Rail
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-04165, in the name of Elaine Murray, on rail.
14:40
The Scottish Government often repeats its assertion that it must hold the independence referendum in the second half of this parliamentary session because it made a commitment in that regard to the Scottish people before the election.
I am therefore interested in what the Scottish National Party said in its manifesto—the manifesto on which it was so substantially elected in May last year—about the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme:
“And through Network Rail’s Regulated Asset Base (RAB) we will also take forward the important Edinburgh-Glasgow Improvement programme which will see the electrification of much of the central Scotland rail network and more-frequent and faster journeys between Edinburgh and Glasgow, including services of just over half an hour.”
EGIP was a £1 billion investment in electrifying 200 miles of track. It was an infrastructure programme of major economic significance. Now its budget has been slashed by more than a third and only half the track that was planned for electrification will be electrified between 2014 and 2019.
On 21 June the Minister for Transport and Veterans made a statement to Parliament on the rail 2014 franchise, in which he announced investment of £5 billion in rail infrastructure and said:
“We will announce further progress on EGIP shortly.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2012; c 10419.]
Surely a significant change to a major infrastructure project should have been announced to Parliament. It was not. Instead, the announcement was made on 4 July, six days into the summer recess, via a press release from Transport Scotland entitled, “Full steam ahead for Rail Project”, which boasted of cutting 10 minutes off the journey time between Edinburgh and Glasgow but made no mention of the parts of the project that were being delayed without time limit.
The member mentioned steam. I am just old enough to remember steam on the railways. I also remember when the low level at Glasgow Queen Street station was electrified. Now we have the electrification of the high level, from Queen Street station to Edinburgh. Is not that fantastic news?
It is not quite the fantastic news that we were promised in the SNP manifesto, is it?
In the press release from Transport Scotland, the minister was quoted as saying:
“I am very excited to be announcing the details of the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme, which will take train journeys on Scotland’s busiest commuter route into the next generation.”
He was not so excited that he felt the need to share the details with the Scottish Parliament, perhaps because the programme was a shadow of its former self.
For some time after the announcement, Transport Scotland’s website displayed the original scheme. The website has now been amended and mentions only Cumbernauld, Springburn, Haymarket, Edinburgh gateway, and route clearance. It includes the helpful information that the Cumbernauld electrification is “Coming Soon”—that sounds like some of our trains—despite the minister’s assurances to Patricia Ferguson that the electrification of the Cumbernauld line will be completed in time for the Commonwealth games.
Transform Scotland has analysed what has been left out. In addition to the electrification of the Stirling-Dunblane-Alloa line, more than a dozen elements of the original scheme are missing. Plans for six electric trains per hour between Edinburgh and Glasgow have been downgraded to four diesel trains, apparently as a result of a review by engineering consultants Jacobs Consulting, which so far is unavailable for public scrutiny.
The manifesto commitment was to more frequent and faster services between Edinburgh and Glasgow, including journeys of just half an hour. The current service offers four trains an hour and journey times of between 50 and 55 minutes. Ten minutes off the fastest of those journeys is still 33 per cent more than half an hour. Therefore, there are two commitments not delivered.
The Minister for Transport and Veterans and Transport Scotland have both stated that nothing has been cut from EGIP, but that elements are being phased in. If that is the case, why is there reluctance in answering parliamentary questions from me and my colleague Margaret McCulloch to indicate when those parts of the programme might be implemented?
It is somewhat worrying that the fate of the projects that are not included in phase 1 of EGIP now seems to be linked to the development of high-speed rail. On 21 June, Mr Brown said:
“Organisations across Scotland have come together to make the case for high-speed rail. We will continue to drive forward work on that while ensuring that EGIP and the other network improvements are compatible with our approach.”
He also said:
“On EGIP, it is right for us to take into account the possible implications of high-speed rail. We have to ensure that we have a credible and worked-out proposal to make to the UK Government”
and that he would
“take some time and come back with a fuller explanation of what we are doing with EGIP.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2012; c 10419, 10426.]
“Some time” turned out to be 13 days, and the fuller explanation of what the Government was doing was that it was cutting EGIP.
The minister also advised my colleague Mark Griffin in an answer to a written question that
“Further elements of EGIP including the Croy turnback, the electrification of Stirling, Dunblane and Alloa services ... can be delivered in future phases.”
The phrase that was used was “can be”, not “will be”. He also said:
“The timing and specification of future phases will be dependent on other considerations including High Speed Rail”.—[Official Report, Written Answers, 20 August 2012; S4W-08927.]
The United Kingdom Government’s plan for high-speed rail is for the connection to the west midlands to be opened by 2026 and the lines to Manchester and Leeds to be opened by 2032-33. That is hardly an optimistic timetable for the rest of EGIP if it is connected to high-speed rail. Incidentally, if Scotland became an independent country, I do not think that the rest of the UK would be particularly interested in investing up to Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Will the member give way? [Interruption.]
Order.
My constituents in Cumbernauld are absolutely delighted to see that the line to their town will be electrified.
The member suggests that it is impossible for rail connections between sovereign states to exist. Why then do we see such rail connections across Europe?
The rails will still continue to exist, but why would the UK Government invest in a rail service that benefits another country?
According to a written answer that was supplied to me, senior officers in both Network Rail and ScotRail were aware that Transport Scotland was undertaking a review, but there seems to have been no consultation with other partners, such as Stirling Council, which had already invested significantly in planning for the necessary infrastructure. Officers from Stirling Council had met Network Rail only the day before the announcement of the reduced programme. It is clear that neither organisation was advised that it was wasting its time. If the chief executive of Network Rail, Dave Higgins, had been, as was said, “aware” of Transport Scotland’s review and had been involved in reviewing its findings, he did not seem to have passed that information on to others in the organisation.
The Jacobs report has not yet been published, but I have been informed that it will be “published in due course”. Damien Henderson, a journalist for The Herald, was told in answer to a freedom of information request that the report is still in draft form. An important decision was apparently made on the basis of a draft report that cannot yet be published.
Questions that I have asked about how the savings were calculated have not been answered on the basis that the information is commercially sensitive. Therefore, we cannot even know why cutting the programme in half has saved only one third of the budget. I wonder whether the revised programme has been subject to a Scottish transport appraisal guidance—STAG—appraisal.
The Scottish Government will doubtless blame Westminster cuts, but the financing of EGIP was to have been via a 30-year low-interest-rate loan from Network Rail against its asset base. If the schemes that are not included in the phase in question are to go ahead later, I presume that another loan will have to be negotiated at a higher price.
Iain McMillan of the Confederation of British Industry stated to Rail magazine that, as the original project would have improved journey times and environmental performance, he would have expected the CBI to be consulted if major changes were planned, but it was not. Liz Cameron of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce expressed her concern that EGIP’s potential to be transformational may fail to be realised, and the SCC has added its voice to those of Transform Scotland and the regional transport partnerships calling for a rethink.
The member seems to have neglected two particular statements that have been made. The leader of Glasgow City Council said:
“this announcement is good news for the city.”
The transport convener of the City of Edinburgh Council said:
“We welcome this investment in public transport which will greatly improve the journey from Glasgow to Edinburgh”.
The member did not mention those statements.
I checked with my council colleagues, who provided statements, but nobody had shown them the entire press release or explained to them that half of the project was being cut.
Some questions need to be answered. Transport Scotland published the Scottish ministers’ high-level output specification on 21 June. At that time, ministers had a statement of funds available. Did they know that EGIP was going to be cut and, if so, why was no statement made to Parliament in advance of recess? What is the Government’s current timescale for the Stirling-Alloa-Dunblane electrification programme and the extension northwards to Perth and Aberdeenshire? Is there any connection between the Office of Rail Regulation turning down a request for a delay in loan repayment and the cuts to the EGIP programme? Did the Government overpromise on the EGIP programme? Perhaps the minister will enlighten us in his contribution to this debate.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the announcement on 4 July 2012 by the Minister for Transport and Veterans of a revised Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP); believes that this announcement should have been made first to the Parliament rather than via a press release during the summer recess; believes that this reflects the lack of consultation and information available on the revised EGIP; understands that, among the changes, vital elements have been lost, including the cancellation or reduction of the planned electrification of various sections of railway lines, which would have improved journey times and lessened the environmental impact, as part of an overall cut of £350 million; calls on the Scottish Government to confirm who took the final decision to reduce EGIP’s budget and explain the rationale behind the changes to the original plans; recognises the concerns that have been expressed by trade unions and the business community regarding the cuts to EGIP and believes that this decision runs counter to the Scottish Government’s stated aim of investing in infrastructure to stimulate the economy and to the SNP’s 2011 manifesto commitment on EGIP, and expresses concern that, as a result of these changes, businesses, passengers and areas will lose out.
14:51
Since the funding of rail was devolved to the Scottish ministers in 2006, there has been major investment in the rail network and its services. The Government has presided over the opening of two new lines, seven new stations and the procurement of 38 new trains.
New powers have also brought new investment, and people across Scotland have seen the benefit, with new rail services providing access to jobs, education and leisure. Performance has also increased to record levels. The past four weeks have seen the best levels of punctuality and reliability on the Scottish network since 2005. Journey times are improving across the network and ScotRail passenger satisfaction rates are consistently well above the average in Great Britain, although it would be the first to say that more is to be done.
Good performance and record investment since 2007 have also stimulated a resurgence in rail travel in Scotland over the past few years. Indeed, passenger numbers have increased by 30 per cent since the start of the ScotRail franchise. That is good news for the economy, the environment and the travelling public. However, sustained improvement and growth need sustained investment in the future. As I announced in June in the chamber, we will be investing £5 billion in rail between 2014 and 2019 to support the franchise passenger services and to enable Network Rail to operate, maintain and enhance the network.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, not just now.
In that statement to the chamber, I committed to continuing the delivery of EGIP and ensuring that it and other network improvements are compatible with our approach to high-speed rail, and I said that further progress on EGIP would be announced shortly. In fact, EGIP has already delivered key infrastructure improvements at Haymarket tunnel and new services on the Edinburgh to Glasgow via Shotts line.
Will the member give way on that point?
Earlier this year, Network Rail began advanced route-clearance works and the redevelopment of Haymarket station in readiness for increased passenger numbers and full-route electrification.
Will the minister take an intervention, or will he just keep talking?
Order.
In December 2012, new Edinburgh to Glasgow via Carstairs services will be introduced. Delivered a year earlier than expected, the new services respond to local demand for new links between Edinburgh and Glasgow from Carstairs and Carluke, and they will deliver a step change in passenger capacity on that important route between our two major cities, with improved connectivity opportunities to the south and west of Glasgow.
On 4 July, I announced that we will electrify the core Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk line, deliver the new Edinburgh gateway station with connection to Fife line services, and deliver the electrification of the Cumbernauld lines in time for the Commonwealth games. That represents a £650 million package of investment in Scotland’s railway infrastructure, rolling stock and service provision, which will enable hundreds of new jobs to be created and provide a major boost to the wealth of Scotland and to its long-term economic sustainability.
Will the member give way?
I will give way to Patricia Ferguson, but perhaps she could say where the £350 million that the Labour Party says that it intends to reinstate would come from.
The minister knows of my long-standing interest in this project. I recently had occasion to write to Network Rail about its consultation process on EGIP. It promised me that it would have consultation events in my constituency in the summer, and then it promised that it would have them in the autumn. However, neither of those things has happened.
The letter that I have received from Network Rail notes the announcements by the minister and says:
“in partnership with Transport Scotland, Network Rail is working through the detail of what this will mean to the scope of works and associated timescales that we had previously consulted on.
This work is now underway and will take a number of months to conclude.”
Can the minister tell us what the up-to-date timescale for that work is?
There was no answer to the question about where the £350 million would come from. I note the member’s previous intervention in relation to this—[Interruption.]
Order.
Her previous contribution was to propagate scare stories about Glasgow station closures that never happened.
On the point about the EGIP timetable—
Will the minister take an intervention on that point?
The minister has made it clear that he is not taking an intervention at the moment.
On the point that I have just mentioned, we have already started progress towards EGIP and will continue that progress according to the previous timetable of trying to achieve all the improvements by 2016.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No. I have taken one from the member already.
The Jacobs review identified a new opportunity to deliver increased capacity by lengthening platforms as part of the Queen Street station redevelopment. Transport Scotland is now working in partnership with Glasgow City Council, Network Rail and Buchanan Partnership to make that a reality. As well as delivering faster, better electrified services for passengers, that opportunity will also bring considerable savings, which we need to identify, and will meet passenger demand well into the next decade.
We are determined to ensure that the rail programme is affordable and that we continue to drive the best value out of every pound that we invest. We must, therefore, take advantage of every opportunity to maximise the investment in any way that we can. I remind Parliament that, in my June statement, which has been mentioned, I committed the Government to sustained increases in rail investment until the end of the decade. Any savings that are made will, of course, increase opportunities for investment elsewhere in the rail network.
The Jacobs report, on which these developments are based, was published today and copies are available in the Scottish Parliament information centre. [Interruption.] I am sure that Labour members will welcome that when they speak subsequently. I hope that the report will put to rest any concerns or speculation over the future of EGIP.
In the past few days, I have been contacted by a large number of constituents from Winchburgh who are concerned that the new project there, which is to create several hundred jobs, will be scuppered because the railway station is no longer to be opened. Can the minister tell me when Winchburgh station will open?
I am not sure whether the member is saying that Winchburgh railway station is not going to open or whether he is asking when it will open. If he talked to his local council—in particular, the deputy leader of the council, with whom I am in correspondence—
When will it open?
Order.
Perhaps if he did so, he would get a better idea of the fact that that proposal will come forward from the council. We have said to it consistently—
When will it open?
Well, it depends on when the proposal comes forward from the council. Perhaps the member should talk to his Labour colleagues on the council.
The timing and specification of future activities will be dependent on other considerations, including high-speed rail. It is only natural that we will take into account possible developments for high-speed rail—it would be foolish of us not to do that. That is important to the EGIP programme and it also relates to wider capacity and affordability issues.
The Government is also committed to a continuing programme of electrification of the Scottish rail network following EGIP. Mention has been made of the Stirling, Dunblane and Alloa services.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I must make some progress and I do not have much time left. I am in my last minute.
The minister has 30 seconds left.
I have mentioned that we will progress 100km of electrification every year for the next five years over and above that to which we have committed within EGIP. My officials are currently exploring the delivery of options including the electrification of the Dunblane and Alloa services.
Our record of investment stands comparison with anybody’s. The Transform Scotland report, which was published this morning, says that progress is now being made in the United Kingdom at a greater rate than in Scotland. However, the figures show that we are investing £624 per head as compared with the UK, which is currently investing £324 per head. We also have £5 billion of investment planned over the next five years, including the Borders rail project, the Airdrie to Bathgate project and the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine project, which I was proud to initiate as the leader of the council and which, in its first year, attracted 400,000 new passengers. That is a record of which to be proud.
I move amendment S4M-04165.2, to leave out from “notes” to end and insert:
“welcomes the substantial increase in the number of people using rail; recognises that punctuality and reliability are currently at record levels; notes the record investment in rail since 2007, including new lines between Airdrie and Bathgate and Stirling and Kincardine; also welcomes the announcements of 21 June and 4 July 2012 by the Minister for Transport and Veterans of a £5 billion programme of future investment in rail, including the new Borders Railway, and details of the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP); further recognises that EGIP will bring faster journeys, new trains, enhanced capacity, a new station at Edinburgh Gateway, improvements to Edinburgh Haymarket station and previously unplanned improvements to Glasgow Queen Street; further welcomes the commitment to future electrification of the network through EGIP and the High Level Output Specification, and believes that this announcement is fully consistent with the Scottish Government’s stated aim of investing in infrastructure to stimulate the economy and that, as a result, businesses, passengers and areas will benefit.”
14:58
I thank the Labour Party for bringing this business to the chamber. When the Labour Party lodges a motion for debate, it is usually my job to find an amendment that will scupper it completely, but on this occasion its thinking is so close to mine that I can think of no option other than to support the motion. That judgment is based on the fact that there is so much information in the public domain that demonstrates the case for the motion that it is hard to think any other way.
After I had read the motion, the first thing that I did was look to see what has been published in the press over the past few years. I found an article on the website, The Glaswegian, which was published on 16 June 2011 and has the clear headline: “Train services between Glasgow & Edinburgh in line for billion pound transformation”. The article states:
“A billion pound investment plan which could double the number of services between Glasgow and Edinburgh has been unveiled.”
As there was no retraction by the minister, Keith Brown, I presume that the information must have been accurate.
Just over a year later, further announcements in the press appear to indicate that the Government has reconsidered the scale of its ambition. The minister’s interview on the radio this morning was a good deal more enlightening than much of what has been said in recent press coverage. Keith Brown tells us consistently that we spend much more on rail services in Scotland than is spent in the rest of the UK. He told us that the Government plans to invest £632 per capita in Scotland, compared to £326 per capita in the rest of the UK. I congratulate him on that ambition, but it would be a good deal more consistent if he did not go on—as he did in that interview and as he has done at any other opportunity—to complain about the fact that the UK Government is causing him to scale back his plans.
The sad truth about the Government’s modus operandi is that, consistently, on a series of issues, it raises expectations, announces projects and bathes in the glory, then slashes the budget, dashes the hopes and blames the Tories. That scheme has now been repeated so often that surely the people of Scotland are beginning to see through it. The promises that were made for the Edinburgh to Glasgow railway genuinely raised expectations and hopes that the kind of economic development that is associated with rail projects might be extended across a much greater area and that Scotland’s economy as a whole would benefit. Now, we have discovered that that is simply not the case.
In the brief time allowed to me, I will mention a number of points that have been raised so far so that we might find answers later in the debate.
The reference to high-speed rail as a key part of the investment strategy has always been a red herring. The timescales that are associated with delivering high-speed rail, should it progress, have always been vastly different from the timescales for the Scottish rail project. As a result, I will not believe anyone who suggests that one is dependent on the other.
Will the member give way?
The minister will get the chance to speak again later, I am sure.
The issue that has been raised regarding high-speed rail, which is rather obvious to me and to Labour members, is that, should Scotland become independent in the interim, the possibility of high-speed rail reaching Scotland will be vastly diminished. That is based on the simple assumption that if an independent English Government decided to bring high-speed rail to its northern cities of Manchester or Leeds, it would be the job of an independent Scottish Government to consider how it might connect to that rail network. As part of the United Kingdom, we have an opportunity to work as a single national unit and to make decisions that are based on what is best for the whole country. Never has there been a better example of why infrastructure investment is better handled on a UK-wide basis than it could ever be if we were two separate countries.
The Government and, in particular, the transport minister have been playing games on the issue. They have raised expectations in the hope that they might capitalise on the disappointment. I support the Labour Party motion and, although my reasons might be slightly different from theirs, my heart will be with the Labour members in the vote.
15:04
I welcome today’s debate and thank the Labour Party at least for introducing the subject, although I must say that I do not recognise the picture that Labour members have painted.
I will come back to that in a second, but first I must say that it was interesting to hear from Alex Johnstone that the likely ambition of his party in government in England, whether through the prism of the UK or after independence, is that high-speed rail will only ever reach Leeds or Manchester. This might come as news to Mr Johnstone, but England actually extends much further than that. What about cities such as Carlisle or Newcastle? It is interesting to hear that only Scotland would benefit from cross-border high-speed rail. What about the people of England who want to come to Scotland by high-speed rail? The project will benefit Scotland and England.
Indeed, but surely the member must accept that, if he wishes to have direct influence over decisions that are made on what happens south of the border, the United Kingdom Government is the only medium to achieve that intervention.
It is amazing that a channel tunnel was built by the Governments of France and the United Kingdom. Cross-border relations will go on. It is almost as if the member is suggesting that the Scottish Government will not step up and pay for the construction of high-speed rail. Mr Johnstone should know that, even in a devolved context, it has already said that it is prepared to pay its share, so let us hear no more nonsense about high-speed rail.
EGIP is a project that has great potential to deliver for my Cumbernauld and Kilsyth constituency as there are three stations in that area on the lines that stand to be electrified. That will lead to vastly improved transport times to Scotland’s two major cities. We will see the Cumbernauld line electrified by 2014—I do not know if that is soon enough for Dr Murray, but it is absolutely fantastic news for the people who I represent.
I was disappointed that Jim Hume’s amendment was not taken for debate because he was trying to suggest somehow that only Edinburgh and Glasgow stand to benefit from the investment. I can tell him that the people in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth will benefit, too, so I do not recognise—and neither will my constituents—the picture of doom that has been painted about EGIP. It is good news.
Will the member take an intervention?
Only if you are brief, Mr Smith.
I will do my best, Mr Hepburn.
Given that good news, is the member not astonished that the Minister for Transport and Veterans did not take the opportunity to come to Parliament to announce the cuts, especially as he had hot-footed it to Parliament to make the announcement about the investment?
We always need some good news in the summer, Mr Smith.
I do not recognise the suggestion that the Government’s announcement is somehow the cancellation of the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme. The scheme was designed to be implemented in phases—that was clearly set out in the infrastructure investment plan. The announcement is the first phase of EGIP.
Dr Murray picked up a point relating to a question that was answered by Keith Brown. The answer referred to the timing of further phases being predicated on wider capacity and affordability issues. That last point about affordability is important because, time and again, SNP members hear from all those around us in the chamber—although primarily from the Labour members—who demand extra additional expenditure without suggesting where that money should come from.
The SNP’s manifesto set out where the money was coming from for the whole programme—a low-interest-rate loan from Network Rail against its asset base. That is what was going to fund it and what still could.
It still will—that is how the project is being funded.
There is no recognition whatsoever from the member that it is not only capital budgets that are being slashed by the Tory-Liberal Administration—and would have been slashed by the Scottish Labour Party—but revenue budgets. When someone takes out a loan, they have to pay that back. Where would that money have come from?
Neil Findlay rose—
Presiding Officer, can I give way to Mr Findlay?
Jamie Hepburn is in his last seconds; he is closing now.
Mr Findlay, unfortunately I am unable to give way; I would have gladly done so.
The project has been welcomed across the board in central Scotland. People who live there do not recognise the picture that the Labour Party has painted.
15:08
I rise to support the Labour motion. I have to say from the outset that, as one of the members who were in the chamber to hear from the Minister for Transport and Veterans on the future of rail in Scotland on 21 June, I am disappointed that there was no mention of the reduced Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme. The minister was even asked directly by my colleague Patricia Ferguson whether the project was on track to be delivered by 2016. His answer was:
“we will take some time and come back with a fuller explanation of what we are doing with EGIP.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2012; c 10426.]
When the minister gave that answer, I do not think that anyone in the chamber expected that “taking some time” meant waiting 13 days until Parliament was in recess, and that the “fuller explanation” was a £350 million cut to the programme. The chamber was the right place to make that announcement, particularly given the minister’s response to questions, and I am again disappointed that it has taken a Labour debate for the minister to come back to the chamber to answer questions on the project cuts.
We often hear the term shovel-ready project in the chamber. After extensive public consultation, and preparatory work such as design, compulsory purchase orders and bridge heightening, EGIP could have been described as a shovel-ready project. Why, then, when the Government has an opportunity to invest £1 billion in capital spending in Scotland without impacting on its own capital budget, has the minister decided to cut the project by more than a third? Let us not forget, as mentioned earlier, that the project is being funded by borrowing against Network Rail’s regulated asset base—
We hear it again. Clearly, the money would not have come directly out of the capital budget, but it would have to come out of the revenue budget, which has been cut as well. Does the Labour Party not recognise that?
What Mr Hepburn fails to recognise is that before the election his Government had a full budget settlement and a fully costed manifesto. It promised EGIP to the people of Scotland and is failing to deliver.
That £1 billion of spending, from borrowing against the asset base, could have boosted the Scottish economy right now. Reports today ask whether EGIP is being cut because the level of debt accrued by the Government is becoming unmanageable.
How many jobs will the new scheme create compared with the previous scheme? Why should the people of Scotland accept reduced ambition after the Government has stated that its aim is to invest in infrastructure to stimulate the economy? The Scottish National Party was committed to EGIP in its 2011 manifesto and, in particular, to
“more-frequent and faster journeys between Edinburgh and Glasgow”.
The business community, trade unions and independent public transport commentators have all expressed concerns about the cutbacks. Regardless of the SNP’s promises, the cutbacks continue.
I mentioned earlier that there has been extensive public consultation, the preparation of compulsory purchase orders, and station and bridge heightening design work, among other technical aspects. Stirling Council has commented publicly about the large amount of money and the hundreds of its staff hours that have been wasted by cutbacks to the programme that affect its area. Is the minister in a position today to tell the chamber the abortive cost of reducing the programme by £350 million?
I would like to talk about my area. The loss of electrification beyond Cumbernauld via the diversionary Falkirk Grahamston loop is of massive concern locally. I fail to understand who Mr Hepburn spoke to in Cumbernauld who commented positively on the cutbacks, because that is certainly not what I am hearing. The director of CBI Scotland, lain McMillan, has criticised the failure to electrify beyond Cumbernauld as it means losing an alternative route for when there is a blockage on the main line.
I would be grateful if you would come to a close, Mr Griffin.
Cumbernauld commuters association has expressed its dismay at the cuts, which will impact negatively on the people and commuters of Cumbernauld.
15:13
I am positive about the improvements that are coming to the main Glasgow to Edinburgh line. We should remember that there are really four lines linking the two cities. Two of those are already electrified, including most recently the line via Airdrie and Bathgate. That line starts in Helensburgh or Milngavie and runs through Glasgow Queen Street low level and the east end of Glasgow, directly to Edinburgh. There are four trains an hour and it is not as busy as the Queen Street high-level trains. It is the route that I use every day and I am grateful to the Government for putting it in place. In fact, that improvement has been much welcomed throughout the east end of Glasgow. If members look at my Facebook page, they will see a photograph of me on the first train in 2010.
It is positive that Dalmarnock station is being given a major upgrade in preparation for the Commonwealth games; I come past it regularly and it is coming along very well. Longer term, it will leave a legacy, after the Commonwealth games, for getting to the velodrome, the indoor sports arena and Celtic park.
There are improvements on a much grander scale at Waverley station, which a number of us use regularly. Although those are taking some time, we can already see a greatly improved station coming along.
Going back to Queen Street station, it is clear that the high-level link via Falkirk offers the fastest and most popular route to Edinburgh. Anyone who goes into Queen Street station can see that the major constraint is the shortness of the platforms in comparison with those in Glasgow Central, with any other major terminus in Scotland and probably with most rail stations throughout Europe. Queen Street station has incredibly short platforms. Rather than running more and more trains, it is clearly desirable to run longer trains with greater capacity, which is what happens in most European countries. I have sometimes wondered whether we could extend the platforms northwards into the hill, but I have always assumed that that would be horribly expensive and virtually impossible. It seems that a solution has now been found, which would involve demolishing part of the Millennium hotel extension and extending the platforms south towards George Square. If that solution is feasible, it is very much to be welcomed.
When it comes to expanding and improving the rail network, I can have as many dreams as the next person. There are still a few more speeches to come, and I am sure that many members will give us their wish lists of what they would like to do with the rail system in this country.
Was EGIP’s inclusion in the SNP manifesto just a dream? Was it included as part of a “wish list”?
Over the past four or five years, we have seen a higher proportion of the SNP’s manifesto being delivered than we saw of the manifesto of the previous Administration under Labour.
We all have dreams, we all have visions and we all want things to happen. One of my visions is of a metro line under Glasgow that would link Glasgow royal infirmary, Queen Street station, Glasgow Central and the Southern general hospital. That would be a fantastic link for people, but such a line is a long, long way ahead.
We must live in the real world—Labour must learn to do that, too. Money is tight and we cannot spend as profligately as Gordon Brown did. We must be realistic about our money and our choices. Choices have to be made, and I completely accept that work should be done in phases. We want pretty much all of the Scottish rail network to be electrified—I hope that none of us will be satisfied until that happens—but it will not be done in one fell swoop.
If the minister would like one little suggestion from me on something that we could do on the rail network, it would be to electrify the 1.8 miles of line across central Glasgow that links the electrified lines north and south of the Clyde. Currently, empty electric trains have to be shunted across the river, which I suspect is not a great idea.
Regardless of all the wish lists that members might have, none of that should detract from the tremendous good news that we are hearing. Electrification of the Glasgow to Edinburgh line has been a dream that many of us thought would never happen. It is tremendous that it is now coming.
15:17
EGIP is—or was—probably the biggest rail investment programme in a generation, but the minister’s announcement in July saw £350 million being diverted from those plans, which is deeply worrying for the rail industry and commuters alike. Indeed, senior figures in the industry are questioning the work that Jacobs Consultancy carried out. They claim that the consequences of the U-turn have not been properly thought out.
Jamie Hepburn mentioned that the EGIP project was not just about Edinburgh and Glasgow. The transport minister originally promised additional capacity for Fife and the north-east of Scotland, half-hourly services between Alloa and Glasgow, and reduced journey times between Dunblane and Edinburgh. The programme, which was cited by ministers as evidence of their capital investment-led economic growth strategy, was also intended to provide an additional two trains an hour on the main Glasgow to Edinburgh line and to electrify that route, along with lines to Stirling and Dunblane. The project was not just about Edinburgh, Glasgow and Cumbernauld. Those promises have been shelved, along with around half of the electrification programme.
Major projects such as the Dalmeny chord, which would allow Glasgow trains to switch on to Fife lines outside Edinburgh and would give access to a new tram interchange at Gogar, have been shelved, alongside the plans for grade-separated junctions at Winchburgh and Greenhill, as has been mentioned.
We hear that the Government has based its U-turn on the findings of the Jacobs report, which had not even been completed, let alone published, at the time of the announcement back in July. That report—which the Scottish Government has denied was about cost cutting—has become available to us only today. EGIP represented a major opportunity to improve the rail experience for people in wider central Scotland; instead, it has become an example of policy making on the hoof.
Just last week, a Transform Scotland report branded SNP transport priorities as being
“suited neither to tackle the environmental crisis nor the need for development of ‘sustainable economic growth’.”
That damning picture of sustainable transport in Scotland confirms what we feared: that the Government has done little to encourage people to use public transport and is still failing to create a cohesive and sustainable transport system across the whole of Scotland.
If the member believes that our level of investment is failing to support public transport while it is at twice the level of investment in the rest of the United Kingdom, what does that say about the Liberal Democrat commitment to public transport in England and Wales?
There are some great plans for England and Wales.
We are talking about the promises that were given by the Scottish Government—promises that are being broken. When the revised EGIP was announced in July—
Will the member give way?
I am sorry. I do not have time; I only have a minute or so left.
The minister said that the revised EGIP was due to changed circumstances, which meant that the benefits of the project could still be delivered at a far lower cost. The minister will be in no doubt about the effect that mismanagement has had on the industry, with fears that the mix of diesel and electric services in the central belt will lead to worsening train delays on Scotland’s busiest routes.
People who live outside Edinburgh and Glasgow deserve the same standards of rail provision. The minister must commit to delivering EGIP in full, or explain to Parliament why a decision of such strategic importance to the rail network in Scotland was made in a cloak-and-dagger style, with little or no consultation outside the ministerial towers.
EGIP was boldly hailed as being on time and on budget seven years before its scheduled completion in 2016. However, nearly three years later, confidence in the Scottish Government’s ability to manage and deliver this important project must be called into question. The Scottish Government has made a pig’s ear of it and it is utterly mind blowing that £350 million may be diverted from one of Scotland’s biggest transport projects because of financial ineptitude.
This must be the final wake-up call for the Government. It must stop dithering and commit to a sustainable transport agenda that modernises our railways and boosts the standard and regularity of public transport. The SNP Government is stuck in the dark ages if it seriously believes that people simply want more roads.
15:21
Although I welcome Labour’s motion on rail investment, I am frankly surprised at its content. It appears, quite simply, to be inaccurate and misleading. Which part of the 2011 infrastructure development plan has not been understood? That plan estimated that the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme would cost £1.1 billion, and specified that the programme would be delivered in phases. That seems to be perfectly clear to me. Why, then, is there astonishment when the current investments come in at £650 million? That forms part of a £5 billion programme of investment in Scotland’s railways for 2014 to 2019.
Is Colin Beattie saying that CBI Scotland, Transform Scotland and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce are all wrong in their interpretation of the cuts that have been made to the scheme?
I repeat that the 2011 infrastructure development plan was quite clear that the programme would be delivered in phases.
The SNP record on rail investment is one of which we can all be proud. Despite the savage budget cuts that were imposed by Westminster—even Labour would agree with us in condemning those cuts—the Government has invested £2.6 billion since 2007 and has funded 30,000 extra seats every day.
More people than ever are using the railways and punctuality and reliability are at record highs. Surely we can all celebrate the successful projects that have already been undertaken, such as the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link, which was delivered on time and on budget in 2011, and is the longest new rail line in Scotland in a century.
What about the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, which opened in 2008? Passenger levels are now at 400 per cent of the original estimates, with some 400,000 passengers. What about the seven new stations that have been completed since 2007? What about investment in 38 new electric trains, which add 7,500 passenger seats to the network each day? What about the Glasgow to Kilmarnock infrastructure improvements, which is a £28 million project that was delivered on time and within budget in 2009?
In 2012-13, the Government will invest more than £1 billion on public transport and other sustainable transport. We are focused on rail transport, but other initiatives complement that investment. Over the past two years, the Government has invested £8 million in electric vehicles and infrastructure, thereby allowing the public sector to purchase around 270 low-carbon vehicles. There is also the £50 million future transport fund, which will support cycling infrastructure, electric vehicle infrastructure and continuation of the freight facilities grant.
Concessionary bus travel has been extended to disabled veterans. I state emphatically that the rumours that are spread periodically about abolition of concessionary bus travel are complete nonsense and cause unnecessary worry to our senior citizens.
In 2011, the Government awarded grants through the Scottish green bus fund that amounted to £4.4 million, which allowed five bus operators to purchase 48 new vehicles. In 2012, a further £1.8 million will allow the purchase of a further 26 new vehicles.
There are also the new projects that are coming along as part of rail 2014, including the £30 million station investment fund to build new stations and improve existing stations, £100 million to secure and develop the sleeper services, and £0.25 million for wi-fi on trains, primarily between Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Will the member give way?
Yes.
Be very brief, Mr Hume.
Colin Beattie has mentioned many projects. What is his view on the EGIP project and the fact that it has been changed so drastically?
Be very brief, please, Mr Beattie.
I do not recognise the changes that the member seems to think have occurred to the EGIP project. It is clearly being delivered in phases.
There is every proof that the Government is committed to public transport in general and to rail transport in particular.
15:26
The cancellation of EGIP beyond the central line is very unwelcome. Stirling and Alloa had an economic development plan that included that electrification as one of its pillars, and it would have led to new and increased service opportunities between Alloa, Dunblane and Glasgow by reducing journey times by up to 10 minutes, and would have reduced journey times by up to five minutes between Dunblane and Edinburgh. The economic aspect of the project was very important.
It is no wonder, in that case, that the minister announced the changes during the recess.
Will Dr Simpson take an intervention?
No. I must make some progress.
Yes, you must.
I know that Jamie Hepburn wants to tell me about Cumbernauld, but I am talking about Stirling and Alloa, which have been seriously affected by the cancellations, and which the minister’s own constituents did not hear about until Parliament was in recess. That means that we had no opportunity to question him. At Westminster, the Speaker would have treated that as complete disrespect for Parliament—which is what it was.
We learn that the revisions have been made on the basis of a highly partial report. Were Stirling Council and Clackmannanshire Council even consulted about the proposed cuts to the programme? I know that Network Rail was not consulted, because I asked. There has been no consultation about an important report that has led to what some members are calling “phasing”, but which I am calling cuts.
What will be the consequences of the disinvestment decision? They are certainly not in the minister’s press release, which was—as is usual for the Scottish National Party—overstated with the headline, “Full steam ahead for Rail Project”. It is not even a quarter steam ahead. I suppose that it could have been worse; the minister might have announced, “Minister’s announcement electrifies Scots”. He did say that he was electrified, but my constituents are certainly not electrified.
There will also be an effect on the minister’s constituents of prolonging the use of diesel trains, which idle for up to 40 minutes at Alloa station, not just in cold weather but at all times of the day and evening. Some of the minister’s and my mutual constituents suffer from a combination of noise and diesel exhaust fumes from which they expected to get relief by 2016. That will not now happen. Does the minister have any proposals to alleviate the sufferings of those constituents? Is he even concerned?
As the minister knows, I continue to pursue the night coal trains issue. His abject failure to tackle that problem with any vigour is a complete mystery to me. He and I both made a mistake in accepting a false basis for the freight trains on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway line, and the consequence for many households has been deep suffering. People such as the McIvers are in despair because they have to suffer levels of night noise of up to 85dB. That has been completely disregarded and the Government has held out no possibility of mitigation. The Government is also using noise thresholds that bear no relationship to the World Health Organization guidelines.
However, let us look on the positive side. Bruce Crawford—who, I am sorry to see, has left the chamber—was able to tell his constituents that the cuts would mean an end to the Polmaise site for the stabling yard. Network Rail has confirmed that and it is good news for the residents of Pike Road in Stirling. Will the minister use his summing-up speech to confirm that that matter has been put to rest once and for all?
Bruce Crawford also made an interesting announcement in his press release: namely, that the electrification programme, when it is eventually phased—I think that that is the current word—will go up as far as Perth. Will the minister tell us whether Bruce Crawford was correct in reporting back from the Cabinet that that will happen? If the electrification is to go to Perth, care should be taken about the extensive and expensive refurbishment at Gleneagles station for the Ryder Cup. I hope that it will take the electrification into account.
You should be drawing to a close, please.
As others have said, this is yet another massive retreat to add to the cancellation by the Government of the Glasgow airport rail link, the Edinburgh airport rail link and other projects. Up the hill, everything looks great, but then we are all taken down the hill to despair.
15:30
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
A £1 billion investment in transport is already happening this year, and £5 billion-worth of investment is to come to the railways from 2014. That is a clear sign from the Scottish Government that we intend to continue our development of a modern railway service for Scotland.
Colleagues have already mentioned the range of developments that are being undertaken, and the minister’s announcement has certainly been welcomed by the political administrations in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Why would they not welcome it? With the £650 million that will go into the Glasgow to Edinburgh service, journey times will be reduced by another 10 minutes, Queen Street station in Glasgow will be redeveloped, the Edinburgh gateway station will enable connections to services to Edinburgh airport, and passengers will be able to conduct their business on the trains using wi-fi technology.
If that is all such good news, where are the massed ranks of the SNP back benchers? I have noticed during the debate that we have Mr Hepburn, Mr Mason and Mr Thompson in the chamber, and we have Mr Finnie and Ms Urquhart, who are sitting in the middle looking as though their puppy has just been run over. Is it not clear that the NATO rebels have been told to come in and defend the indefensible? That is what is happening today.
Mr Findlay has surpassed himself in his capacity for talking rubbish.
The investments will not just benefit the travelling public, but will provide secure employment for the many people in Scotland who will design, test, build and deliver the projects for us. Just about every trade that I can think of will be engaged in delivering the work for us. That is an example of how the Scottish Government is committed to helping Scotland’s economy to get through these difficult times. I welcome the fact that billions are being spent as proactive investment in our transport infrastructure. The job creation that goes with that surely represents a far better way to help our economy to recover from recession.
As we have the minister’s ear for the duration of the debate, I want to offer a few comments on how we might capitalise on the investment commitments that are being made in order to achieve step changes in passenger numbers on the railways in future years.
First, a key area for further action is to develop more park-and-ride facilities, particularly for our bigger traditional towns. Historically, established old towns such as Kilmarnock in my constituency have had little if anything in the way of park-and-ride facilities near their stations because they were just not thought of before the modern era. In order to make the important step change of getting more people out of their cars and on to the trains, I hope that we will think carefully about developing adjacent to them more park-and-ride facilities that can truly compete with the already excellent bus services from Kilmarnock to Glasgow and other towns.
Secondly, ticketing and pricing strategies could be simplified to make it easier for travellers to choose the train. I sometimes feel that the pricing policy, based on the peak and off-peak system on the trains, compared with the much simpler pricing for bus journeys, prevents people from using the trains. If we have more trains and more capacity on offer to the public, perhaps the need for overcomplicated peak and off-peak arrangements will diminish a little.
The minister’s announcement of investment in Scotland’s railways over the coming years is a clear indication that the Government is committed to a modern railway system that is fit for a confident Scotland in the 21st century. We have an excellent track record of supporting Scotland’s infrastructure, and the £5 billion that is coming down the line will help us to deliver that vision. I am happy to support the Government’s amendment.
15:34
It has been an interesting debate. I have to say that I was amazed to hear some of the contributions from SNP back benchers. It was suggested by some that we have imagined the whole thing: John Mason went to great lengths to tell us that we must live in the real world, but he went on to raise expectations with a series of things on his wish list and then encouraged every member in the chamber to come up with their own suggestions, as well.
John Mason also said that we are not talking about cuts, but about hopes for the future. I can tell him that reality bites. The Government party’s back benchers have been wholly inconsistent in this debate. Some have backed the minister by suggesting that the cuts are Westminster cuts, some have gone to the opposite extreme and said that the project is turning out better than expected, while others have said that there is a squeeze on revenue budgets. Colin Beattie, in particular, suggested that since the work is being delivered in phases the money is actually being spent on other things in the meantime. The truth has come out in this debate.
Back in June, there was an opportunity for the minister to deliver the bad news about the project, but 13 days later it was announced in the press that the cuts would take place. The minister missed that opportunity and, in the view of many members, including me, showed a degree of disrespect to Parliament by failing to pass on that message and instead doing it so soon afterwards through the printed media.
In looking in greater detail at some of the claims that have been made, I say that Jamie Hepburn is absolutely right that even if the project was to be funded through the regulated asset base, that borrowing would result in a cost to service that borrowing, which would have an impact on the revenue budgets. However—tell me if I am wrong—interest on borrowing was not invented during the past year; it was possible for the Government to have guessed that it may have to pay for that borrowing. As far as I am aware, interest rates did not even go up in the intervening time. Once again, that was an example of this Government making a promise that it had no intention of keeping.
The Government has scaled back its ambition. It made promises that it broke, as Alex Salmond’s priorities changed and wandered. We have heard from so many members—most eloquently from Richard Simpson—about the impact of the changes on local plans and local development projects, which were predicated on the project going ahead and which had been announced a whole year previously. Across Scotland, there are plans that cannot be carried out because a promise made became a promise broken.
That is an example of what happens when a Government decides to buy popularity but has then to account for it. During the course of the debate, facts have been posited and questions have been put to the minister but, so far, we have heard very few answers. We have heard inconsistency in the excuses that have been given by the Government party back-bench speakers, and there has been a failure to deliver a true explanation for the decision-making process that, first, resulted in the decision and, secondly, resulted in its being announced in such a way that it could not be adequately questioned in Parliament at the time. There are questions to be answered, so I am glad that the minister still has to speak before the conclusion of the debate, because I remain hopeful that some of those questions will be answered.
15:38
Much mention has been made during the debate—perhaps not surprisingly—of the issue of finances. Perhaps I should address that first.
As we have said, there has been a cut of around a third to the Government’s capital budget—around £1 billion in resources. Obviously, such cuts have consequences across Government expenditure. One of the comments surprised me. Mark Griffin—I think—said that the Scottish Government was in danger of incurring unsustainable debt. We had a lecture from Ken Macintosh recently about the meaning of the word “irony”. Is there any irony more rich than the idea that the Westminster Government is worried about irresponsible debt on the part of the Scottish Government—every pound of whose debt is approved by the Westminster Government—when it is standing on a massive debt created by the previous Labour Government and sustained in current times by the coalition Government? That is irony at its worst.
It is worth remembering the departing words of the Labour Party as it left office. In the words of Liam Byrne, the chief secretary to the Treasury, “there’s no money left.”
Will the minister give way?
Perhaps later, but not just now.
That was Labour’s legacy. At the same time, Alistair Darling said he wanted to see cuts deeper than Margaret Thatcher’s. That is what we have been left by the Labour Party. What is perhaps more surprising is Labour’s eagerness to play the role of the alibi to the coalition Government when it imposed some of the cuts that were caused by Labour’s economic legacy.
Obviously, cost is extremely important and we must try to be careful with the costs that we incur. We heard mention of some of the other improvements: £30 million for the Scottish stations investment fund; £100 million for the sleeper services; £60 million for other network improvements; and the Paisley canal line and Corkerhill depot being electrified over the next few months so that, from December 2012, the two-car diesel trains will be replaced by three-car electric trains, which will provide more seats for passengers. I announce that the Conon Bridge railway station will open by February 2013, in time to help mitigate major disruption from the planned resurfacing works on the A9 Kessock Bridge. There is substantial investment.
The Labour Party looks at this Government’s £5 billion investment programme and what we have done on fares—which it criticises, although exactly the same rise of the retail prices index plus 1 per cent took place down south—and says that, if it had the chance, it would take similar decisions. It has to look for something else to criticise. It also tries to wish away the economic legacy that it bequeathed to us.
I will address one or two other points that were made. Richard Simpson made a point about my constituents asking questions about the investment plan. I have fewer constituents to deal with than he does, so perhaps I deal with mine more regularly. The question that I am asked is, “Why was £750 million spent on trams in Edinburgh? Could more not have been done on rail and bus services throughout Scotland with that money?” I get that question much more than the questions that he talked about.
Richard Simpson makes a fair point about the disruption that is caused by the night trains. However, I think he knows that it is unfair of him to comment that I have been involved with that from the start. Neither he nor I was party to the decision, but we have both been involved in trying to resolve it, and I have tried to treat his approaches in good faith and work with him. His comments on that were unfair.
It is clear that our approach on EGIP has been to sustain the bulk of the project. Most people would welcome £650 million as a positive investment in the railways. Members should not forget that that investment will create hundreds of jobs—major, well-paid jobs—in Scotland.
How many more jobs would have been created by the £1 billion scheme?
Let us go back to the £1 billion scheme. I asked where the Labour Party would find the other £350 million. I assume—[Interruption.] I assume that nobody in the Labour Party would take away anything else from the investment programme, because no Labour member has said that they would. If they would not fund that £350 million from the investment programme, I assume that they would fund it from fares. That would mean a 20 per cent increase in fares to everyone in Scotland if the Labour Party had its way. [Interruption.]
Interventions from a sedentary position are not welcome.
I am confident that we have made the right decision on EGIP.
The Jacobs Consulting report was mentioned. It is available for people to have a look at. They can check through its figures. As Network Rail will also say, it is right to analyse the future effectiveness of a project that has been talked about for many years. It has changed over the years, but of course it should be analysed and of course we should have an eye on value for money. The Government does that regularly; I only wish that the previous Conservative and Labour Governments down south had done the same thing.
On that point, why are we still talking about the electrification of the Edinburgh to Glasgow line? The unionists have had control of the chance to electrify that line and dual the A9. They could have anticipated many years ago that the Forth road crossing would reach capacity, but they did nothing. Nobody wants to start from that position. We have to pick up the consequences of the UK Government’s decades of underinvestment in Scotland. That is why we have to take some difficult decisions, and we are making the right decisions.
One of the speakers mentioned wi-fi. It will be available on all trains on the Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk route by the end of 2013 and then between all Scottish cities by early 2014, after which it will be rolled out to other fleets. That shows substantial ambition for the railway in Scotland.
Mention was made of the CBI, a witness that the Labour Party regularly trails out during virtually every debate. That is surprising to some—although perhaps not nowadays. Mention was also made of the trade unions. I met the trade unions yesterday and questions were asked about EGIP. We had a fairly positive discussion—I think that the trade unions would say the same thing—but they were much more concerned about, for example, the indemnification clause that Labour included in the previous franchise, which they find to be a standing affront to their rights.
Whether trade unions or the wider Scottish public, people see the benefits of the SNP’s investment plans. As I mentioned, £5 billion has been committed going forward. The Airdrie to Bathgate line has been reopened, and the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line has 400,000 passengers. That project was opposed by some Labour people in my constituency, but we worked that through. Those were substantial improvements—[Interruption.] The Labour Party voted against the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line. Billy Calder voted against it.
We are making substantial improvements to the rail services and the public realise that. For that reason, I support the amendment in the Government’s name.
15:44
This has been a good and important debate—important because there is broad, if not unanimous, agreement across the chamber that it is right to invest in infrastructure to boost our economy and for rail infrastructure to be a key part of that approach.
In July, Alex Salmond stated:
“The Scottish Government has consistently argued for the need for capital investment to boost, not just construction, but also the wider economy ... Announcements about rail investment in three years’ time are no substitute for capital spending now.”
There was an unintended irony in the First Minister’s comment, because only a few weeks previously his Minister for Housing and Transport had announced that the Scottish Government’s flagship rail infrastructure project—the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme—had been cut by a third. As others have said, we would not have thought that from the press release that Mr Brown issued. As Dr Murray said, it proclaimed “full steam ahead” for EGIP but, in fact, it was more of a case of leaves on the line for the programme.
The press release made no reference to the significant cuts to the project—I presume that Mr Brown hoped no one would notice them—and just referred to £300 million of savings. However, as we have heard in the debate, the reality is that those are not savings but cuts to key aspects of the programme, which will reduce the benefits of the scheme to our rail network, to passengers and to our economy.
If it was simply a case of delivering the scheme more efficiently, Mr Brown would surely have had no problem in outlining the changes to the plans for EGIP in this Parliament only the week before his news release, when our colleague Patricia Ferguson asked in the chamber about its future. Instead, he waited for recess to make the announcement, when he did not have to answer questions in the chamber. Dr Murray is, of course, absolutely right to say that it is not acceptable for the minister deliberately to avoid making an announcement of such significance in the chamber—the Scottish Government is developing a worrying amount of form on that.
The reason that the announcement was not made in the Parliament was, of course, that the £350 million reduction in the project represented not savings but cuts, which remove key aspects of the scheme; members have referred to them during the debate. They include electrification in a number of areas, including Stirling, Alloa and Dunblane—and looking to extend electrification northwards to Perthshire and Aberdeen—the Polmont to Greenhill line, the line from Edinburgh to Winchburgh and at Grangemouth. In addition, the cuts remove the proposed grade-separated junctions at Greenhill and Winchburgh; journey time improvements from Dunblane and Alloa to Glasgow and Edinburgh; the planned half-hourly service for Bishopbriggs, Lenzie and Croy; and improved connectivity from Fife to the west of Scotland and from Glasgow to Edinburgh airport. Of course, there will now be no increase from four to six trains per hour between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Many potential benefits across the rail network have been lost as a result of this misguided decision.
Given what the member has just said, would he reinstate £350 million to the project? How would he fund that?
I will come on to the funding issues. The minister is in an extremely weak position on the matter, given that the commitment that he made to the funding for the project was included in the SNP manifesto, when he had full awareness of his budget. If he thought that he could do the project, why could we or anybody else in the chamber not do it? [Interruption.] I think that I have answered the question, minister.
An article in The Herald this morning makes it clear that the changes were not about making the project more efficient but about reducing spending, pure and simple. It reveals that, last November, the Government approached the Office of Rail Regulation with a view to deferring its repayments in respect of Network Rail borrowing. It is clear that the decision was considered for some time, even if it was not consulted on at all.
We recognise that these are tough times for public spending across Scotland and the UK and we agree with ministers that the cuts in public spending are too deep and too fast and that that affects the Scottish budget, too. Nevertheless—as Alex Johnstone said—for the Scottish Government to pretend that it can cut a scheme by a third and not impact on it significantly does a great injustice to proper discussion of its plans for rail services in this country. We also take issue with the UK Government’s spending plans, but the fact is that the Scottish Government cannot simply palm off the blame for the decision to Westminster, because the investment was to come from Network Rail borrowing and is distinct from the wider issues of the capital budget.
Of course, as Elaine Murray said, EGIP was a manifesto commitment made by the SNP in 2011 in the full knowledge of the budget that it had this year. However, perhaps it was just, as John Mason indicated, a collective dream that the SNP had, from which it seems to have awoken like Bobby in Dallas—and thus will follow its dreams of breaking up the United Kingdom.
The cut was made in Scotland. Given the project’s importance to the Scottish economy, the decision was exactly the wrong one to take when we need Scottish ministers to take a different approach from their UK counterparts. It is deeply concerning that the decision appears to have been taken with little consultation and after sight of only a draft version of the Jacobs Consulting report, which we hear has—helpfully—been produced today, on the same day as our debate, and which appears to have been commissioned to justify the cuts.
A broader assessment should have been made of the economic impact of the cuts to the project. There are serious questions about the impact on the Scottish Government’s often-quoted ambitions for electrification across the country. There are also questions about the decision’s impact on the climate change targets. Were those targets considered at all when the decision was being made?
For all those reasons, a number of prominent organisations, including trade unions, have voiced their disappointment about the Scottish Government’s decision. Transform Scotland has called it “a major step backwards”. The Confederation of British Industry Scotland and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce have also expressed concern. Iain McMillan of the CBI has called the decision “sleekit” and, on “Good Morning Scotland” this morning, Garry Clark of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said:
“We saw a huge amount of consultation going into this project over many years and yet a third of it has been abandoned by press release without any clarity at all.”
The decision could not have come at a worse time for the Scottish economy. The Government talks again and again about shovel-ready projects, but the scaling back of the EGIP scheme follows the scrapping by ministers of other rail infrastructure plans, be they Aberdeen crossrail, GARL or EARL. No wonder Iain McMillan says that the Scottish Government has a case to answer on improving the railways.
The wrong decisions have been taken for passengers and for growth. Combined with cuts to college and housing budgets, they leave us with a situation in which the unemployment rate in Scotland is higher than the UK average.
No wonder the Government wanted to avoid scrutiny of the decision, as it wants to avoid scrutiny of its increasingly unpopular plans to break up the UK. The Parliament and the country deserve better than that and better than the disrespect to the Parliament, which is why we will continue to press ministers to be more transparent on their plans for our vital transport infrastructure, more ambitious for the rail services that our country needs—for which they were more ambitious only a few months ago, too—and more ambitious to deliver the infrastructure investment that our economy desperately needs but which the Government is failing to provide.