A90 Upgrade
The final item of business today is the members' business debate on motion S1M-737, in the name of David Davidson, on the A90 upgrade. The debate will be concluded after 30 minutes, without any question being put.
I remind members that business is continuing and that, if they are not staying for the debate, they should leave quietly.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the Scottish Executive's announcement on the roads improvement programme and, in particular, the inclusion of a scheme to upgrade the Hatton Bends on the A90 near Peterhead, but believes that all of the single-carriageway sections of the Aberdeen to Peterhead road should be upgraded and that the construction of an Aberdeen bypass should proceed as a matter of urgency.
I am delighted to have obtained this debate, which gives the north-east the opportunity to have two of its most serious concerns debated—the upgrading of the Aberdeen to Peterhead road and the construction of a peripheral route round Aberdeen. I welcome the cross-party support that I have received for my motion.
Even when I was a young lad in Aberdeen, the city was very busy. Even then, the city council was trying to put in pedestrian protection schemes. I remember as a youth—which was not last week—that the dualling of the A90 started with the co-operation of other councils. Today, roads in the city and in many of the surrounding areas suffer from gridlock, a term that was used by a senior policeman only the other day. The lack of a modern and effective trunk road system in a major Scottish city is a disgrace. It is not only a major cause for concern for the local economy, as there are also environmental and safety concerns.
It is a scandal that the pan-European dual carriageway network grinds to a halt at the Bridge of Dee, forcing heavy vehicles and buses through the city and along minor roads, such as the B977 and the B979. Those roads cannot cope. They are dangerous and expensive to maintain.
Vehicles that make it across the Bridge of Dee are faced with 17 sets of traffic lights when they try to get to the north end of Anderson Drive, through densely packed housing areas, reaching the bottleneck at the Bridge of Don to the north and tailbacks almost every day, at any hour, going out to the airport.
Those blocks result in a series of rat-runs through the city and on some of the peripheral, small, country roads around Aberdeen. That produces pollution and is a hazard to all, costing businesses time and money.
The gridlock of the city causes tremendous economic difficulty to those who live and work to the north of Aberdeen, particularly those in north Aberdeenshire, Banff and Buchan, Gordon, across the coast through Moray, and even in the Inverness and Huntly areas. Those areas would all benefit from a bypass.
Local businesses claim—I think that the figures are accurate—that simply negotiating the difficulties of Aberdeen city costs in excess of £1 million a month.
The A90 is mostly single carriageway, with dangerous bends and junctions and poor sightlines. It is used by hundreds of large lorries that are essential to the economy, particularly in the area up towards Peterhead and Fraserburgh. I remind the Parliament that agriculture in Aberdeenshire depends on the movement of stock and material by road.
However, at this point, I must thank the Minister for Transport and the Environment for responding to my campaign on the Hatton bends. I know that I am not the first to mention that issue, nor will I be the last, but I am pleased that the minister has now responded to us.
However, there are more problems on the A90 than that. Aberdeenshire Council would be willing to share the long list with the minister. Two such problems come to mind: Hatton village crossroads, which is beginning to be a major problem, and the Inverugie bridge.
The fishing ports and many other areas in the north depend totally on the A90 for transportation, for business purposes and commuting to work. Every day of the week, there are tailbacks, bumps and bangs, and the frustration caused by the difficulties on the road results all too often in accidents—unfortunately, some of those accidents have tragic outcomes. We cannot allow that situation to continue any longer.
The dualling of the Balmedie to Tipperty stretch of the A90 is being held in abeyance officially. I ask the minister to give that project proceed-to-construction status, as a next step towards the improvement of that road.
The Peterhead economy has taken many hits in the past and now RAF Buchan and Peterhead prison are threatened with closure. To counter those closures, we must have an essential, basic tool—a road fit for the purpose of supporting and developing further the economy in that area.
Aberdeen is now clogged with traffic, and congestion tolls or increased fuel prices will not alter that situation—they will simply cost jobs and add to the burden of indirect taxation on individuals. The city and the surrounding area require usable trunk roads that do not pollute our living spaces with either particle emission or noise.
Many brown-field sites are available for development in Aberdeen, but they remain landlocked. Other sites just outside the city would benefit from a bypass, which has been talked about for years. We must consult further on its route, as housing and working patterns have changed since the idea was first developed. However, it is essential that the idea is progressed as soon as possible.
The north-east Scotland economic development partnership commissioned a study by Halcrow Fox, which will report soon, on the options for alternative transport strategies for Aberdeen and the north-east. With the agreement of the partnership, I can tell members that the report will almost certainly conclude that an integrated transport strategy incorporating a western peripheral route gives the greatest significant benefit across a range of factors. However, any western peripheral route must connect with the northbound A90; there is no point in developing the bypass otherwise.
In conclusion—and I will try to be brief because I know that others wish to speak—Aberdeen and the north-east must be allowed to share equally in the development of Scotland's infrastructure. The heady days of rising employment in oil and gas, fishing, agriculture, food processing and engineering are over. Despite the headlines, employment is dropping and the region has many black spots of deprivation and exclusion. To build a new economy, we need sustainable employment and a safer and cleaner environment for everyone, all of which will require a reasonable infrastructure.
I hope that, today, the minister will tell the north-east that she has listened to us, accepts the need for these road improvement projects and agrees to work in partnership with councils and agencies to deliver those vital parts of an integrated transport strategy for the area as soon as possible. I thank her for responding to me in the past. Will she do so again to prove to the north-east that it will not be ignored?
Several members have indicated that they wish to speak, and we will be able to accommodate all of them if they keep their remarks to three minutes.
I welcome the debate and congratulate David Davidson on securing it. I will certainly stick to three minutes: as I have explained to David, because of the change in members' business, I have to leave the debate to make a speech on the anniversary of the Parliament. However, I want to make a few brief points on this important issue.
First, although I congratulate David Davidson on securing the debate, he should have the modesty to admit that these issues have been raised by constituency MPs and councillors from the north-east of Scotland for some years. Obviously, as the constituency member for Banff and Buchan, I greatly welcome the progress on the Hatton bends. However, it has been a sair fecht over the years to get the Hatton bends—which has frequently appeared on project designs or on lists to be done—to reach this stage in its development. I welcome the minister's commitment to the project.
Although I agree with the bulk of David Davidson's case for improvements to the A90 and the western peripheral route, I want to raise two particularly important points. First, Banff and Buchan is not stuck in the middle of nowhere in the north-east of Scotland. It has one of the largest gas terminals in Europe at St Fergus; the largest whitefish port in the whole of Europe; another major fishing port in Fraserburgh; and there are other key industries in the community. Given that economic infrastructure and its contribution to the economy, I think that the inhabitants of Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Buchan are entitled to ask why the road infrastructure is still so poor and why the dual carriageway ends mysteriously just outside Banff and Buchan. This is an economically vital and vibrant place with a huge amount of heavy road traffic.
Secondly, as there is not an inch of railway line in the whole of the Banff and Buchan constituency, everyone has to go by road, either using an inadequate bus network or in private cars. The fact that there is no alternative to road transport should be a factor in the minister's calculations, unless she can announce that there are to be new railways in Banff and Buchan. However, I suspect that is beyond even her powers as the Minister for Transport and the Environment.
Finally, I want to raise a point that would apply as much to other improvements to the A90 as to the western peripheral route, and which would certainly enjoy great support. In many areas of Scotland, people have deep uncertainty and opposition to proposed road schemes. We have seen such opposition in the west of Scotland, for example, in recent years. However, there is cross-party, substantial—I will not say unanimous, but certainly overwhelming—public support for the western peripheral route and for any improvements to the A90. That should be an important factor in ministerial calculations; road schemes and public support for them should have some connection. I hope that the fact that the north-east of Scotland is substantially behind the improvements that have been mentioned in the debate so far will be a factor in the minister's thinking and calculations on the subject.
I, too, congratulate David Davidson on securing the debate and on combining two important aspects of the roads and transport policies for Aberdeen and the north-east.
As members would expect, my main interest is in the construction of the bypass, or the western peripheral route, round the city of Aberdeen, and how that fits into a wider strategy. Clearly, we need a better road system in the area; we need a system that addresses freight traffic going from areas to the north of the city to areas to the south, and the linked question of commuter congestion on routes in and out of the city. In creating that system, we also need to see how far we can divert traffic off the roads altogether. Alex Salmond said, quite rightly, that Banff and Buchan lacks any railway lines, but that is not true of the whole of the north-east. I welcome the proposals for developing an Inverurie to Stonehaven commuter rail system that will help to speed people into and out of the city and to take some traffic off the roads.
I also welcome the moves that have been made to make Aberdeen airport more user-friendly regarding delayed flights in the evenings. That is important.
On the rail side, the integration of road and rail requires investment in the main routes from Aberdeen, in particular the Aberdeen to Edinburgh route, for which there is a proposal to save half an hour on the journey time. The proposal is to do that over 10 years, but I see no reason why the shadow strategic rail authority should not set that as a priority over five years.
I also want to mention the role of sea transport, which is important and growing; it must be linked to the things that Mr Davidson spoke about. Members will be aware of the growing international trade through Aberdeen harbour. There are twice-weekly freight sailings to Norway and to Amsterdam and weekly container ships to Rotterdam and Antwerp, as well as the tourist links through Shetland to Faroe and Iceland.
When we develop our transport strategy, it is essential that we protect and maintain the opportunity for sea-to-road and sea-to-rail transfer in Aberdeen. That means that heavy road freight traffic in the city will always continue. Protection of the position of the harbour and the maritime trade through the city is a further argument for the importance of diverting as much through-traffic as possible off the city roads by developing the western peripheral route. I welcome the developments that point in that direction.
There is no doubt that there are glaring gaps in the strategic road network in the north-east. One of those gaps is the section of the A90 between Tipperty and Balmedie in my constituency, which remains the only length of single carriageway between Ellon and Dundee, apart from the urban section through Aberdeen.
The A90 is the key route from Aberdeen to the north-east corner of Scotland. It is a key route for agricultural produce, for fish from the biggest whitefish port in Europe, as Alex Salmond said, and for the oil industry. It is also an extremely busy commuter route and an arterial public transport route. It services a rural park-and-ride initiative with sites at Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Mintlaw and Ellon and takes people to the busy park-and-ride facility at Bridge of Don on the outskirts of Aberdeen.
The stretch of single carriageway, with few safe overtaking opportunities, is a constriction on the free flow of goods and travellers. That has economic consequences which add—perhaps, admittedly, only slightly—to the much more severe consequences of the constriction caused by the overloaded road network through Aberdeen, which other members have dealt with.
The other and more important aspect of that stretch of road is safety. The accident statistics speak for themselves: over a three-year period, there have been 23 minor accidents, four serious accidents and, tragically, three fatalities. The safety aspect is the strongest argument for dualling this stretch of road.
I was disappointed that the road was not included in the first batch of major projects that were prioritised in the strategic roads review. The completion of a decent, pan-Scotland strategic roads network and the filling in of the gaps in the north-east could have been given higher priority, but it is one of the three projects that are held in abeyance and I hope that it will take highest priority of those three.
I thank David Davidson for providing the opportunity for me to make this speech, and for giving members from the north-east the chance to express their grave concerns about the A90. I hope that the Executive will do more.
Slowly, and drip by drip, the north-east has faced measures that have restricted its economic prosperity. The higher fuel costs and Government changes to road tax have left our hauliers unfairly penalised, and have also deterred tourists from coming to our part of the world. Our farming, which is increasingly under pressure, already faces an uncertain future, and the lack of good transport links makes our producers even less competitive with people in the south and in the rest of Europe.
I am sure that it has not been missed by many north-east members that last year, eight of the 10 constituencies in Scotland that experienced an increase in unemployment were in the north-east. An upgraded A90 and peripheral route are vital if we are to compete with the rest of the United Kingdom and open up the north-east. Better transport links for us in the north-east will help us to achieve equal status, and I hope will allow our businesses the same chance as those further south in Scotland.
On the subject of road safety, last year deaths on Grampian roads amounted to one fatality per week. I tell the Executive that by completing the dualling of the A90 and upgrading the junctions we can expect fewer fatalities, but I urge that more be done. I welcome the Executive's road improvement programme, but by doing more, it will demonstrate that the north-east deserves a chance equal to the rest of Scotland to compete economically.
To some extent we are going back over ground that we covered last June in a similar debate, but I make no apology for that. With regard to some of the things that have happened since then, I hope that the minister will be able to give more positive responses than she was able to give on that previous occasion.
One of the significant changes has been south of the border, where Mr Prescott is apparently sitting on a large amount of money, which will be available to tackle the transport strategy. I hope that the minister has been able to achieve a significant share of that money. I do not doubt that that will be announced in the near future. Like Ben Wallace, I lay claim to the north-east's share of that money, in particular to try to implement the integrated transport strategy that the local authorities, in partnership with other interests, have been working so hard to deliver.
The changes at Hatton bends are welcome, but they are only a small part of what is required. There is a need to move forward with the Tipperty to Balmedie dualling. The western peripheral route is a key component of the integrated transport strategy. We need a commitment at an early stage from the Executive to include that in its plans for the future. We realise that unlimited money is not available, but to have that measure accepted into the overall plans for the future would be a major step forward that would be welcomed in the north-east.
I wish to refer briefly to the rest of the integrated transport strategy. Like Lewis Macdonald, I welcome some of the rail changes that are coming. However, I am disappointed that, so far, the minister has felt unable to endorse the view that we ought to have a feasibility study into the reopening of the Dyce-Ellon rail link, and that we ought to look at what might be possible at Dyce airport, particularly in the light of the transfer of the goods depot from the present joint station site to Raiths farm, and the possibility of improving that area. As part of the franchising arrangements, consideration should be given to starting a number of train journeys from Dyce rather than Aberdeen. That would be most helpful. I will leave it at that in order to allow others to take part.
I, too, congratulate David Davidson on securing this debate. As Brian Adam mentioned, this is the second debate that we have had on the transport needs of Aberdeen and the north-east. I am happy to participate again.
We are now significantly further on in considering the transport needs of Aberdeen and the north-east. As David Davidson said, the Halcrow Fox study, which was commissioned by NESDEP to examine the options for the future of the transport system in the north-east, has been completed and will be made public very shortly. It is significant that NESDEP—the economic partnership of both councils, Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce and Scottish Enterprise Grampian—commissioned that study, because it gives a unified view of the transport requirements of the north-east. There is increasing unanimity about the future of transport across all organisations and, dare I say it, all parties in the region.
A major component of the strategy is the western peripheral route, and improvements to the A90, including dualling sections of the road north of Aberdeen, such as that between Balmedie and Tipperty. However, we need to focus on the entirety of the vision for transport in the north-east, as described in Aberdeen City Council's transport strategy. Roads are only a part of the picture. To produce a transport system that meets the needs of everybody—commuters, pensioners, city and country dwellers, business people, families—we need to consider the strategy holistically. The strategy must meet the needs of people regardless of the type of transport that they use—pedestrians, cyclists, bus and train users, ferry travellers and users of the airport.
The implementation of Aberdeen City Council's programme of bus lanes and park-and-ride schemes is well advanced. The programme is designed to link with the western peripheral route in due course. Usage of the park-and-ride scheme in Bridge of Don, which has been running for some time, is growing year on year. Growth in the volume of traffic going through Bridge of Don is beginning to tail off.
Aberdeenshire Council is developing a further park-and-ride scheme to Ellon along the A90 to the north of the city. That scheme and the Aberdeen City Council schemes are funded by the Scottish Executive's public transport challenge fund. Aberdeen City Council has received more than £12 million over the past three years to develop bus lanes and park-and-ride schemes. The transport needs of the north-east have not been ignored, as David Davidson perhaps suggested.
It is important that we work together in this area to produce practical solutions, which deliver the transport system that the north-east requires. I look forward to the publication of the NESDEP study, so that we can have a wider discussion and begin to develop practical ways of implementing strategies. Certainly, we should have the western peripheral route by 2010.
I promise to be very brief. I have three very quick points. This is the second time in a few months that we have discussed transport links in the north-east of Scotland. That should tell the minister how big an issue transport is in the north-east of Scotland. People want the Scottish Parliament to deliver on improved transport links, as Westminster did not.
The UK's fishing industry is based in the north-east of Scotland. The minister will be aware that fishermen have to get their produce to market while it is fresh. They have to get it to the processors and down south and, in many cases, to the continent while it is fresh. Therefore they need improved transport links.
Finally, will the minister acknowledge that there is reason for people in the north-east of Scotland to have a sense of injustice? The north-east is a corner of the Scotland and the UK that generates so much wealth for the Exchequer through the food and agriculture industry, the offshore industry and the fishing industry, yet all it gets in return is a single carriageway in the Aberdeenshire area and logjams in the city of Aberdeen.
I thank members for keeping their speeches fairly close to the specified time. I call Sarah Boyack to respond on behalf of the Executive.
I would like to thank David Davidson for raising this issue and all members for the quality of their speeches and for raising so many transport issues in relation to north-east Scotland.
I welcome the positive way in which members responded to my announcement in March of our plans to invest £444 million on motorways and trunk roads over the next two years. That represents an increase of 22 per cent on the previous two years and is testimony to our commitment to improve and maintain Scotland's motorways and trunk roads. There are 49 schemes, costing in excess of £500,000, including the five major schemes announced in November following the strategic roads review.
I would like to pick up on the points made by Ben Wallace, Brian Adam and Richard Lochhead about the benefits for the north-east that have come from that investment. It is important to focus not only on the stretch of road directly north of Aberdeen, but on the whole area. Several major schemes have been included in the programme that will bring direct benefits to people in and around the Aberdeen area.
There are schemes on the A96 at Coachford and Newtongarry. There is the Bridge of Dee to Ellon road scheme to improve safety in urban Aberdeen. There is also a range of schemes to the south of Aberdeen—from Aberdeen to Dundee and from Dundee to Perth. I know that that does not appear to be local investment, but in terms of the access issues that Brian Adam and Richard Lochhead raised, it is important to think about the A90 as a national stretch of road.
Nora Radcliffe raised the point about the A90 between Balmedie and Tipperty. We have made road improvements that will benefit the area. I know that there are particular stretches that members would like to add.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry—I am about to answer Brian Adam's question.
Much of the investment lacks the glamour of the Rolls-Royce new-build schemes, but it is worth £7.5 billion and is as important to Aberdeen and north-east Scotland as it is to the rest of Scotland. Our improvements focus on safety-related issues and bringing the network up to standard following years of under-investment. The investment will cut congestion and delays and will benefit motorists, businesses and public transport passengers alike.
We have been criticised for not pressing ahead with every scheme that people would like to be implemented. As Minister for Transport and the Environment, I am conscious of the need for transport investment across Scotland, but we must face the realities of the development of transport policy. Brian Adam acknowledged that we must make choices and set priorities. That is a difficult issue. When we consider the issue of expenditure on new roads, we must face up to the consequences of less investment elsewhere, for example, in education or health. We must face up to those issues honestly.
That is why the Executive has been developing a more transparent method of allocating resources. We want local people to understand that the five appraisal criteria—integration, accessibility, safety, economy and environmental impact—of the strategic roads review are being implemented. That is why the Fochabers to Mosstodloch route came through. We have implemented several routes in Scotland. However, any new road investment must meet the appraisal framework.
We need to go further. Members made several comments about the need for an integrated approach. Elaine Thomson talked in particular about the impact of new investment in Aberdeen, which is trying to tackle the issue of congestion that David Davidson raised in his opening remarks. We need to make the links between different transport improvements by using a common framework. We will take into consideration Alex Salmond's point that not every constituency has access to the national rail network. Those are the issues that we must consider when we assess future priorities.
That is the context in which any upgrading of the A90 must be considered. I am glad that members welcome the proposed realignment scheme at Hatton bends, which is just the sort of vital but unglamorous improvement that has been ignored for too long. I can confirm today that, subject to satisfactory completion of the necessary statutory procedures, the work, worth £650,000, will commence in 2001-02.
Nora Radcliffe raised the issue of the Balmedie to Tipperty route, which was considered in the strategic roads review. As members know, the scheme was held in abeyance and will, in due course, be considered alongside other emerging priorities for inclusion in any future trunk road scheme. That means that there will not be short-term improvements on that stretch of the road, but we keep safety on all stretches of road under review and have commissioned research—
Will the minister give way?
No. I must continue.
We are studying accidents to consider the priorities for small scheme improvements, which can be taken forward in the short term. Therefore, there is some prospect of work being carried out.
The second issue raised by Mr Davidson in his opening remarks was the Aberdeen western peripheral. As members have correctly identified, we have been there before in one of our very first debates in Parliament. Then and during a subsequent visit to Aberdeen, I made the Executive's position clear. The western peripheral is not a trunk road, nor is there any realistic prospect of the Executive trunking it—that would be an empty gesture. The cost of £85 million is, quite simply, unaffordable in the light of the other severe pressures on the trunk road programme that we have talked about.
Will the minister give way?
No, I will not.
However, back in June, I urged Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council to look again at the scheme in the context of their emerging local transport strategies, which is precisely what they have done. I urged them also to reconsider the plan in the light of the alternative funding mechanisms that might be open to them. The local congestion powers that we will bring forward in the transport bill, for example, might be one answer. Alternatively, the western peripheral could be promoted using the existing powers in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.
It is to the councils' credit that they have begun to re-examine the case in the wider context with NESDEP. That is an excellent example of real partnership working and I would like to take this opportunity to signal my support for their efforts thus far. The work is now nearing completion and publication. I look forward to hearing the detail over the summer. The next stage must be to consider the impact on local communities and the arguments being raised there.
There are many ways in which the Government can assist in that process. My officials recently met the councils. I am keen for them to do so again and for them to participate in NESDEP. Officials are already working with Edinburgh and Glasgow on their key transport priorities. In my statement to Parliament on 10 February, I signalled my support for authorities that are committed to developing a charging scheme, by offering, on a case-by-case basis, matching financial support towards their research and development costs.
I know that a lot of work is being done. We are moving to the next stage of consideration at the local level. From what they have said today, I know that members are keeping in touch with local authorities and enterprise companies, ensuring that they are well briefed.
There is no piggy bank at Victoria Quay waiting to be raided. I wish life was that simple. That message must be clear to members. To say otherwise would be dishonest. We are committed to maintaining and improving our strategic roads network. The priorities that we have set for the network this year go a long way towards doing that. However, there will always be hard choices and a need to prioritise. We need to engage seriously in that process.
Meeting closed at 17:44.