Aberdeen Crossrail
I was so overtaken by the atmosphere of mirth in the chamber this morning that I missed my footing.
The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3674, in the name of Alison McInnes, on Aberdeen crossrail.
I was going to say that it is nice to come to the chamber in anticipation of some cross-party backing for my motion, but that was before I saw Alex Johnstone's amendment, which attempts to misrepresent my views.
Aberdeen crossrail should be supported by all members and, if prior form is anything to go by, it will be. I know that the Labour Party supports the scheme, as do the Greens. Indeed, even the Conservatives previously professed their support, although I confess that I am puzzled by Alex Johnstone's amendment, which seems more concerned with attempting to falsely attribute to me the position of the north east of Scotland transport partnership, under the chairmanship of Scottish National Party councillor Kevin Stewart, than with securing a positive outcome for the crossrail project. Under my chairmanship, Nestrans was ambitious. Sadly, the new chairman has allowed himself to be browbeaten by his political masters into accepting a consolation prize.
In addition to the support of those parties, I cannot help but hope that I will get at least two votes from the SNP benches. After all, Brian Adam was on the record throughout the previous parliamentary session as supporting Aberdeen crossrail, and rightly so, given the huge benefits that it will bring his constituents. If Mr Adam has recognised those benefits, one can only suppose that the First Minister has as well. If that is the case, the people of Gordon can surely rest safe in the knowledge that their local MSP is fully behind the crossrail scheme—or is that, perhaps, an assumption too far?
Since the SNP took office, its attitude towards crossrail has been that ignorance is bliss, but however much the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change is hoping to divert attention with bluster, I tell him that, although he might have fooled the Conservatives, we, at least, are not going to overlook his inaction.
I think that my favourite line on the topic from the minister so far—to be honest, it is difficult to pick just one—came during a committee meeting last year, when he said:
"We have not been asked to support Aberdeen crossrail, as yet."—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 6 May 2008; c 637.]
I must admit that I have struggled to find a context in which the Government—I assume that the minister is not using the royal we just yet—has not been asked to support crossrail. I have asked it to support it. Mike Rumbles has asked. Richard Baker has asked. Nanette Milne has asked. Nestrans has asked. The people of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire have asked. I am not sure exactly who the minister is waiting to hear from.
To be honest, I fail to see why the Minister needs the question to be asked in the first place. Are we to believe that a Scottish Government minister is unable to act on his own initiative? Can the Government take action only when someone else—a very specific someone, apparently—asks it to do so?
Civil servants, for example.
The case for Aberdeen crossrail is well documented and well supported, yet it was still omitted from the much-heralded strategic transport projects review with barely an explanation. Fuzzy plans for national timetable improvements are no substitute for a properly implemented, dedicated local service, nor are vague statements about exploring the possibility of new stations an adequate alternative for a truly improved local service.
The recently finalised Aberdeen city and shire structure plan serves as a vivid demonstration of the short-sightedness of excluding crossrail from the STPR. The plan identifies the region's key strategic growth areas, on which it is anticipated that 75 to 80 per cent of growth will be focused over the next 20 years and which are centred on the region's main public transport routes, including the proposed crossrail corridor. That means that, on the one hand, we have a 20-year period of focused growth and, on the other hand, a 20-year plan that contains no major local rail improvements. Even current projected passenger numbers more than support the case for crossrail. If we act now, we can ensure that properly implemented sustainable transport options are integrated with the anticipated growth. If the Government continues to ignore the people of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, they will be left to deal with a mess of cars, congestion and an outdated public transport network. I know which option I prefer.
I have almost lost track of the amount of my correspondence on crossrail with the minister and Transport Scotland. Getting an answer from Mr Stevenson in writing is no easier than getting one in the chamber. It seems, on occasion, that he has delegated so much of his portfolio to Transport Scotland that all that is left for him to do is to give us bad news and occasionally unveil new paint schemes for the trains.
He has delegated everything. He just tells us what the civil servants want.
Bollocks.
Pardon?
Members should be careful about the language that they use in the chamber.
For several months last year, my letters on crossrail to the minister were redirected down the M8 to Transport Scotland's headquarters. From there, I received a number of substantive answers that discussed predicted passenger numbers and outlined feasibility studies. Although I did not agree with some of the figures or some of the reasoning, I could not argue that Transport Scotland did not uphold its part of the bargain. It did the work, but did the minister do his share? I think not.
For a regional project such as crossrail to progress, hard work, vision and political leadership are needed. The minister has given us none of those.
When, last summer, I finally managed to get a response from the minister, I was told:
"It is not appropriate for me to give an ‘in principle' decision at this stage."
Again, I struggle to understand the minister. It is not appropriate to give an in-principle decision? Surely an in-principle decision is just that—either the minister thinks that crossrail is a good idea or he does not. At this point, I am not asking him whether he thinks that the specifics of any detailed plans are the best business option; I just want to know whether he thinks that crossrail is a good idea. Either the minister thinks that crossrail would have no discernible benefits for commuters in North East Scotland or he thinks that it could play an important role in promoting the use of public transport. Maybe the minister will enlighten us on that point this morning.
The view of Transport Scotland is clear. Unfortunately, it does not believe that there is a case for crossrail. I respectfully disagree with that view, and I suggest that the concerns that Nestrans has raised about Transport Scotland's report on the project point to faults in Transport Scotland's position.
However, even with that in mind, I believe that strong leadership from the minister could still create the impetus to move crossrail forward. By declaring his support for crossrail, the minister would be asking Transport Scotland and Nestrans to ensure that the project was taken forward in the most effective manner possible and would be showing the people of North East Scotland that he is up to the challenge of delivering an ambitious, integrated public transport scheme. However, by hiding behind Transport Scotland's first report, he is showing that he is not up to that challenge. He is letting himself and the Government be dictated to, and he is letting down the people of North East Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament affirms its support for the Aberdeen Crossrail project, a vital infrastructure link for the region, which would provide a frequent cross-city rail service with commuter trains leaving Inverurie and Stonehaven for Aberdeen every 15 minutes and the opening of new stations north and south of Aberdeen including at Kintore, Newtonhill and Altens; notes that the project previously enjoyed cross-party support and was hailed as a key transport priority for the north east with the potential to bring significant economic and environmental benefits; deeply regrets that the project has been omitted from the Strategic Transport Projects Review, and calls on the Scottish Government to make a firm commitment to work with Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City councils through NESTRANS and its rail industry partners to restart the active development of the Aberdeen Crossrail project immediately.
I will start by apologising to Mr Rumbles for the intemperate word that I used when, in a sedentary comment, he grossly misrepresented the relationship between the minister and Transport Scotland.
What an apology that is.
It was intemperate, and I apologise.
The Government rejects the motion in the name of Alison McInnes. The Aberdeen crossrail project has a long history. I am well aware of the support that has been shown for the project, and that, in part, is why we are progressing the development of cross-Aberdeen services. Our approach is incremental and involves building patronage to strengthen the case for later investment, delivering value for money and protecting other projects across Scotland. Indeed, our amendment does not seek to delete Aberdeen crossrail from any motion that might be passed at 5 o'clock.
The STPR supports the delivery of sustainable economic growth and concluded that interventions between Aberdeen and Inverness and from Aberdeen to the central belt would contribute to achieving our purpose. Our proposed enhancements will deliver reduced journey times north and south of Aberdeen of up to 20 minutes; create new journey opportunities; improve accessibility to the Dyce area and beyond, to Inverurie; increase frequency by providing express services between Aberdeen and the central belt; and provide two trains every hour between Nairn and Inverness. Those interventions will make rail a genuine and attractive alternative to the car. In addition to improving passenger services, the enhancements will improve freight services by improving infrastructure to allow the operation of longer freight trains.
Together, the delivery of those outcomes will help the Government to achieve its purpose of sustainable economic growth for the whole of Scotland. Indeed, at a meeting that I attended earlier this year, Nestrans expressed its support for the proposed interventions, particularly because the proposals will deliver early many of the benefits of the Aberdeen crossrail proposal and will do so at better value to the taxpayer.
I have said previously that the Aberdeen and Inverness intervention will include work to evaluate a new station at Kintore and support the development of a new station at Dalcross, with interchange facilities to link with Inverness airport. I will shortly meet Nanette Milne to discuss the Kintore issue, and I hope that other members will be able to attend.
We are working with Network Rail to develop those interventions as part of the periodic settlement. Transport Scotland, under my instructions, will ask Network Rail to carry out a feasibility study later this year on developing the Aberdeen and Inverness intervention. The study, which will also examine the case for Kintore, must balance the desire to attract new passengers against the impact on network capacity and the needs of existing passengers, while taking account of value for money and affordability.
We have explained clearly our national priorities and we will continue to engage with local authorities and regional transport partnerships on the delivery of those priorities, in addition to discussing how best to deliver regional priorities. For example, we are working in partnership with Strathclyde partnership for transport and Glasgow City Council to establish and deliver common objectives for the west of Scotland rail enhancements. Good government is about leadership, which is what we are demonstrating. The construction of a new station at Laurencekirk, which was started by the previous Administration and will be delivered by the present one, will shortly link commuters to key economic centres.
Will the minister give way?
I do not have time.
Will the minister take an intervention on Laurencekirk station?
Very briefly.
The minister really must not mislead Parliament. Laurencekirk station is 14 miles south of Stonehaven. It has never been part of the Aberdeen crossrail project, so the minister must not pretend that it is.
That was not appropriate. I congratulated the previous Administration on progressing the project and said that we are delivering it.
The 2008 timetable takes account of a package of improvements that were announced last year on the Edinburgh-Fife-Aberdeen line, which has provided hourly services between Aberdeen and Inverurie, with more frequent services at commuting times; half-hourly services between Dundee and Aberdeen; a reduction of about 10 minutes in journey times between Edinburgh and Aberdeen; and an additional 1,200 seats throughout the Scottish network.
On our roads, we are committed to getting the best return for investment. We are considering infrastructure improvements on nationally significant routes, including the A96. Again, we are working with RTPs on that.
As I have said before, the STPR is not the only way in which to deliver transport infrastructure. We will work with local government and RTPs on local and regional benefits. Of course, we will continue to engage with members and the Parliament on transport issues. I say once again that the Forth crossing remains our strategic priority on roads and it will dominate our spending until it is opened. It is an economic link that must be maintained, therefore it is right that the immediate focus should be on it. I am pleased that we will make significant rail interventions in parallel and that Aberdeen and the north will benefit. The Government has identified an investment hierarchy that prioritises interventions. Crossrail services in Aberdeen are important for the north-east and wider Scotland, which is why we are making investments in the north and will continue to do so. I will take pleasure in moving the amendment in my name.
I move amendment S3M-3674.3, to leave out from "which would" to end and insert:
"which is being tackled incrementally by the introduction of new services from Inverurie, the opening of Laurencekirk station, the re-timetabling of other services and the bringing forward of work on Kintore station; believes that this incremental approach delivers early and cost-effective benefits to rail services across Aberdeen; recognises that the introduction of additional stops increases journey times and can, in certain circumstances, reduce the viability of services overall; welcomes the real progress being made by the Scottish Government after years of inaction, and looks forward to further rail investment in the north as announced in the Strategic Transport Projects Review."
The remaining speeches should be of about four minutes' duration, but I have enough flexibility to allow members to take interventions—I will be able to add on a little time should they choose to do so.
Labour will support the Liberal Democrat motion, but I confess to a wee bit of irritation with how it is framed. It is very tight and specific, which makes it difficult to talk about crossrail in general and the Aberdeen transport network in broader terms. Given the motion's formulation, it might have been more appropriate for a members' business debate. I hope that, in future, motions are framed slightly more widely. Our amendment is intended to open out the motion, because there are general issues that need to be discussed. My colleagues Lewis Macdonald and Richard Baker will speak in detail about specific stations in the Aberdeen area and other issues.
One problem with the STPR is that it treats projects that are outside the cities as national ones, but treats projects that are in or near the cities as local or regional ones. The crossrail projects in Aberdeen and Glasgow are excluded from the list of national projects, whereas projects that are cheaper or to do with trunk roads are national projects. That is really because of where they are. In Scotland's transport policy, a strategy for conurbations is essential. There is no point in talking about one project in Aberdeen, Glasgow or Edinburgh in isolation from other projects. That approach has bedevilled the consideration of transport in Scotland.
I remember raising that point in relation to Edinburgh with the then transport minister, Nicol Stephen. At one time, we had four major transport projects in Edinburgh—the Edinburgh airport rail link, the trams, the Waverley station upgrade and the Borders rail project—all of which were considered entirely separately, with no interfacing or integration between them, despite the fact that, inevitably, each of the projects would have an impact on the others. In practical terms, it was inappropriate to treat them as entirely separate projects, bearing in mind the central interconnection between them.
In future, I hope that the minister will consider Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire as a single transport area and that he will consider how schemes can be brought together to maximise benefit. For example, I am convinced that we will not get the full benefit from the Aberdeen western peripheral route without the crossrail project, because there are interfaces between the two schemes. The projects should be seen from the perspective of the individuals who will make transport choices. We must focus on the projects not as construction engineering approaches to transport, but from the point of view of the individual transport user and the economy of the area. In that sense, the exclusion of Aberdeen crossrail from the STPR is unreasonable.
The Government might be making choices about which bits of crossrail or which other schemes could be introduced, but that should emerge through dialogue with Nestrans and the local authorities about the priorities in the Aberdeen conurbation. From what the minister said, and from what he has said previously in response to my colleague Richard Baker, it does not seem as though that approach is being taken. Each project is a discrete element, whereas we need an integrated and interfaced approach.
I move amendment S3M-3674.1, to insert after "region":
"and for the wider national transport network in Scotland".
I make it clear that, regardless of what the Liberal Democrats say about the Conservatives, we remain wholly committed to developing the elements that will move towards the creation of the Aberdeen crossrail project. In fact, the Conservatives have long had a reputation for supporting the project. In particular, my colleague Nanette Milne, who will speak about the issue in detail later, has a good reputation for being an active member at the centre of the campaign.
My amendment is clear that I will not tolerate the year-zero approach. We have had two Liberal Democrat transport ministers in Nicol Stephen and Tavish Scott; one Liberal Democrat chair of Nestrans, who is now a member of the Parliament; and Liberal Democrats in government for eight years. During that time, the Liberal Democrats saw the campaign for the Aberdeen crossrail project as a cross-party one. However, now that they have a more Opposition-based perspective, if people do not agree with them, the campaign is obviously no longer cross-party.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. Unfortunately, I have only four minutes.
My attitude towards Liberal Democrat cross-party campaigns wears a bit thin when I participate in many of them for various transport projects, or to save local hospitals or ambulance services, only to discover in the latest edition of the Lib Dems' Focus newsletter that it was entirely the Liberal Democrats who achieved the aims.
I will move on from the situation in which I have unfortunately put us to one in which we talk positively about the development of transport projects in Aberdeen. We must look forward and ensure that we develop the projects. Work still needs to be done to develop the case for some of the proposed stations that would form part of the crossrail project, which are mentioned in my extensive amendment. However, we must realise that there is an understanding, even within Nestrans, that an incremental approach will deliver some elements of the crossrail project.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
We must take an incremental approach and take opportunities when they arise. However, there are things that can be done in the short term to provide some of the services that the crossrail project would deliver. In particular, I draw the minister's attention to issues relating to the new timetable for the area that the project would cover. There has been much praise for the additional trains and stops north of Aberdeen, but there has been a problem in the area south of Aberdeen. This afternoon, First ScotRail will conduct a consultation exercise at Stonehaven station, where it will hear from local people about the problems that have arisen for commuters in the area as a result of timetable changes. The new timetable seems to have caused fewer problems for commuters going north in the morning, but there seems to be a serious problem for those going south in the evening. By and large, the Glasgow trains do not stop at Stonehaven; consequently, only half of the trains that leave Aberdeen provide the necessary service.
We are working hard, especially through my colleague Nanette Milne, to seek development of a station at Kintore. We must ensure that services are improved and that the viability of further station developments along the line between Stonehaven and Inverurie is considered. We have opportunities to move the crossrail project forward and we must retain cross-party support for it. The Conservatives remain committed to the principles behind the project.
I move amendment S3M-3674.2, to leave out from "with commuter" to end and insert:
"; notes the comments of NESTRANS, previously chaired by Alison McInnes MSP, in its regional transport strategy, that ‘it is clear that improved rail services can only realistically be delivered on an incremental basis and in a way that capitalises on existing planned investment'; welcomes the recent improvements to the timetable, meaning that there is now a significantly better service north of Aberdeen than was the case when Nicol Stephen MSP and Tavish Scott MSP were ministers for transport; considers that proposals contained in the Strategic Transport Projects Review to improve services north and south of Aberdeen must be progressed as a priority as a key means of securing better crossrail services; welcomes the forthcoming opening of Laurencekirk station and considers that plans to open Kintore station should now be taken forward; further considers that local agencies should work together to build strong cases for the opening of stations at Newtonhill and Altens; notes with regret the very poor stewardship of rail projects under successive Liberal Democrat transport ministers, notably the significant cost overruns and delays that blighted the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line and the managerial paralysis at the heart of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, and regrets the additional investment for projects such as Aberdeen Crossrail that has been lost as a result of this mismanagement."
It seems that war has broken out where peace should reign. I will try to draw together what I understand the crossrail project to be about. We are arguing about trains that carry passengers from the north-west of Aberdeen, through Aberdeen, to the south of Aberdeen and back again. The only issue is how many stations they should stop at and how frequently they should run.
Hear, hear.
I thank the member—I am delighted that there is some consensus on the issue.
We could go down to the toy shop, take out a new railway, put it down where we want it to go, clear all the furniture out of the way and say that we have done it. The trouble is that the furniture is buildings, hills, valleys and rivers, so we cannot do that. What should we do? As you and other members are aware, Presiding Officer, we must start where we are and see where we can get to. We cannot get a new railway from the toy shop. We cannot even get one from the train shop—we must start with what we have.
As I understand it, the Government's policy is to start with what we have and to add a station every time that seems to make sense. Laurencekirk has already been mentioned, but I recognise that it is probably beyond the area that members want to talk about today. A station at Kintore is certainly a possibility: I understand that there is a large amount of political momentum behind that. A station at Newtonhill might be viable, but I doubt it. The same applies to the proposal for a station in Altens, as I do not think that it would ever be viable. However, if it can be proved to be viable, why not build it? Alex Johnstone has already answered that question. He made the point that the more stations trains stop at, the longer journey times will be. If we insist on putting in more stops, journeys will take longer and the service will become less attractive.
I point members to Transport Scotland's detailed appraisal of the crossrail project, which suggests that there would be some modal shift from car to rail but that the majority of the additional passengers would come from buses rather than cars. There would be no benefit to road safety, and journey times would be slower as a result of additional stops. I suggest to members that Transport Scotland's findings are entirely consistent with what we would expect for this kind of transport project. It is therefore no surprise that the best way forward is an incremental approach. There is no point in our spending significant amounts of money on putting in more stations and changing the timetable until there is some evidence that people will use the service and make it cost effective. That is why I support the Government's line on crossrail. Change must be incremental and must take place as fast as we can sensibly make it work. It does not matter what we call it the point is that we should make progress. Surely we can agree on that.
As Des McNulty said when opening for Labour, we want rail links to be strengthened within as well as between Scotland's city regions. Aberdeen crossrail is firmly part of that approach.
The SNP's approach is less clear. On the one hand, the minister wants us to welcome
"the opening of Laurencekirk station … and the bringing forward of work on Kintore station".
On the other hand, he wants us to agree that
"the introduction of additional stops increases journey times and can, in certain circumstances, reduce the viability of services overall".
That seems to be a confused way of setting out a direction of travel. However, when ministers talk of the Aberdeen crossrail project being tackled incrementally, the inference must be that the increments will not be additional stops and that there will be no new stations besides those that have been mentioned. That would certainly explain why Aberdeen crossrail, like the Haudagain roundabout, failed to win ministerial support for inclusion in the strategic transport projects review. From the minister's description of his plans this morning, it seems that he sees Aberdeen simply as the junction of two main railway lines, rather than the centre of a city-focused crossrail project to serve the needs of people who live and work in Aberdeen.
Recently, Stewart Stevenson received the finalised Aberdeen city and shire structure plan, which I am sure he will already have cast his eye over. Paragraph 3.9 on page 10 of the plan explicitly promotes the crossrail proposals
"to provide more regular journeys and extra stations".
SNP councillors voted for the plan, which makes no mention of an incremental approach. I hope that that aspect of the plan will attract the minister's approval and that he will rethink his approach to the proposals.
Instead of cutting back our ambitions for crossrail, we should be looking at what more can be done. In my constituency of Aberdeen Central, a new station at Kittybrewster could help to cut back on car commuting, congestion and parking problems at key locations. In recent months, Aberdeen royal infirmary has been overwhelmed by a parking crisis, since SNP ministers decreed an end to hospital parking charges without first working out how to manage parking demand. The University of Aberdeen is developing an iconic new library in Old Aberdeen, which will attract users from across the region and beyond. Parking zones are already being planned for neighbouring areas as a result.
Both Foresterhill and Old Aberdeen would benefit from new access by rail via a new Kittybrewster station. Because Aberdeen crossrail, as originally conceived, is designed as an integral scheme for the whole city and region, it has the potential to deliver that, although there is no guarantee that it would do so. However, a Government that has set its face against additional stops and insists on taking what it describes as an incremental approach that does not recognise the wholeness of the city will not deliver that.
The parts of the city that I represent do not need a new road and bridge increasing traffic by way of the proposed third Don crossing. I hope that the minister will reject that part of the finalised structure plan when he forms a view on it and that he will support more rail, not more roads, into the city. It is to the credit of Alison McInnes that, when she was chair of Nestrans, she did not endorse the enthusiasm of her party colleagues on Aberdeen City Council for directing thousands of car commuters every day through Tillydrone and Old Aberdeen. Sadly, those councillors have now done Aberdeen city and shire a major disservice by including that contentious local project in strategic transport and structure plans for the region.
The minister could put the matter right by refusing to endorse the third Don crossing proposal in the structure plan. Instead, he should encourage local partners to work with the Scottish Government on sorting out the Haudagain roundabout and exploring how Aberdeen crossrail can be delivered. Those projects, along with the completion of the western peripheral route, are the city's real transport priorities, and ministers should support them.
I find it astonishing that, in the face of the deepening economic crisis, the Liberal Democrats have chosen such a subject for their allotted debating time. That is the kind of cry that we have heard from the Liberal Democrats in recent weeks when they have complained about Government business but, as usual, there is one rule for the Liberal Democrats and another for everyone else.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
I read somewhere over the past few days that the Liberal Democrat leader, Tavish Scott, thinks that a coalition deal with the SNP is likely after the next election. Of course, we are delighted that the Liberal Democrats recognise that the SNP is likely to be the largest party and that they will need to do business with us, but we will not have a coalition on the basis that we park an independence referendum for two parliamentary sessions.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats claim that the SNP Government has failed to deliver on transport projects in the north-east. Let us look at the facts. As Alex Johnstone pointed out, despite the Liberal Democrats having had two transport ministers during their eight years in government and despite the fact that their current transport spokesman, Alison McInnes, was chair of Nestrans, there was no tangible progress on crossrail. Their legacy was review upon review, plenty of hot air and nae action. In her new role, perhaps Alison McInnes is trying to purge her previous inaction by trying to shift attention away from her party's failures.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
Members, who is in charge of another suburban transport project? Oh dear, it is the Liberal Democrats. They are in charge of the Edinburgh trams project, which has ground to a halt before a rail has been laid or a tram is in sight. In contrast, we will open Laurencekirk station in the spring and timetabling changes—
The point about crossrail—
Order.
Yes, Mike Rumbles, a station in the north-east is being opened under the SNP.
The timetable changes that were introduced in December mean that there are now more trains than ever between Inverurie and Aberdeen. For peak morning services, where there were two trains under the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition, there are now five under the SNP, as well as an additional evening service. Under the SNP, those services are up and running.
Phase 2 of the improvements on the Inverness to Aberdeen line will include consideration of a station at Kintore, on which the minister has said he is in discussion with other members. The STPR contains those improvements among its 29 national priorities, including an at least hourly service and a 20-minute reduction in journey times on the line. Such a service will greatly assist those who commute from Inverurie and Dyce.
The STPR also includes improvements between Aberdeen and the central belt. The increased number of express services and stopping services will benefit commuters from Stonehaven, Laurencekirk and Portlethen as well as those who travel longer distances between Aberdeen and Glasgow or Edinburgh. Such benefits for commuters and longer-journey passengers, which were talked about by the Liberals, are happening under an SNP Government.
The Liberal Democrats know that their reputation and credibility on transport in the north-east is dire. I can sum it up in four words: Aberdeen western peripheral route. The AWPR shambles has unnecessarily cost millions of pounds because of the Liberal Democrats' lack of decision taking. Trying to turn the spotlight on the SNP and crossrail winna wash with the sensible folk of the north-east.
I support the amendment in the name of Stewart Stevenson.
I am pleased that we have this opportunity to debate Aberdeen crossrail, which is a vital transport project for the north-east. We have suffered many disappointments under an SNP Government that promised our area so much, but the failure to give Aberdeen crossrail the necessary backing—it is omitted entirely from the strategic transport projects review—is a particular blow to hopes for the public transport options that our area needs. I say to Maureen Watt that that "winna wash" with people in the north-east.
In my members' business debate on crossrail in 2006, members from all parties supported my call to move from the feasibility study that the previous Executive had funded to a firm commitment to construction with a clear timetable for delivery. I very much regret that that consensus has not survived into the current parliamentary session. Frankly, I think that the minister's uncharacteristically intemperate comment to Mike Rumbles would have been rather better applied to his own strategy.
I note that both the SNP and Tory amendments refer to "incremental" improvements. That is all very well; of course I welcome the additional services from Aberdeen to the south and the modest improvements in journey times, but a step change from that is required if we are to realise the Aberdeen crossrail project. Given the Conservatives' previous support for crossrail, it is regrettable that we could not get a consensus, at least among the Opposition parties, by agreeing to the much clearer statement of support for the project that Alison McInnes's motion represents. The Aberdeen crossrail project needs that kind of clear support if we are to create the necessary political momentum.
Like Mike Rumbles, I am surprised that both amendments refer to Laurencekirk station. The new station is a welcome development indeed, but no one has ever understood Laurencekirk station to be part of the crossrail project. As Lewis Macdonald said in his excellent speech, the reference in the Government amendment to the impact that additional stops will have on journey times misses the point in what strikes me as a worrying way. With full realisation of crossrail, that would not be relevant.
Congestion in Aberdeen is a very real problem. The eventual completion—the project has been delayed by the minister—of the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the improvements at Haudagain that will now only follow the AWPR's construction will also require the development of Aberdeen crossrail if we really want to tackle congestion.
People travelling into the city from the shire need to have a realistic alternative to the car. For too many people, no such alternative exists at the moment. A frequent through service every 15 minutes from Inverurie to Stonehaven—with the potential for new city destinations and even for the eventual extension of the line north into the minister's constituency—would give commuters a real alternative. The increments should involve starting with a half-hourly service and moving to a service every 15 minutes. The Scottish Government's approach seems to be far more "incremental" than that.
The crossrail plans were put in place to address the fact that Aberdeen as a city, and the north-east as a region, are not as well served by rail links as other parts of the country are. Both the First Minister and the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change know that well, so it is very surprising that the crossrail project has not been given greater priority. We know that there is no shortage of demand for increased rail services. When a similar facility was put in place in Edinburgh, there was a 72 per cent increase in passengers. I am sure that the Aberdeen crossrail project would be equally successful.
Congestion takes a heavy toll on business in Aberdeen. Even with the necessary road improvements—which are now further away than was originally envisioned—only progress on crossrail can provide us with the hope that we can tackle the increased congestion that is being predicted. It is self-evident that crossrail is crucial if we are to aspire to a sustainable transport policy for our part of Scotland, but it is also vital to the economy of the city and the shire. I was surprised by Maureen Watt's comments on the economic impact of the project, given that it would increase tourism in the area. Given the Administration's emphasis on the importance of oil and gas, surely it should agree that the oil and gas capital of Europe should have the necessary transport infrastructure.
I hope that Parliament will support the motion in the name of Alison McInnes. The Scottish Government should reconsider its approach by pledging its full support to the Aberdeen crossrail project, which it knows the north-east needs.
We come now to closing speeches.
I am not sure whether to regard the Liberal Democrats as brave or foolhardy in their choice of subject matter for this morning's debate, given their record on transport in recent years. From the first major transport announcement of the Lib Dem-Labour Administration—in which Nicol Stephen was a minister—which cancelled the previous Conservative Government's north-east transport infrastructure programme, which had included a bypass for Keith and improvements to the rail network, to Tavish Scott's handling of the Aberdeen western peripheral route, the Liberal Democrats have not exactly won the acclaim of the resident north-east population for their approach to infrastructure provision.
However, I welcome the opportunity to debate the future of Aberdeen crossrail in what has been a useful discussion this morning. I absolutely agree with Alison McInnes that crossrail services are a key transport priority for the north-east, with the potential to bring significant economic and environmental benefits. I was concerned that the project did not appear as such in the STPR when that review was finally published in December last year.
Realistically, as Nestrans has made clear in its regional transport strategy, improved rail services can be delivered only incrementally and in a manner that capitalises on existing planned investment, so we have highlighted that fact in our amendment. In my opinion, the Lib Dem motion fails to acknowledge that point and it fails to refer to the recent timetable improvements that are already providing better services to people who live to the north of the city.
Will the member give way?
No. I do not have time to take an intervention.
The motion also fails to acknowledge the proposals in the STPR to improve services north and south of the city, which are a key part of securing better crossrail services—improvements that include the reopening of the station at Laurencekirk.
Like the Lib-Dems, we too would like to see new train stops at Altens and Newtonhill—and perhaps also at Kittybrewster, although it is quite some way from Foresterhill—but, to be realistic, the case for those new stops has not yet been made. Local people need to work together to build a strong case for opening stations at those locations. I hope that that will happen. On the other hand, a convincing case has already been made for reopening the station at Kintore. Its rapidly growing commuting population is increasingly looking to use the train to avoid congestion at peak times on the A96. Indeed, for a number of years, there has been cross-party support for reopening the station at Kintore. The actions that the Nestrans board approved in December, which could help to move forward rail matters, included on-going feasibility work on reopening the station at Kintore, which we welcome.
We also welcome actions such as the commitment to maximise any opportunities that arise from the December 2008 timetable changes, the launch of a shuttle bus between Dyce and the airport, and a line-speed enhancement study on the Aberdeen to Inverness line. Things are moving forward locally, despite the omission of Aberdeen crossrail from the STPR.
Let there be no doubt that the Scottish Conservatives support the Aberdeen crossrail project. However, we also accept that it is a project of components, each of which is deliverable in stages that have their own benefits. I believe that the reopening of Kintore station can—and should—be the next component in the development of the Aberdeen crossrail. The Scottish Conservatives have been at the forefront of the campaign for that improvement, which has significant support from the local community.
I welcome the minister's words this morning and I acknowledge the Government's commitment to progress improvements to rail services in the north and north-east. I am pleased that the minister has agreed to my request for a meeting with cross-party and community representatives. Although some of my MSP colleagues from the north-east, including the Liberal Democrats, have been a little slow in responding to my invitation to attend the meeting, I hope that it will be helpful in moving things forward and in getting Aberdeen crossrail back on track.
Back in December, I predicted that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Mr Stevenson, would be in the chamber regularly to debate the developments that are in the strategic transport projects review, and those that are not. The review is broad in scope but lacks the detail that members wanted. Parliamentarians expect to see greater detail emerging in the coming months and years.
I understand the feelings of those whose projects were not included in the review. They feel left out, and still believe that their projects should have been included. Across the country, the people whom we represent in our constituencies have been left feeling disappointed. It is therefore completely understandable that Parliament should debate issues such as Aberdeen crossrail over the coming period. It is 10 years since the Scottish Parliament was established—10 years since members of the Scottish Parliament were given the opportunity to debate issues of this nature. I am happy therefore to speak in the debate this morning.
I turn to Alex Johnstone's speech. I was surprised to hear him talk of his support for Aberdeen crossrail. When I first read the amendment in his name, I thought that he had done a good job of hiding support for the project.
We demonstrated our obvious support for the Aberdeen crossrail project by framing our amendment within the Liberal Democrat motion. Our amendment follows on from the opening line of the motion, which declares support for the project.
I am sure that the member agrees that his language in wording the amendment could have been much more consensual. Had he done so, he could have achieved wider support. Anyone reading the amendment would think that the Conservatives are not supportive of the project. As Alison McInnes said, she hoped for a consensual debate, but her hopes were shattered on reading the Conservative amendment. It is not the first time that Mr Johnstone has done that to Ms McInnes: I know and share her pain.
Stewart Stevenson took time to explain the rail enhancements north and south of Aberdeen. I have no doubt that those interventions will improve services to a degree. However, my colleague Lewis Macdonald was absolutely spot on when he said that the Government should not be cutting back on its ambitions for crossrail, but looking at what more it could do. He gave examples of how crossrail could be used to improve the situation in Aberdeen in terms of hospital and university car parking, in addition to providing direct services into the city centre for workers who live in the surrounding area. Richard Baker touched on the subject when he spoke about the important role that crossrail would play in ensuring that people travel safely and quickly into the city centre and across the city to outlying areas.
I turn to Maureen Watt's speech. In terms of the economic crisis, it is the parties in opposition that are setting the agenda. We have brought Government ministers to the chamber and put serious questions to them on the action that the Government is taking. Of course, some of the focus has been on short-term measures, but I am sure that Maureen Watt agrees that Parliament needs also to debate longer-term measures. A number of infrastructure projects, including Aberdeen crossrail, would benefit not only the north-east but the rest of Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, too.
The number 1 priority for the strategic transport projects review is the new Forth crossing, over which doubts still remain. Concern continues to be expressed on costs, how future-proofed the new crossing will be, and where sections of the bridge will be manufactured. On 11 February, I wrote to the minister on that and asked whether some sections of the bridge will be manufactured in China. I look forward to his reply.
Given the current economic crisis, we have to be careful in what we say about infrastructure projects such as Aberdeen crossrail. In looking ahead to where we want to be in the future, issues such as procurement methods, job opportunities for the people of Scotland and skills must be at the front of our minds. We should be doing everything as a Parliament and Government to ensure that that is the case.
As my colleague Des McNulty said, the Labour Party will support the Liberal Democrat motion at decision time, but he was also right to highlight some of our concerns on the wording of the motion, which has constrained its support across the chamber. If the Opposition wants to bring Mr Stevenson to Parliament regularly, perhaps the motions that we lodge should be framed in the widest possible terms.
As Mr McNulty rightly said, the Labour Party's focus is on raising the importance of the need to integrate our transport network not only in our cities but across the country. That is the basis on which we will seek to hold the Scottish Government to account over the coming period. I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of my colleague, Des McNulty.
I welcome John Park's concluding remarks, in which he looked forward to my continuing to come to the chamber. I intend to do that.
The strategic transport projects review is the thread that has run through the debate. Indeed, it is the first objective-led, nationwide, multimodal and evidence-based appraisal process to be undertaken in Scotland. Other jurisdictions are now looking into it—we are at the leading edge of international approaches to transport planning.
The STPR sets out the next 20 years of investment priorities. It will help ministers and Administrations to make informed decisions on future transport spending, subject to the current programme.
Can the minister confirm that capital for rail is rather more possible because Network Rail has borrowing powers, and that there is therefore less potential financial impact on rail than there is on road from the Forth road bridge project?
That is absolutely correct. Indeed, the proposed rail interventions for the north-east are budgeted at some £1.1 billion. If that does not highlight the Government's commitment to improving the rail infrastructure in Aberdeen city and Aberdeenshire, I do not know what will.
I am interested in what the minister said in response to Brian Adam. If Network Rail's regulated asset base is the most effective way of delivering rail infrastructure in Scotland, why has he ruled out using that method for the Borders railway? Why does he prefer to borrow £300 million from the private sector for that project?
We invited Network Rail to compete, which would be the most effective way of reaching a cost-effective solution. In fact, a substantial number of people are interested in building the Borders rail link. It is important that we support the Office of Rail Regulation, which says that we can achieve 30 per cent savings by using different models and approaches, compared with how Network Rail does things. The Office of Rail Regulation has managed to get 19 per cent efficiency savings for the next control period. It is proper that we always consider the most effective ways of doing things on the rail network.
I will now turn to a few of the remarks that members have made. I will deal with as many as I can in the time that is available. Des McNulty criticised the Liberal Democrat motion—I accept that he did so in a mild way—for its parochialism. I am not sure that I agree with him on that. It is proper that the Parliament should debate that in plenary session, if it is asserted that such matters in Aberdeen are important for the whole country.
Des McNulty says that we need a strategy for conurbations. Should local stations be national or local? That is a perfectly good and proper question for him to ask. We need to consider the cross-cut across a range of projects in different transport modes and we must seek to integrate them, which is precisely what we have sought to do in the strategic transport projects review. Will strategic transport projects review 2, when it comes along, do things better than STPR 1? Yes, of course it will, because one can always learn lessons.
On the proposal to consider Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire as a single transport area, that is largely happening already through increased collaboration between the councils. Des McNulty emphasised the need for dialogue. Basically, I agreed with a great deal of what Des McNulty had to say. I do not always do so, but I think that he spoke a great deal of sense today.
Alex Johnstone spoke about timetable issues south of Aberdeen. Of course, we do not control the timetables on the network in Great Britain. We can control what we ask of First ScotRail, but the timetables depend on Network Rail's willingness to co-operate, and indeed that of the other operators that have to access the track, which are controlled by Westminster. We are making good progress; we will try to do more.
Nigel Don pointed out that it is north-east to south-west trains that are important. We are not ruling out more stations. One of the benefits of the incremental approach is that we will build up the case for further stations. Various locations have been mentioned.
Lewis Macdonald once again introduced the issue of the Haudagain roundabout. The work will be done by this Government and people will welcome it, as I have said before. That is not a national project; it is about fixing the local road. The traffic has been transferred off what is currently a trunk road; it is being made a local road. However, we are supporting that project, as we believe we should.
Richard Baker welcomed incremental improvements. I think that he is absolutely right.
I hope that I can borrow John Park's crystal ball, which has clearly been working for him. I would make a little point about the new Forth bridge. We are seeking to ensure that local civil engineering contractors are fully engaged at an early stage so that they understand what opportunities are available for them. Under international law, we cannot mandate who, internationally, is involved, but we are going to give our local people the best possible shot.
This has been a good debate, although not entirely free from rancour. We will see how we vote at 5 o'clock. The commitment by this minister and this Government to improving rail services in the north-east is absolute. No minister before me has used the railway as much as I have. I look forward to continuing to do so, and I support the amendment in my name.
We had hoped that the debate would move the Aberdeen crossrail project on, but thanks to the SNP and the Conservatives, it is clear that the project will be dead in the water if they have their way. I am continually astonished by the excuses for inaction from the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. His amendment, if it is passed, will reaffirm support for Aberdeen crossrail. The problem, however, is that his definition of the Aberdeen crossrail project is flawed—he is redefining crossrail. No longer are we to have, even as a vision—vision from the transport minister?—a 15-minute commuter service running between Inverurie, Aberdeen and Stonehaven.
As for Alex Johnstone, he pretends to support Aberdeen's crossrail project just like the SNP, but he has no vision, either. He is attempting to remove from Alison McInnes's motion any reference to a 15-minute commuter service. The people of the north-east will not forgive Alex Johnstone for failing to support the vision that is necessary to deliver that 15-minute commuter service that we so need.
When the then Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen, originally allocated £400,000 to a detailed feasibility study for Aberdeen, Nestrans was unequivocal in its desire to deliver a project at the earliest opportunity. Councillor Kate Dean, leader of Aberdeen City Council and then chair of Nestrans, said:
"I am delighted that the Minister has today announced two of the steps which progress towards the delivery of an Aberdeen crossrail",
which, she said,
"remains one of our key objectives in our Modern Transport Strategy … we will be looking to deliver at the earliest opportunity."
However, at a briefing for MSPs in November, which Alex Johnstone certainly did not bother to attend, Derick Murray, the director of Nestrans, revealed that the Scottish Government's transport wing, Transport Scotland, had indicated that it was not interested in developing local rail services for the north-east, but was instead focusing on improving services between Aberdeen and Glasgow. Nestrans now seems not to be supporting the original concept of the Aberdeen crossrail. Indeed, it is supporting the SNP Government's so-called incremental approach. It is forgetting all about a commuter service every 15 minutes. Perhaps it is not too much of a surprise to find that the new chair of Nestrans is Councillor Kevin Stewart of the SNP. To quote the Conservative amendment:
"improved rail services can only realistically be delivered on an incremental basis".
So, Alex Johnstone has joined the SNP, flying the white flag early. How pathetic.
Last week, or near enough, the transport minister admitted that he did not take anything out of the strategic transport projects review. That is great, isn't it? He did not put anything into it either.
I never said that.
He said that to me in this Parliament very recently.
Would the member please quote my words? I said no such thing.
You did say such a thing. Please check the Official Report. I am getting a little bit fed up with ministers coming to the Parliament and redefining what they have been saying. The minister certainly failed to include Aberdeen's crossrail. He needs to re-examine his whole approach to the job and he needs, for goodness' sake, to take charge of his department, rather than simply take what is put in front of him by his civil servants.
Whatever happens at the vote tonight, I and the Liberal Democrats are concerned that SNP and Conservative MSPs will be conning the people of the north-east. Yes—conning them. Their amendments certainly pretend to confirm support for Aberdeen's crossrail, but Stewart Stevenson and, more inexplicably, Alex Johnstone—I cannot understand the Conservative position—redefine what they mean by Aberdeen's crossrail project.
I am personally disappointed that we did not hear from Brian Adam in a speech. He had the courage to make an intervention on his own minister, but not the courage to actually participate in the debate.
What nonsense.
I hope that Brian Adam at least asked to speak; perhaps he was prevented from doing so through the choice of SNP speakers. Let us be generous to him.
The SNP and the Tories can fool some of the people some of the time, but I am convinced that they are now both being found out for their inaction and, more important, for their lack of vision.