link between the central belt and Thurso. That could—if it was still feasible—provide a new, lower-cost link to the far north and to Orkney by using the network at a time when it is underused. However, I am not proposing an either/or choice. Electrification, dualling, improving rolling stock and reducing emissions are all important interventions. Ultimately, the choices that are made will come down to effective management and prioritisation.
Of course, there have been improvements in relatively recent times, such as the changes that have opened up the Highland main line such that it is now a significant freight carrier, including the upgrading of the passing loop at Aviemore. Those changes are welcome, but the main line is still well short of what it should be—an economic spine for our region.
The motion recognises the work of the Highland Main Line Community Rail Partnership. I add my recognition of and thanks to the partnership, which has done a great deal to realise the potential of the line and its surroundings. Its grass-roots approach should serve as a model for communities across the country.
Rail will play a vital part in the economic approach to our region, and it has the potential to be transformative. We are only too aware of the important role that rail links have played in economic transition, and the Highlands and Islands should be no exception in that regard. There is real potential for improvement and for a genuinely ambitious approach. There are many small gains that we can realise quickly, and many larger-scale projects that should be advanced at pace. It is clear that there is a great deal of good will across the chamber towards improvements, and I hope that the Scottish Government takes note of that.
13:08
I thank Ariane Burgess for leading this debate in Parliament, and I begin by reminding members of my voluntary register of interests as the convener of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Scottish parliamentary group, which Mr Hepburn would be very welcome to join.
It is in that capacity that I am reliably informed that, under the rail systems alliance Scotland control period 7, safety, infrastructure and engineering works are being carried out on the Highland main line after many years of neglect, but a debate of this importance does require us to be honest with the people that we are here to represent, and dualling the Highland main line, and even its full electrification, as I understand it, are not on the near horizon. Indeed, I am told that the cost of the structural engineering works required if the whole route was to be dualled would be extremely high, because the line has never been extensively dualled. But if we can dual roads like the A9, why can we not dual railways like the main line to the Highlands?
So, when Ariane Burgess harks back to the Victorian era, she has a point. As my old friend and comrade, trade unionist, rail enthusiast and historian Dave Watson told me, the 1861 act of Parliament that paved the way for the Highland main line’s construction provided for only 7 miles of track to be dualled, near to Inverness. Later on, a further 7 miles were dualled near Perth, and then 23 miles of track were dualled near Blair Atholl between 1900 and 1909. But, of course, strictly speaking, that means that we go beyond the Victorian era into the Edwardian steam age.
The call for the electrification of this line in the motion, though, I believe is something that we should certainly pursue doggedly. As the RMT has said over and over again, electrification remains the most proven and effective method to decarbonise rail transport and to deliver faster journey times safely. That would benefit passengers, but it would also benefit freight, which is where we also need vision and ambition.
In my view, we have a highly centralised economy. We need greater decentralisation of industry and a greater diffusion of economic power. So boosting the Highland economy and electrifying this line, I believe, should be part of that, not least because every £1 million invested in rail generates £2.5 million-worth of value in the wider economy. We know that major exports from the Highlands and Islands, like whisky, shellfish, agricultural produce and timber, are nearly all transported at the moment on lorries, often on roads running alongside the Highland main line. If we are serious about getting traffic off our roads and on to our railways, we need to invest in rail and invest in electrification.
Finally, I am bound to say to the cabinet secretary that that goal of a shift from road to rail is not helped by the fact that train stations on this line—Dunkeld and Birnam, Blair Atholl, Dalwhinnie, Newtonmore and Carrbridge—are not currently staffed at all and that Pitlochry station, which is staffed, is now suffering a 10 per cent cut in ticket office opening hours, and Kingussie, on the Highland main line, is facing a cut in ticket office hours of 65 per cent. That is more than 27 hours a week when the ticket office is now closed when formerly it was open. In my view, this is diminishing passenger service, diminishing passenger safety and diminishing passenger accessibility.
So let us use the public ownership of the railway to invest in it, to invest in the infrastructure, to invest in safety, to invest in reliability, but to invest in the people who work on it, too.
13:12
I thank my colleague Ariane Burgess for lodging the motion. As we celebrate 200 years since the birth of the railways, it is a great time to look at that vision for Scotland’s railways, and Ariane Burgess has laid out an exciting vision for the economy of the Highlands and for communities.
I welcome the fact that some small improvements that have been made to the Highland main line in Perthshire in my region. The £3 million upgrade of Dunkeld and Birnam station is very welcome, with extended platforms allowing longer train services to stop, improvements in access by raising platforms and improvements to waiting areas. The partnership working with the community station group has been very positive.
However, all of the improvements that have been made so far have been about maintaining the railway; they are not game-changing investments that can deliver the real potential of the Highland main line. The work at Dunkeld and Birnam is only one step in the right direction; the station itself remains cut off from the community by the A9, and it needs to be fully reconnected. So far, the community’s proposals to have the road enter a short underpass have been rejected. I am sure that, if Dunkeld and Birnam were in the Alps, the authorities would not think twice about making the road fit the landscape and the community, and it is disappointing that, after years of consultation, the proposals have been rejected, even though they would represent a tiny fraction of the total cost of the A9 dualling project.
The context of the A9 is important, and not just because it shares the same corridor as the Highland main line. The prioritisation of road over rail will be damaging unless there is a matching investment in the railway—an important point that has already been raised by John Mason. Dualling the A9 will result in an increase in car mileage at a time when the Government still has a commitment to bringing it down.
Moreover, the Government is now pointing to transport as a sector where even deeper cuts in carbon emissions will have to be made in the forthcoming climate change plan, and I am interested in hearing the cabinet secretary’s view on how we start to square that circle. If it is to compete with the A9, the railway needs to be fully electrified from Dunblane through Perth to Inverness as soon as possible to deliver major benefits for passengers and freight.
Electric trains will reduce journey times. They accelerate faster, will climb Drumochter pass far quicker than diesel locos and will be able to haul heavier freight loads. We have already seen the major benefits of using class 93 electric trains to haul test freight on the west coast main line—it is now time to bring those advantages to industry in the Highlands.
Electrification will also enable more trains to run on the Highland main line, because faster running times on single lines between passing loops will allow more trains on the network. We can have better, faster, more frequent services with more capacity for people and freight, but only with full electrification.
I recognise the Government’s priorities. Making progress on electrifying the Fife and Borders services is a priority, especially given that new battery electric trains have been ordered and are on the way. After those projects are complete, we must shift the focus on to the Highland main line, partly because this is also about keeping railway engineering jobs in Scotland through a pipeline of electrification projects that can support young people joining the industry.
With electrification of the Highland main line agreed, the route could then be redesigned to maximise the benefits. New and altered crossing loops, double tracking and freight-specific enhancements could be planned to meet the needs of industry and passengers for generations to come. Reflecting on Richard Leonard’s point, I would suggest a step-by-step process, with electrification coming first before we start looking at dualling and other enhancements.
In conclusion, the Highland main line is the key to unlocking the industrial potential of the Highlands. We must shift the focus to rail and invest in a line that is low-carbon and competitive, but that work really needs to start now.
We come to the final speaker in the open debate.
13:16
I welcome the opportunity to debate the rail services connecting the Highlands with the central belt. We all want improved services, and I have enjoyed listening to the contributions to today’s debate, but postulating the situation as a choice between rail and road would be a profoundly wrong misconception. We must have decent, fair and safe road connections, something that is taken for granted in the central belt.
On Monday 15 September, two more people lost their lives on the A9. Our thoughts are with their families; those who lose loved ones in that way and before their time are devastated for ever. According to the Road Safety Foundation, death is three times more likely on single-carriageway roads than on dual carriageways and 10 times more likely than on motorways.
The cabinet secretary has heard me making those points time after time after time. I know that the debate is about railways, but many speakers have mentioned roads, and I hope that it is in order to ask the cabinet secretary to indicate, in her response, when this autumn the promised statement about funding will be made and when there will be confirmation of the details of the dualling. Industry sources have told me that it can be done earlier than the projected revised target date of 2035, and, with a capital budget of around £5 billion a year, there is no shortage of money to do it in that time.
One way in which there could be big improvements would be to increase the amount of rolling stock and improve its quality by increasing the number and comfort of carriages. I want to refer to a constituency complaint—a profoundly serious one—that I received recently and which I am pursuing with ScotRail, which has not yet replied even though I contacted the company on 22 September.
On Sunday 21 September, a party of brownies and guides numbering 60 in all was travelling back to Inverness from a trip to Dynamic Earth. They had booked seats but, when they got on the train, there were no reservations. My constituent wrote:
“by the time the girls got their suitcases on there was NO seats. the doors shut ... the girls were all standing. We managed to get some to sit on the floor as they were ... feeling faint due to the squashing. We were all standing but making the most of it - assuming folks would leave at Perth”.
However, that did not happen. Instead,
“LOADS of people pushed onto the train ... standing on girls, pushing them out of the way, one girl was almost pushed off the train and was grabbed by a leader ... it became terrifying and ... dangerous”.
Girls were physically sick and fainted, were
“asleep on the floor”
and
“were overheating, it was like a third world travel experience.”
I could go on. It is an outrageous example of a complete failure to provide a service.
I wrote personally to every executive at ScotRail—by snail mail, so that they could not deny that they had got the letters. I have not heard from any of them. They are all well paid; they have job titles whose functions seem to overlap. Goodness knows what they do.
I wanted to use my time, which is drawing to a close, to say that, in the short term, we must see a proper, fair and decent service—and that, certainly, an apology from the chief executive and chair of ScotRail is overdue.
13:21
I, too, thank Ariane Burgess for securing the debate, which, rightly, highlights the value of the Highland main line railway in contributing to the wealth and prosperity of the Highlands.
A variety of points have been made. I heard what Fergus Ewing said about the incident that he described. I am aware of it and have urged a rapid response, and I will ensure that ScotRail responds quickly to him and his constituents.
Ariane Burgess referred to the Victorian era. The quickest journey time from Inverness to Perth has reduced from three hours and 15 minutes in the late 19th century to two hours and three minutes in the present day.
Stations along that stretch of railway have a distinct charm and character. I give a special thanks, as others have done, to the Highland Main Line Community Rail Partnership for all its work in creating a welcoming environment for passengers who visit the Highlands. I am aware of the positive changes that it has made through various projects, including the installation of new signage at Pitlochry station to support wayfinding towards local amenities and cultural hubs, and the maintaining of historical assets along the line, such as the Dalwhinnie station clock and the Victorian semaphore signal at Pitlochry station, which have been restored.
There is currently a focus on investing in rail to unlock the economic potential of the Highlands. I understand that, and I am sure that my colleagues will want to join me in celebrating the investment that the Scottish Government has already made in unlocking that potential. In 2023, we opened a station at Inverness airport as part of our £42 million Scottish Government investment to increase capacity and strengthen resilience on the network. As well as providing a new, green means of accessing the airport for passengers and staff, the new station serves the Inverness airport business park and the growing new town of Tornagrain.
As Mark Ruskell pointed out, there have been improvements. Those include the £57 million phase 2 of the Highland main line enhancement programme, which was completed in March 2019, and the platform extensions that he mentioned.
This year, as we have heard, we have invested more than £3 million in improving access within Dunkeld and Birnam station for those with reduced mobility, which has facilitated wheelchair users to board and alight at that station for the first time.
Ariane Burgess stated that we should make things easier for freight, including timber. That point was also made by Richard Leonard. They might not be aware that, yesterday, I announced a £3 million Scottish Government investment to enable the construction of a new £11.2 million rail freight terminal at Dalcross. Over a 10-year period, that project is expected to result in the removal of more than 8.5 million lorry miles from Scotland’s roads and more than 17 million from UK roads. That joint investment with West Fraser will help to reduce Scotland’s transport emissions, reduce road congestion and improve air quality. It is only right that that should be celebrated, particularly during Scotland’s climate week.
Supporting private investment is key to success, as the Highlands Spring rail freight terminal at Blackford has already demonstrated. That facility, which received £4.47 million of Scottish Government funding, will remove a minimum of 10 million lorry miles from Scottish roads in the first 10 years of its operation.
In the summer, we provided more than £345,000 to John G Russell to enable the company to purchase a reach stacker for the Needlefield facility at Inverness, allowing the continued loading and unloading, and movement, of supermarket goods. Again, that highlights the benefit of freight movement and shift.
I note that Highlands and Islands Enterprise has published research that explores regional transformation opportunities in the region. I have asked my officials to work with colleagues across the Scottish Government and partners in the renewables industry to consider opportunities for transport to support that work.
The Highland main line is a popular travel choice for tourists, as it provides a scenic gateway to the Highlands. We know that tourism is one of Scotland’s most important industries, and getting more people to visit our rural communities will boost local economies and enable growth. Now that peak fares are gone for good, we have made travel across the Highlands more affordable and accessible for the people of Scotland and for our visitors.
I point out to Jamie Halcro Johnston, in response to his request for movement on procurement, that, last year, I commenced a procurement exercise to replace the high-speed trains that operate on the line. The replacement trains will provide reliability and resilience for the long-distance rail services that will sustain vital connections for communities and visitors to the north of Scotland, and they will present Scotland in an improved way.
I am proud that ScotRail is one of the highest-performing train operators in the UK. However, we know that it can perform better, not least on the Highland main line, which is why the Scottish Government continues to press our delivery partners to improve train punctuality and reliability across Scotland’s railway. I fully welcome the opportunity to celebrate the importance of the Highland main line and recognise the central role that it plays in unlocking the economic potential of the Highlands—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
As I close my remarks, I give way briefly to Mr Ruskell.
I would have liked the cabinet secretary to have reflected on the core theme of this debate, which is electrification. We have heard from a number of members that electrification can unlock the opportunities for freight and for passenger rail, and it can transform what the Highland main line does. Instead of having diesel locomotives chugging at 20mph up Drumochter pass, we can have something that is truly modern.
Will the cabinet secretary say a little more about where electrification of the Highland main line sits in the Government’s wider programme of electrification and decarbonisation of the entire rail network? Are we going to get that?
Had Mr Ruskell not interrupted me, I would have come on to make remarks about the matters that he has just raised. With regard to unlocking the economic potential of the Highlands, we know not only that electrification and decarbonisation of the railways stimulates growth for those who use it, but that rail investment, in and of itself, helps to generate income through that spend.
Mr Ruskell will have heard—indeed, he referred to it in his own remarks—about the importance of the continued pipeline of decarbonisation. In Scotland, as we often hear from our colleagues south of the border, that provides much greater value for money for the Scottish Government with regard to the level of investment.
We have announced our investment for electrification and partial electrification in the Borders and in Fife. With regard to continuing decarbonisation, we will publish our decarbonisation refresh, which people are anticipating, because we need to complete the decarbonisation process. More information will be available when that refresh is published. Our climate change plan and our goals for 2045 require us to look at decarbonisation across many modes, and that is the appropriate place for us to set out those plans.
I am confident that the Government is taking steps to maintain the crucial transport links that are needed by growing rail freight in the region and investing in our passenger services to connect more communities and people with the Highlands, both now and into the future. In bringing the debate to the chamber, Ariane Burgess has presented us with a great opportunity to explore all those issues.
That concludes the debate.
13:29 Meeting suspended.Previous
First Minister’s Question Time