High-speed Rail
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6349, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, on the high-speed rail link.
14:56
At the outset, I recognise that Robert Brown is speaking on behalf of the Liberals—on Monday, I spoke to Alison McInnes about this debate, and I hope that she has a speedy recovery from the temporary ailment that is keeping her from us today.
I realise that it is just over a year since we last debated high-speed rail as a group. On that occasion, we convened to welcome the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee’s report on the potential benefits of high-speed rail and as a Parliament established—early on—our shared commitment to bringing high-speed rail to Scotland.
The clear vision set out by our colleagues on the committee, and the overwhelming consensus displayed in the chamber, have directed our work on high-speed rail in the past year. In the course of the year, we have experienced the harshest winter for 40 years, which affected travel across the UK—indeed, at home we had 14 consecutive weeks of snow, something that we have never had before. More recently, volcanic ash from Iceland has closed our airspace and disrupted the plans of many thousands of travellers. Both events clearly demonstrate the cost to the economy of disrupted travel plans and the essential value of cross-border and international travel to our economy.
With predictions that eruptions and ash clouds will continue to disrupt flights for a considerable time—perhaps even years—we can look with some envy at our European neighbours whose high-speed networks are well established and who have much less reliance on short-haul aviation.
The past year has seen major reports on high-speed rail from both Network Rail and Greengauge 21. We also established a broad-based stakeholder group, drawn from Scotland’s business and transport communities, to direct the production of Transport Scotland’s strategic business case for high-speed rail to Scotland, which was published in October 2009. Those reports clearly set out the economic and environmental benefits of high-speed rail to Scotland and the United Kingdom and highlighted Scotland’s centrality to the case for a UK network.
Let me remind Parliament of some of those benefits. High-speed rail could bring economic benefits worth £20,000 million to the Scottish economy, mainly through reduced journey times, and a further £5,000 million of wider economic benefits through job creation in areas close to the line and agglomeration. In addition, a three-hour journey time between Scotland and London would create substantial modal shift from air, with reduced carbon emissions—at three hours, high-speed rail could capture 67 per cent of the overall travel market between Scotland and London, and at 2.5 hours the figure could rise to 80 per cent. That contrasts with the current situation, in which approximately 7.2 million people travel between central Scotland and London but only about 1 million of them travel by rail. Crucially, those reports show that Scotland is central, not peripheral, to the business case for high-speed rail in the UK.
On 11 March, the Department for Transport published its command paper on high-speed rail, which outlined the then UK Government’s commitment to high-speed rail from London to the midlands by 2026, with extension to Manchester and Leeds after that. There is a great sense of disappointment in the Scottish Government and, more fundamentally, among our stakeholders that Scotland has not yet been firmly included in the plan. We must try to change that. The business and transport communities as well as politicians of all parties in Scotland agree that including Scotland in any new network, from the start of the planning process, completes the case for high-speed rail in the UK.
Although the DFT’s proposal makes small concessions to Scotland—for example, hybrid high-speed rolling stock will operate on classic lines to Scotland from 2026—it is vital that high-speed rail’s reach to the north extends beyond those cities, with full high-speed lines. There is no sensible alternative.
On planning, has the Scottish Government started any scoping work on potential routes for central Scotland and the north of Scotland?
Part of the brief of HS2 Ltd, which was established by the UK Government through the Department for Transport with substantial support from us, is to plan the entire high-speed rail network. We support that. Thus far, we have proceeded on the basis that it is HS2’s responsibility to undertake that work. I had discussions on the subject with the previous Secretary of State for Transport, and he was clear on our views. Although I have spoken to the new secretary of state, Philip Hammond, on two occasions so far, that has been on the matter of ash. However, we will discuss high-speed rail and how it should be planned for in future.
Is there any provision for high-speed rail in national planning framework 2?
We said in national planning framework 2 that high-speed rail is an important part of what we want to do. We are clearly committed to it in principle. I do not believe that any member would dissent from that shared view.
I do not want to get unduly bogged down in the detail of who actually does the planning, although I will return to the Liberal amendment. The important point is that the planning is done, because failure to bring the high-speed line to Scotland would significantly disadvantage the Scottish economy, as it would affect its attractiveness as a place to visit and do business.
Of course, bringing high-speed rail to Scotland would not mean that we alone would derive a benefit. The connectivity between London and Scotland gives the opportunity to redraw the economic map of the UK. There would be benefits to Edinburgh from a fast connection to Birmingham and vice versa, and Manchester could derive benefits from a high-speed connection to Glasgow.
Does the minister accept that those who make arguments about increased connectivity, as he seems to be doing, only strengthen my concern that some people consider high-speed rail to be an addition to the existing connections by air, rather than a replacement for them, which completely undermines any environmental case?
I do not see it as an addition; I see it as a replacement. With a journey time of two and a half hours, the overwhelming majority of people would, without Government intervention of any kind, travel by rail, because it would make sense. It is in that context of making sense that we are here today.
At present, there is no firm UK Government plan, but the Scottish Government and Parliament can work to present our clear vision for how to make progress on high-speed rail. All parties have the opportunity to promote the case for high-speed rail to Scotland. Promoting it is one thing but, on the basis of the plans that the DFT presented earlier in the year, we are preparing for the introduction of hybrid high-speed trains on routes to Scotland. We are working with the rail industry to understand fully whether the capacity offered by those trains will be enough to meet expected demand or whether further measures will be needed. We also need to understand gauge issues, and the impact on line speed and other west coast operators. Paradoxically, when one puts a high-speed train on our existing railways, it has to be light and cannot tilt, therefore it runs more slowly on our rails than the existing tilting trains.
We have asked Network Rail to develop work to give us a clearer picture of likely implications. We are giving attention to the matter of terminals in our two major cities—the correct location and specification of high-speed terminals will ensure that high-speed rail fits with our existing strategic plans—for example, how high-speed rail in Glasgow adds to our plan for overall rail enhancement for the west of Scotland. We need to understand the opportunities for onward travel locally and across Scotland, and the potential to contribute to regional and national economies. When 100 per cent of our electricity is from renewables—and we are talking about electric railways—the carbon cost of running our railways will essentially be zero.
There is in Scotland a clarity of vision for what we want to do with rail. We have set out bold plans for future strategic investment in our rail network. The strategic transport projects review specifies electrification of the strategic rail network and structured programmes of improvements across Scotland—on the Edinburgh to Glasgow line and between Aberdeen and the central belt—to deliver capacity in the west of Scotland, including for high-speed rail. The national planning framework refers to HSR as a key component of future economic sustainability.
It is disappointing that the DFT does not yet have Scotland in its plans, but that is not by any means the end of the story. People here have a role to play in changing that. This Parliament’s voice is crucial. Let us seize the opportunity to state a clear vision for high-speed rail in the UK, one that includes Scotland and delivers benefit across the UK.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the work of High Speed Two, Greengauge21 and Network Rail, among others, which have developed the case for high-speed rail in the United Kingdom during the last year; notes the strong economic and environmental case for extending high-speed rail to Scotland; notes the opportunity to engage with the new Westminster administration to secure Scotland’s place in a UK high-speed rail network, and supports work to bring high-speed rail to Scotland at the earliest opportunity.
15:07
I congratulate the Scottish Government on this debate, which, as the minister said, adds impetus to the response to the issues raised in the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee’s report on high-speed rail that we debated in the chamber on 22 April 2009.
Since that time, a number of significant developments have taken forward the high-speed rail agenda. The minister highlighted some of them, and I will speak about some more. I am gratified that some provision for high-speed rail is being made in the context of national planning framework 2. That is potentially helpful, but of course not irrevocable, as the cancellation of the Glasgow airport rail link showed—another project that was provided for in national plans.
Through their collaboration project, Glasgow and Edinburgh jointly commissioned a study into high-speed rail serving those two cities, which found that, with the right design, it could make an incremental contribution to the development of a high-speed rail network between Scotland and London. The potential additional benefits to the economies of both cities are significant and have been estimated at between £1 billion and £4 billion.
It is my view as an old railwayman that a significant development since our debate a year ago was the publication last August of Network Rail’s new lines study. That is a rather bland title for such a significant and visionary report. It is difficult to overstate the significance of the report, which recommends a high-speed rail line to London, splitting at a junction called Caledonian junction at or near Carstairs, serving with separate train services the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, with branches to Liverpool and Birmingham. It presents the scenario that Glasgow would go from the present position of having one train an hour to London—with some gaps during the day—and a journey time of four and a half hours to having two trains an hour and a journey time of two hours and 16 minutes. Edinburgh would go from having one or two trains an hour to London on the east coast main line to having two trains an hour by high-speed rail and the journey time would reduce from four hours and 13 minutes to two hours and nine minutes.
Network Rail’s study mentions the possibility of a major modal shift from aviation to rail, but it makes the point—after all, this is our publicly owned railway infrastructure operator talking—that the additional rail capacity for passengers and freight will be needed in a few years’ time in any case. Britain needs a major new trunk railway, so we might as well design it to be capable of taking high-speed trains.
Perhaps the most significant point in Network Rail’s report is that the line has
“a sound ... business case”
and will pay
“for itself”.
That is tremendously significant.
Does Charlie Gordon accept that the business case depends on high-speed rail coming to Scotland? That will produce the big modal shift. If the line does not go as far as Scotland, the business case is far less substantial.
Absolutely. In the lead-up to publishing last year’s report on high-speed rail, our Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee took evidence from many people from the south of England who opposed the expansion of Heathrow airport and who well understood that their arguments made sense only if we Scots benefited sooner rather than later from high-speed rail connecting us all the way to London.
Another significant staging post, which the minister mentioned, was the response of Lord Adonis—the outgoing UK Secretary of State for Transport—to HS2’s proposals for an initial new high-speed line between London and Birmingham. The minister mentioned disappointment about that, but completing that line would reduce the end-to-end journey time between London and Glasgow by some 30 minutes. The phase 2 proposals for northern extensions to Manchester and Leeds would save at least a further 15 minutes on the journey times to Glasgow and Edinburgh. It is not the case that there was nothing for Scotland in what Adonis did, but of course it fell far short of the physical infrastructure for high-speed rail coming all the way to Scotland.
I agree with what Charlie Gordon says about speeding up journeys, but does he accept that, as the hybrid trains for high-speed rail lines would run more slowly on existing track than do tilting trains, the risk is that they would slow other traffic to Scotland on the west coast main line? A complex set of interactions means that we can get out of the bit only by having high-speed rail all the way as early as possible.
That argument has some merit, but I refer the minister to Labour’s amendment, which refers to other incremental steps to speed up the end-to-end journey time before we ultimately arrive at high-speed rail. Several sensible operational suggestions are around in the railway industry, such as those to remove pinchpoints and straighten bends on the west coast main line, which could give us speedier journeys as part of an interim strategy. That applies in the context of re-letting the franchise for the west coast main line in 2012. The existing franchisee, Virgin, has several suggestions for speeding up our journeys.
Another significant development is the announcement by the new Con-Dem UK Government of the cancellation of plans for a third runway at Heathrow airport. Although HS2’s proposals for London to Birmingham were not predicated on achieving modal shift from air to rail for that relatively short stretch, a high-speed rail link from London to Scotland must be predicated on modal shift to a substantial degree. In principle, a high-speed rail link between Glasgow and Edinburgh and London would enable some domestic flight slots at Heathrow to be replaced by international long-haul flights, albeit that Scotland, especially Aberdeen and Inverness, would need to retain reasonable aviation links to Heathrow to interline with such flights.
I make no apology for returning to Network Rail’s study, which is the most comprehensive and thorough in the field. It concludes that modal shift from aviation will be facilitated but that the UK’s trunk rail networks for passengers and freight need new capacity anyway. We should future proof that for high-speed rail, which will pay for itself. However, we should not mess with the route that Network Rail has recommended, which was not cut across by HS2’s proposals. Before the election, there was some talk, especially from the Conservatives, of having a different route and consultation procedure. That is a recipe for delay and the wrong strategy. Is a new station at Heathrow, costing £2 billion, really necessary?
There is an incremental strategy that we can pursue. However, today I am excited, because I see high-speed rail getting closer. We are moving faster and faster towards it.
I move amendment S3M-6349.1, to leave out from first “and” to end and insert:
“, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee and Network Rail, among others, which have developed the case for high-speed rail in the United Kingdom during the last year; notes the strong economic and environmental case for extending high-speed rail to Scotland; notes the opportunity to engage with the new Westminster administration to secure Scotland’s place in a UK high-speed rail network, and supports work to bring high-speed rail to Scotland at the earliest opportunity, as well as supporting interim steps to reduce rail journey times between Scotland and London”.
15:17
I start where Charlie Gordon left off. He is excited at the prospect of high-speed rail coming to the United Kingdom. I, too, am excited and, I must say, surprised by the speed at which the idea has developed over a relatively small number of years. Ten or 20 years ago, who would have thought that, to use an old advertising slogan, we would be returning to the age of the train? Yet here we are.
Anyone who knows anything about the economic history of the United Kingdom knows the significant part that the railways played in it. In the latter part of the industrial revolution, railways became the driving force for a great deal of what happened in this country and supported economic growth. There is an argument that, in the post-war years, we resorted to road and, ultimately, air traffic to serve some of our northern cities, but the railways were still important for a significant part of that period. However, we reached a point at which people thought that the railways were no longer important. We saw the Beeching cuts and both freight and passenger traffic being moved off our railways on to the roads. That is why it is so interesting that we find ourselves at a crossing point in history, where things have begun to change radically once again. It is gratifying that every political party represented in the chamber is keen to grasp the opportunity that has been presented to us.
The two parties that are in a position to grasp it most effectively are the Conservative party and our partners on my left—in more ways than one—the Liberal Democrats. I have in my hand a document entitled “The Coalition: our programme for government”; I am glad to see that my colleagues also have a copy. I will quote one small paragraph that makes the new Government’s intention clear. It states:
“We will establish a high speed rail network as part of our programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions”—
the word “joint” refers to us and the Liberal Democrats—
“for creating a low carbon economy. Our vision is of a truly national high speed rail network for the whole of Britain.”
However, it goes on to say, as I will, that
“Given financial constraints, we will have to achieve this in phases.”
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
Oh, the rush.
You choose.
The minister first.
Thank you.
Is Alex Johnstone minded to support the Liberals, who wish to fragment the effort by removing the responsibility that currently lies with HS2 for developing the plans and bringing it to Transport Scotland, thus having two bodies with responsibility, or is the member otherwise minded?
At this stage, I wish to be as broadminded as possible and to work as closely with my Liberal colleagues as their proposal will permit. Consequently, we are likely to support their amendment at 5 o’clock, and we hope that they feel similarly minded.
The member quoted his new coalition Government’s statement that
“Given financial constraints, we will have to achieve this in phases.”
However, Network Rail says that the business case exists and that the project can pay for itself. Why reinvent the wheel financially?
I will give Charlie Gordon the same answer that I gave a moment ago—I am broadminded and open to suggestions. We must be careful, however, and understand that there are economic pressures in this country. Surely someone speaking for the Labour Party will be aware of them and of what perhaps caused them.
The opportunities for recovery and the opportunities that Britain will have when we emerge from the situation that we are currently in will allow us to look forward to a brave new world where there will be new opportunities for new investment—public or private—to bring forward the proposed development.
In the limited time that is available to me, I will comment on a couple of issues that have already been mentioned, but I will do so in a slightly different way. There is an inextricable link between the proposal to develop high-speed rail and the decision by the current Government not to support the third runway at Heathrow. We have heard from several people about how those things are tied together.
We have also heard about the associated environmental case. I point out that there is more than simply an associated climate change case. I accept the climate change case that the line must come all the way to Scotland, because that is the only way to achieve the necessary modal shift to cut the number of flights over that distance. That is indeed important. However, it is also important for us to remember that there is an environmental issue that is not directly based on climate change: people who live under the approaches to London’s airports, particularly Heathrow, are subject to the environmental impact of large numbers of aircraft. Anything that can be done to take that pressure away from those who live under that airport’s approaches will benefit them in an environmental sense that is different and separate from the climate change issue. It is therefore essential for the people of west London and the Thames valley that the proposed scheme comes as far as Scotland as early as possible when it is developed. Only then will it begin to deliver to them the environmental benefit that they expect.
The project will have benefits at both ends. A high-speed rail link from Scotland to London will benefit people in London as much as people in Scotland. That is why the proposal is a classic example of a project for the union that should be delivered by the union. Long live the United Kingdom!
I move amendment S3M-6349.2, to insert after second “network”:
“; welcomes the commitment in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition negotiations - Agreements reached document, published on 11 May 2010, to establish a high speed rail network”.
15:23
I was struck by the minister’s observation of the potential for high-speed rail to redraw the economic map of the UK. In a way, that is the biggest issue underlying this subject.
For journeys between Scotland and London and other major cities in England, air travel is a mode of transport that should, in this day and age, be unnecessary, but the sad fact is that the high-speed rail that is necessary to reduce rail journey times from Edinburgh or Glasgow to London to under the tipping point of about three hours lags far behind that in other countries. Under the Labour Government, plans were announced to build an initial link from London to the midlands, which would not start until 2017 and would not be finished until 2026. That was a high-level aspiration, but no concrete plans or detailed examination of a possible extension to Scotland were made.
In view of what he has just said, does Robert Brown not agree with Norman Baker, who was the Liberal transport spokesperson until the recent UK general election? He said in the House of Commons as recently as 11 March:
“I congratulate HS2 on producing a route that, I think, minimises environmental damage while maximising the usefulness of the line.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 11 March 2010; Vol 507, c 453.]
I do agree. If Charlie Gordon had waited until I had finished my point, he would have heard that it was not about that section of the route but the section that would go up to Scotland.
Lord Adonis, the former UK Secretary of State for Transport, claimed in March this year that no talks had yet taken place between the UK Government and the Scottish Government over the potential funding of a Scottish high-speed rail link. I was interested by the minister’s comments about the strategic business case, his high-level clarity of vision and the `fact that it is being left to the UK Government to make progress on the matter through the agencies that are referred to in the motion. However, as he should recognise—the Parliament and the public certainly will—there is a big difference between the demand and vision for high-speed rail and the concrete work on developing the detailed proposals for it, particularly with regard to the Scottish end of the route. I am interested to see how the Government will push, under its devolved responsibilities, to advance the issues.
Will the member give way?
I would like to make a little bit of progress, if I may.
We have a new Liberal Democrat-Conservative Government as my colleague on the right, Alex Johnstone, mentioned. It has renewed and refreshed the commitment to high-speed rail, echoing calls from Liberal Democrats—including me—over a long period. The coalition agreement has a developed commitment on the network.
High-speed rail has many advantages. We will not go into them in detail, but there are environmental, journey-time and economic benefits. It frees up capacity and provides a stimulus to the economy. However, the long-term gains to Scotland are to bring us much closer in real time to our markets and to reduce travelling time.
We all know that there are considerable design challenges—the minister touched on that. They involve identifying the route, determining how it is phased, its links with existing services, the extent of the need for hybrid trains and the potential for speeding up the project. Some of that work has been done on the section from London to the midlands. We must concede that, in terms of the numbers of people whom that section would benefit, there is no contest with the other end of the route, but the benefits are not as huge at the southern end as they are at the Scottish end.
Unless we can reduce travel time between Scotland and London, the benefits and economic case will not be fully realised. Indeed, there is a downside, which is that the Scottish economy could be disadvantaged for a number of years, pending completion of the full route, by the greater benefits to cities in the midlands and the north of England including Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield. Members may know that Network Rail concluded that the construction of dedicated HSR infrastructure is economically viable only if the network includes Scotland. The reason is the modal shift point that a number of members have made.
It is imperative that the Scottish Government engages fully with the process now and that it gets Transport Scotland to work up details of what would be needed for the northern section to Glasgow and Edinburgh. That section might be more easily built as it would not have to pass through large urban areas—certainly from roughly Preston northwards—with all the complexities that that entails and which we know from the channel tunnel line through Kent. However, if Transport Scotland does not do it or it is not done in proper association with the agencies in the south, there is a distinct risk that it will not be done at all.
Transport Scotland is, of course, working closely with HS2 and we are part of the process. We are at the top table representing Scotland’s interests and ensuring that it is happening.
I accept that assurance, but the proof of the pudding will be in the detailed plans that emerge from that process, for the Scottish end of the route in particular. We need to be innovative in our approach. It is highly unrealistic to argue for building the whole project from Scotland south, or to contest the priority of the London to Birmingham section, but starting at both ends and working towards the middle is much more feasible. It has a major economic aim of reducing the disadvantage and maximising the benefit to the Scottish economy. The work might be able to progress faster at the Scottish end and with fewer objections. I say “might”, because it is yet to be worked through. It would create job opportunities and lock in the commitment to the whole route, which might otherwise get cancelled north of Manchester at some point in the future, if we are not careful.
The Scottish end of the high-speed rail network must benefit the whole of Scotland, so effective integration and accessibility to all parts of Scotland must be built in from the beginning. It must also access the city centres of Glasgow and Edinburgh if the full benefits are to be realised.
High-speed rail for Britain is a long-overdue concept. It should be a major priority for the Scottish Government and I make no apology for pressing the minister on the details. He should tell us explicitly how he proposes to proceed in Scotland’s interest. The project will fundamentally transform Scotland’s connections with the rest of the UK and the prospects for our economy. We cannot afford to fail and it is a challenge for the Scottish Government and the UK Government to meet—and to meet in full.
I move amendment S3M-6349.3, to insert at end:
“, not least by the development by Transport Scotland, in association with UK partners, of detailed proposals for the Scottish end of the project.”
We come to the open debate with virtually no spare time, so members must stick to their six minutes.
15:29
I agree with colleagues from all parties about the merits of high-speed rail. For years, its benefits have been demonstrated by countries around the world, so why does the UK, which is so dependent on air travel, remain so far behind? Now that Westminster has finally put forward a plan, why is Scotland being left almost as an afterthought in a project that might take decades to come to fruition? None of the UK parties has shown real commitment to high-speed rail beyond Manchester, notwithstanding the interesting points that Robert Brown made. Indeed, Robert Brown was right to point out that Network Rail does not see a positive business case in high-speed rail unless the route goes from Scotland to London.
I believe that Scotland should be included in the first stage of any high-speed rail development; Scotland must be part of the initial scheme. High-speed rail would bring economic benefits—of potentially tens of billions of pounds, as the minister said—but the evidence from Network Rail and Atkins consultancy shows that the scheme’s benefits would outweigh its costs only if the line was extended to the whole of Britain.
Why should Scotland not be included? As the recent flight delays due to volcanic activity suggested, Scotland’s economy should not be forced to rely on short-haul air travel. Scottish businesses should not need to wait 30 years before being connected to their larger European market. In that timescale, many of us, I am sad to say, will not be here to see the results. In Europe, fast rail has become the norm, so why do UK parties insist on tossing Scotland aside when we should be building direct connections to Scotland’s major centres? We should not just accept the crumbs off the table.
As I will say later, on balance I support the call for high-speed rail, but is Kenneth Gibson not overegging the pudding a bit when he says that businesses in Scotland are forced to rely on short-haul aviation? A journey time of four and a half or five hours to London is entirely doable, so the member overstates his case, frankly, by suggesting that any business or businessperson would not take that option.
To be honest, I think that Patrick Harvie shows a shocking lack of knowledge of business. All the studies have shown that significant economic benefits would arise from a high-speed rail link precisely because it would reduce journey times. I realise that, if it was up to Patrick Harvie, we would still be at the horse-and-cart stage, but we need to move on.
What about our environmental goals? How will Scotland be a leader through reducing our carbon footprint when our businesses are dependent to a large extent on air travel? Reduction of our emissions from road and air travel must be key to achieving our targets. Given that Edinburgh is the second most visited city in the UK, how will we welcome more and more visitors in future years? We cannot expand our airports while we wait for a future generation to install a better way.
Dr Dan Barlow, who is head of policy at WWF Scotland, has said:
“Aviation is the fastest-growing source of climate pollution so it is critical that alternative, more sustainable transport options are promoted.”
Colin Elliff, of 2M Group, told the Parliament:
“I envisage that the typical energy consumption of high-speed rail travel will be about one fifth of that of air travel. The environmental benefits are probably being understated at the moment.”—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 18 November 2008; c 1056.]
One of the main arguments in support of high-speed rail is that it could improve capacity on the UK rail network.
Will the member give way?
If I have time, I will give way later. I always like to take interventions from Alex Johnstone, but I need to move on.
The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee’s report on high-speed rail cites
“written evidence provided by National Express on the impact on French domestic aviation of the introduction of new high-speed TGV lines. This states that prior to the introduction of the TGV Mediterranean service ... rail held only 22% of the air-rail market between those destinations. Within four years of the introduction of the TGV service, the market share held by rail rose to 65%.”
The report also cites others, who said:
“The lesson from other countries is that we must have vision and be bold. No one ever said that this kind of major shift would be easy: it requires political buy-in, vision and people working together.”—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 18 November 2008; c 1056.]
To reduce demand for polluting short-haul flights, Scotland cannot be left behind. Labour’s white paper described a connection to Scotland as a potential extension to be decided upon later. Far too often we hear of Scotland’s needs being decided on later. Why cannot our needs come first for once? I recall driving from Glasgow to Southampton 20 years ago. The deadly A74—as it was—took me to the border, from where, as if by magic, there was the M6 and motorway all the way down to London and the south coast. Scotland should not be a forgotten tail-end Charlie in rail as it has been in road. I am suspicious of the coalition agreement’s phrase about completing the project “in phases”, which Alex Johnstone mentioned. Clearly, that is a message that Scotland will, indeed, be last.
My intervention is on the carbon efficiency of the railways and the effect on CO2 emissions. Is Kenneth Gibson sure that the figures that he gave are properly representative of the UK mix of generation capacity rather than the much more nuclear-based capacity of France?
I do not accept that for a minute. Whichever way we look at it, rail uses less energy than other forms of transport do.
In its white paper, Labour goes on to admit that, if Scotland is not included in the first phase, a two-tiered build of high-speed rail will provide barely faster Glasgow to London times than are available at the moment. I say to Charlie Gordon that we hear of pinch points and straightening out bends, but we should be a bit more ambitious than that in the short-to-medium term.
If Scotland is not part of the first stage of high-speed rail, the long-term benefits to the whole of Britain will be drastically reduced. The real benefits will come from the planned connection to and from Scotland, as Network Rail recommends. The UK parties must commit to this. It should be no surprise that the Scottish National Party is committed to ensuring that Scotland is part of the first phase. I have not quoted the minister thus far; I will do so now:
“There has never been more interest in high speed rail in the UK as there is now. 2010 is the year for decisions on the future of high speed rail. The planning starts now and we need to be part of that process.”
The new coalition Government in Westminster—
I am afraid that the member’s time is up.
15:36
The time has come to make a serious commitment to faster trains. We need high-speed rail that competes with air; a turn-up-and-go network that goes long distances in the shortest possible time. That concept should not fail to attract public support, particularly as it also includes the prospect of reducing carbon emissions. It is a pity that the Scottish Green Party does not, on balance, wholly support that idea.
If we do not make a firm commitment to high-speed rail now, we will have missed the greatest opportunity in a generation to revolutionise transport. It is disappointing that the new coalition Government does not seem to have given a firmer commitment to the project today, although I appreciate that there is time for the detail to emerge. I remind the party opposite that Theresa Villiers promised to bring forward high-speed rail by two years to 2015. I hope that that is still the Conservative party’s position.
I am holding a copy of the previous Labour Government’s 150-page command paper of March this year. Will the member remind the Parliament of the commitment in the document to the delivery of high-speed rail to Scotland?
As Mr Purvis well knows, the Conservative party said that it could bring forward high-speed rail, but we did not hear that from the coalition Government today.
In supporting the amendment in Charlie Gordon’s name, I draw the Parliament’s attention to the critical need to shorten journey times including from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London. Even a commitment to high-speed rail now will not see that in place until nearer 2020. The public will be disappointed that we cannot achieve it sooner. Investment needs to be made in the existing rail network. That said, we need now to make the commitment to high-speed rail.
The previous Labour Government was responsible for getting high-speed rail firmly on to the agenda. Indeed, I lost count of the number of times that Lord Adonis, the Secretary of State for Transport, visited Glasgow central station in my Glasgow constituency to make the case for high-speed rail.
Glasgow City Council, the Strathclyde partnership for transport and the City of Edinburgh Council respectively are leading the way in calling for the business need for high-speed rail to be addressed. High-speed rail for Scotland has to be “central, not peripheral” to the design of HS2—I agree with those words. Scotland lost out before in terms of Eurotunnel. We cannot allow that to happen again.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
Given that the HS2 report said that almost half of the increase in rail demand is from Scotland, the clear economic imperative is for Scotland to be included from the outset in any scheme. In fact, the argument is made that the way to secure Scotland’s inclusion is to build the infrastructure from both ends with the Scottish Government preparing the groundwork for that by way of its national planning framework.
The former UK Government went beyond the recommendations of the HS2 report by making a commitment to route alignments to Manchester and Leeds. It proposed to secure a fleet of trains that are capable of running on high-speed and existing classic lines. Any part of the route that is high speed will benefit the whole journey time from parts of Scotland to London. It is important to recognise that any progress that we make is progress.
I believe that, if we can even get journey times down to three and a half hours, that will bring about a huge modal shift of passengers, who will choose rail over air. It makes sense that not having security checks in advance will mean that that change will happen.
Business users in Scotland have complained bitterly about the autumn flight schedules, which reduce their scope because of poor timetabling. A chief executive of a large development company that is based in London complained to me recently that the autumn schedule made travel to Scotland more difficult. It is clearly imperative to give business users another choice in how they travel to our cities.
Every country in the world has started to plan or build high-speed rail. In my recent trip to the US for Scotland week, we were briefed by two different organisations with differing views on the investment that was needed to create a network across the United States. For example, high-speed rail that would link Tampa and Orlando, reducing journey times to 90 minutes, demonstrates that even America is making a huge shift in policy from air to rail. However, like us, the US is already playing catch-up compared with other countries, for example, Spain is spending $348 million. It is important to recognise that we must keep up with what is happening in other parts of the world.
I believe that ministers must use the national planning framework to pave the way to make high-speed rail possible. Being part of the UK has obvious benefits as we make the case for Scotland being in the first phase. I know that the minister, Stewart Stevenson, has argued hard for that, but I suggest that he would have to argue much harder if Scotland was outside the UK. The new Secretary of State for Scotland has a job to do in this regard, and I would like to think that he, too, was saying to the Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, that Scotland must be in the first phase of any high-speed rail.
15:41
I declare an interest as the president of the Scottish Association for Public Transport.
In 1840, a stagecoach took 42 hours to make the Edinburgh to London journey, and a paddle steamer took about the same time. A hundred years before that, the journey took a fortnight. By 1848, that had been cut to 12 hours by steam train. The actual building of the York to Edinburgh railway took three years, without dynamite, earth movers, structural steel, concrete or computers, but with the input of navvies. In the various schemes that are being advanced to us today, the quickest time to build the line seems to be about 16 years. One wonders what happened to progress in the interval.
That raises two questions. What are the delaying factors? Is the system itself right? The delays have historical causes; lawyers and landowners will take their time to make the sort of money that keeps them happy. Britons who do not manufacture very much value real estate and will sell it as profitably as they can. Can we economise by using existing transport routes? Well, the west coast upgrade came in at something like £9 billion to £10 billion above budget. When travelling on it, one wonders what that money was actually spent on. The complexity, of course, as we have found with the Edinburgh trams, arises from the stuff that is already there and the disruption that is involved in getting rid of it.
High-speed rail is the thinking man’s motorway. Both entered the scene simultaneously around 1960 with the opening of the M1 and the start of Japan’s Shinkansen programme: the first line from Tokyo was completed for the Olympics in 1964. Japanese industrial success followed it; it did not just give rise to it. The system is now Japan-wide and none of its trains runs late. In 2010, Britain has one short high-speed line, from London to the mouth of the channel tunnel, which enjoys a particular European record status, having cost the most to build of any line in Europe, at £23 million per mile.
The choice is stark. In fact, it is starker than anyone has made out here, because before the lawyers have finished there is a very good chance that oil will have run out or will be on the downward slope of the Hubbert curve. When getting the stuff out of new and difficult surroundings works, that postpones things up to a point; when it does not, as with the Deepwater Horizon, the global costs are penal. The cost could be $500 million today and perhaps £10 billion in toto. Political upheavals and inflationary pressures from the expansion of the new industrial economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China must also be factored in. Peak oil will make our decisions for us. Electric and hydrogen cars still face intractable developmental problems, and there are essential fuel-oil uses in air, sea and road freight transport. So, when we hit the $200 to $300 barrel, that will whack down on the automobile age like the guillotine.
We must think several moves ahead, and conventional steel-on-steel rail will not be enough. We can leapfrog it by using new technologies that are being developed—not only in transport—using computers and sophisticated software. That means that we must study and train our specialists in the countries that have already made the breakthrough. Where? It will most likely be China which, according to the Financial Times—which is the voice of God—plans to build more than 30,000km of track, most of it high speed, in the next five years. I goggled at that story and had to look again, but there it was. That is the same length of time that it has taken us not to build a 60km line from Edinburgh to Galashiels. It is good to see that Stewart Stevenson has now made a start on that, but a Chinese minister would probably have extended it to Spain by now.
For four years, a magnetic levitation system has been in operation between Shanghai and its airport. That is a technology that I commend to the Parliament. The maglev has no moving parts, it has only an electrical induction motor, but it offers higher speeds than conventional high-velocity trains and lower maintenance and installation costs, as it uses its own track.
I am sure that Chris Harvie, who understands peak oil so well, also recognises that there will be constraints in electricity supply whatever mode of electrical generation we require. Does the maglev’s mammoth electricity consumption not give him cause for concern?
Mr Harvie has not read the Die Zeit interview with one of the scientists involved in the test track in Germany, who admitted that the type of computing that governs electricity supply is derived from the 1980s and that improvements in the just-in-time supply of electricity to the track would lower that type of cost well below the costs of the conventional steel-on-steel high-speed train. If we had such a system, there would be great economies in rolling stock. For example, the Edinburgh to Glasgow service could be worked by three units as opposed to 16 to 24 units. A maglev train is, in effect, a plane at a height of 1cm.
I am afraid that the member’s time is up. I am sorry.
15:48
There is a distinct feeling of déjà vu about the debate. If we were as good at building high-speed links as we are at talking about them, we might not be lagging as far behind the rest of the world as we are. For reasons that completely escape me, although there seems to have been no difficulty in making the case for high-speed rail across Europe and in Asia—those countries and economies have surged ahead, improving the quality of life and choices of their citizens as well as their economic competitiveness—we in Britain have been stuck in a time warp that has reduced economic mobility and damaged our environment. It is high time that we recognised our shortcomings not in words but in deeds. There are 3,700 miles of high-speed track in Europe, and it is estimated that that figure will more than double to 9,000 miles in the next 10 years. It beggars belief that such progress can be made in continental Europe while we prevaricate and condemn our citizens to outdated, inefficient and uncomfortable modes of travel.
The benefits of a high-speed link to London for the business community in Scotland are both substantial and obvious: employees can keep in touch, can work on the train and can arrive refreshed and in a far more positive frame of mind. All of those things make the case for the benefits of using a high-speed link over air travel.
As we pursue ambitious climate change targets, it is surely time to recognise that we should be doing all that we can to reduce inter-city air travel, both within the United Kingdom and between the UK and continental Europe. If it is time to recognise that, it is surely time to act.
I am glad that Mr Johnstone had the decency to mention the caveat in the new Government’s document. It could also be called the latest excuse. Any look back over history—Mr Johnstone mentioned that—shows that excuses, or phases, usually mean that Scotland will be last. It is up to Mr Johnstone and his new-found friends to ensure that that does not happen.
Tom McCabe seems to be happy to criticise other parties. He talked about excuses. In 2008, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, said that a proposal for high-speed rail was
“hugely damaging to Britain’s national interests”.
What does he say about that?
I am sure that Gavin Brown was listening to my opening remarks. I think it is implicit in what I have already said that the actions of all Governments over a long period have been insufficient in the area, and that they have been shamed by the actions of Governments throughout Europe, and now in Asia. I hope that the member will understand from those words what I think of the words that he quoted.
There is a unique opportunity for our Scottish Government to work in harmony with the new UK Government to progress a high-speed rail link. The UK Government has just scrapped the third runway at Heathrow—I presume in the knowledge that there is a need to replace lost capacity and to do it in a way that is more sustainable and which will allow us to begin the long process of trying to match the forward thinking that has been exhibited for so long in continental Europe and, again, more recently in Asia.
The 125-mile stretch of track between Amsterdam and Brussels that opened last year cut journey times between the two cities by 30 minutes, and the journey time on the Amsterdam to Paris route dropped by almost an hour. The east European TGV track that opened in 2007 reduced journey times between Paris and Stuttgart and it now links Paris, Munich, Basle and Zurich, all with substantially reduced journey times. The high-speed link between Rome and Milan took an hour off the journey, while the Barcelona to Madrid link reduced the airlines’ share of journeys between those cities to just 40 per cent.
Whatever else we do, we must act, and given how far behind we are, we must consider all the options. There is a lot of merit in what Christopher Harvie said. The projected cost of high-speed rail is £60 million per kilometre, and the projected cost of maglev is £30 million per kilometre. In an environment where, as the new Government’s document recognises, there is fiscal restraint, it is surely justifiable to consider all the options that can bring progress more quickly and more widely across Britain. One reason for the difference in the cost is the fact that the land take that is required for maglev is one tenth of that for high-speed rail.
One thing is clear. Whichever option we choose, it is time to give our citizens, our environment and our economic competitiveness a chance. Adoption of a system that allows our citizens to travel and communicate far faster and by far more sustainable means is in our country’s long-term interests and will allow us to stand up and compete effectively with other parts of the world.
15:54
The Scottish Liberal Democrats have always been committed to the establishment of a high-speed rail link from London to Scotland and have been calling for such a link for some time.
Under plans that were established by the previous UK Government, an initial link between London and Birmingham was proposed, with the intention to extend the route into a Y-shaped network by taking it on to Leeds and Manchester respectively. We believe that the Scottish Government must engage with the new UK Government as the development of the UK network progresses, and that both sides must work constructively to ensure that that happens. If we secure simultaneous development from both London and Scotland, the Scottish Government, whatever its political flavour, must agree to contribute financially from day one.
By developing any proposed link from the northernmost and southernmost points simultaneously, we could minimise the possibility of economic disparity between the north and the south. It is possible that such an approach would also allow work to proceed at a faster pace. Furthermore, starting the process at both ends at once may provide a strong incentive to develop the route in its entirety.
The full historic concordat—I am sorry; the full historic coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in Westminster has been published today. Section 30 of the text provides a reassuring focus on a whole-UK solution. The new Government says:
“Our vision is of a truly national high speed rail network for the whole of Britain.”
The Scottish Liberal Democrats have been calling for a high-speed rail network linking Scotland and the rest of the UK for years. We will write to the new UK Conservative Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, to put the case for Scotland. We will urge him to look at innovative approaches to the route’s development that could benefit the whole of the UK.
Fundamentally, high-speed rail offers three distinct benefits. The first relates to capacity. As well as providing new services for passengers, high-speed rail will, because it will run on new, purpose-built lines, free up space on the traditional railway lines. Secondly, high-speed rail offers significant environmental benefits. It is estimated that 224,000 tonnes of CO2 could be saved each year as a result of reductions in the number of short-haul, cross-border flights. Thirdly, the introduction of a high-speed rail link in Scotland could contribute significantly to stimulating Scotland’s economy. Research by various groups has suggested that those benefits could amount to between £7 billion and £20 billion.
It is not only the Liberal Democrats who want the full potential of high-speed rail to be realised in Scotland; many other well-respected organisations do, too.
Other well-respected organisations?
I am glad that the member picked up on that. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce said:
“The Government’s Heathrow decision”—
to cancel a third runway—
“therefore adds further weight to our calls for Scotland to be included from the outset in plans to develop the UK’s High Speed Rail network. Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have long expressed their enthusiasm for HSR and it is now time for delivery.”
High Speed 2 Scotland, which represents business interests in Scotland, said:
“Independent research has estimated the economic benefits of HSR to Scotland to be in excess of £7bn, and there are significant environmental and productivity benefits to be gained from the modal shift from air to rail that such an investment would bring to Scotland.”
Friends of the Earth Scotland said:
“Suggesting a high-speed rail link from London that ends in Birmingham is like swapping a horse for a donkey mid journey.”
KPMG has suggested that a UK high-speed rail network has the potential to boost annual economic output by between £17 billion and £29 billion by 2040.
In the Government’s strategic business case, our own transport minister, Stewart Stevenson, argues that the case for high-speed rail in Scotland is “clear”, “compelling”, “crucial” and “current”. He says that the case is compelling because
“There is strong agreement that Scotland’s economy will benefit from a high speed rail link connecting us to London and beyond.”
He says that the case is clear because the development of high-speed rail
“will lead to improved journey times and encourage modal shift, will address emerging capacity issues, and will bring economic, social and environmental benefits.”
He claims that the case is crucial because
“There has never been more interest in high speed rail in the UK as there is now. 2010 is the year for decisions on the future of high speed rail. The planning starts now and we need to be part of that process.”
He claims that the case is current because the
“Scottish Ministers have confirmed that a high speed rail link between Scotland and London is a national priority”,
and points to the link’s inclusion in the national planning framework 2. Unusually, I find myself in agreement with Mr Stevenson.
To summarise, the Scottish Liberal Democrats and our historic coalition Government partners believe that whether for economic or environmental reasons, or simply to allow people to get to their destination more quickly, the whole of the UK should benefit. I hope that members across the Parliament will agree with us.
16:00
To highlight where Scotland stands when it comes to the prospect of benefiting from a high-speed rail link, I must first put into context the chance of our goals being met. Some 50 years ago, construction began on the M74. Today, that vital project remains incomplete. Promises from London Governments that the work would be completed were never fulfilled, in contrast to the massive road projects in England, where project after project was started and completed. It was left to this Scottish Government to put resources into the M74 and finish the job.
There is the Channel tunnel, which was given the go-ahead with another promise that Scotland would have a direct connection to Europe. What a laugh, and what a lie. To make that journey is so convoluted for Scottish travellers that many do not bother. Let us not forget, when rolling stock for the new project is being discussed, that after building and buying the rolling stock for the Europe to Scotland journey, it was used for domestic English services. A direct European service is no longer on the agenda for Scotland.
At least this time we have not even been promised a high-speed rail link for Scotland. London does not need to hoodwink us, because it knows that nothing will happen. On the previous two occasions on which it clawed the feet out from under us, nothing happened—no threats of resignation from a Tory or a Labour Secretary of State for Scotland. London knows where its personal bread is buttered, and it is not here.
All the statistics show that the best place to start a high-speed rail link would be as far away from London as possible. It would make a significant and immediate contribution to the environment. Getting people off planes and using more environmentally friendly modes of transport is the priority if we are to tackle the problems of climate change.
I hear the point about the case for starting the link in Scotland, but I wonder how realistic that is when we do not have detailed proposals for the Scottish end of the project.
We have to talk about it before we can develop it. Give us the commitment and the money, and I am sure that it will happen overnight.
Despite the experts suggesting that the link should start in Scotland, the project will start in the south of England. Should history repeat itself, the rail line will also finish there. Unless we—as a people and a Parliament—stand up and say that there will be a penalty to pay should that happen, Scotland will be sold down the railway yet again.
In the USA, a plan is unfolding that is a hybrid strategy between individual states and the federal authorities—a plan that looks well beyond a state boundary or even the borders of the USA, as from day one it includes a connection and route well into Canada. The scale of the USA project and its physical and financial obstacles are enormous. A UK-wide project is chicken feed compared to those plans, yet the USA will deliver a high-speed rail network because it knows the strategic and economic importance of the project to the individual states and to the USA as a whole. Call me an old cynic but the “whole”, when referring to the USA, is not the same as “whole” in the context of the UK.
If we look at what is on the drawing board so far, vital is vital only for England, with any strategic economic importance stopping at the border. In Scotland, the chambers of commerce know just how a high-speed rail link will affect them and the damage that it would do to our economy if we were, yet again, left out.
My challenge to the Parliament is simple: what will happen to ensure that the bit that has been forgotten by Westminster is not left out again? We need a high-speed rail link just as much as England does, and at the same time.
16:05
Most people would agree that high-speed rail is a good thing. There are, however, those who argue that we cannot go on increasing rail capacity forever, and that people should travel less.
On the first point, it is worth noting that even with new high-speed lines, we will still have fewer miles of track than in the heyday of rail. On the second point, I would, of course, agree that there is a lot of technology that can help us to travel less, and I have argued that greater flexibility in work arrangements could benefit employers and employees and reduce travel. However, personal contact will remain important and people will continue to travel. Increasingly, our families are dispersed around the country, and often around the world. People migrate to find work and pursue their careers. Students go where the courses that they want to study are provided and, although they might keep in touch by phone or through Facebook, that is not a patch on a proper visit. People are not going to abandon holidays—although they might decide that a train trip is less likely to get cancelled. As for politics, could we really operate purely by remote access? For business travel, videoconferencing could be used more widely for many purposes, but building relationships in business needs the personal touch. There are also some events for which people really have to be there—sport, music and theatre are not quite the same when watched on television.
People will travel, and we need to ensure that they can do so in the most environmentally friendly way possible. We have to ensure that rail is an attractive alternative to air travel. That is fairly easy to do when volcanic ash is playing havoc with our airspace, but what about the rest of the time?
There are undoubtedly things that can be done in terms of pricing, facilities and convenience to make rail provision more attractive—accessibility would be the first thing on my list. We could even make it a little faster, and electrification can help to limit emissions. Line improvements would allow Virgin’s Pendolino trains to go faster on the west coast main line and would help to facilitate more freight travel. Developing a high-speed rail service between Glasgow and Edinburgh would also contribute to an earlier completion date for the high-speed rail link to London. However, to make the most of rail, we need London to Scotland high-speed trains.
Our continental colleagues already enjoy the benefits of high-speed rail with the TGV in France, the ICE in Germany and the AVE in Spain. France and Spain each have 60 times more high-speed track than we have in the UK, and Italy has 16 times more. On the AVE, the 385-mile journey from Madrid to Barcelona takes just two and a half hours. Compare that to a journey from Edinburgh or Glasgow to London, which is roughly the same distance, and it can be seen that a high-speed link could halve the current four-and-a-half-hour journey, which would give trains the edge over planes. The Madrid to Barcelona air route used to be very profitable, but many passengers have now switched to the train. Zaragoza is on the line and has also reaped benefits as an expanding business hub.
The UK Government’s cancellation of the proposed third runway at Heathrow will strengthen demand for a high-speed rail line. Given that added impetus, I would be disappointed if the new UK Government now created further delays by going back the drawing board, rather than getting on with the plan that has been agreed. I would also be angry if the plan for the initial stretches to Birmingham and Manchester were to be followed by Government heel-dragging when it came to the Scottish connection.
Governments around the world are accelerating new investment in transport infrastructure as a response to the economic crisis. We need to ensure that the route from London to Scotland is developed sooner rather than later.
It is, of course, unlikely that the high-speed network will be extended beyond Edinburgh and Glasgow anytime soon. That being so, we need to ensure that there are fast rail links to Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness, or there will be a continued reliance on air travel.
The UK is falling behind our European neighbours. The issue that we are discussing is not a matter of prestige; it is a matter of making economic and environmental progress. Will we restrict our economic potential by dithering and delaying? Will we continue to rely on slow and increasingly crowded trains that make people prefer to fly? Or will we get on with it and build a London to Scotland link that is fit for the 21st century?
16:10
Stewart Stevenson began the debate by referring to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee’s report on the potential—that is a key word—benefits of high-speed rail. I went in to that inquiry a little more sceptical than I was when I came out of it.
I wondered whether, if we committed £20 billion or £30 billion to one very expensive project, the people who rely on ordinary commuter rail and bus services throughout Scotland might wish that we had instead spent money on their priorities, on which they rely on a daily basis. However, I came out of the inquiry recognising that there is a case—several cases, in fact—for high-speed rail, and that if it is to be built, it should be built to Scotland and it should connect to the European network rather than using a fundamentally different technology.
There is a case based on capacity constraints, as the existing rail network is under severe pressure. There is little doubt that there is an economic case, even though there are three or four different views on the scale of the economic benefit that can be achieved. There is also an environmental case, but it is not the same case. Even if the environmental benefits could be achieved, they will depend on the other action that we take. It is sad that the motion and the three amendments before us fail explicitly to recognise that concern.
We should make no mistake: there are those who will happily paint their economic argument with a bit of greenwash and not mean a word of it. There are others who may want to do the right thing but have not grasped that high-speed rail must replace, rather than being an addition to, domestic aviation.
I will quote some of the evidence that we heard in the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. One witness stated:
“we want increased connectivity across all modes. We started by considering any extra capacity that a high-speed rail line would provide, rather than any trade-offs.”
Another witness said:
“I do not consider high-speed rail services to be an alternative; I consider them to be an addition”.—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 11 November 2008; c 1003.]
He spoke about the benefit of shifting to high-speed rail from road journeys as well as from aviation.
It is important that we make a proper comparison with other modes of transport. Research that the Department for Transport carried out in 2007, which takes into account the carbon cost of construction as well as operation, shows that high-speed rail would be less carbon intensive than aviation, but that it would produce more CO2 than either road or conventional rail.
A great deal has been said about modal shift—taking journeys out of the skies and putting them on to the rails—but we must consider where all the future passengers of high-speed rail might come from. If some of them are currently travelling by air and we get them on to the rails, that is all well and good, as long as we follow the logic through and ensure that the airlines do not continue to operate those routes. If the planes keep on flying, the carbon keeps on being emitted. Those emissions will be cut only if the planes do not fly.
We have heard from some members a case for a new rail route that is nothing more than predict and provide: building capacity for ever-increasing demand. Kenny Gibson deepened that concern when he talked about how we can welcome more and more visitors every year. That concern does not go away; we need to consider the case for using air passenger duty to disincentivise domestic aviation, if that lever is devolved to us.
There is a case for opposing airport capacity increases, which were approved by the Parliament only last year, and for not using any slots that are freed up for extra long-haul aviation.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I have debated the point with the minister on many occasions. I need to move on.
Beyond that, it is vital that we do not build a new high-speed rail route only to find that huge numbers of passengers are moving from less polluting modes such as conventional rail or road transport.
I understand Patrick Harvie’s point, but does he accept the modal shift argument, which is that, if the journey time is shortened, there will be a substantial shift from the more heavily polluting air travel? That is the big gain from a high-speed rail link, on environmental grounds, economic grounds or whatever.
That is potentially a substantial gain, but there is also a substantial risk if we get modal shift from less polluting modes such as conventional rail, road and the poor cousin of transport, the coach, which is the least polluting mode of any that are available to us now. We must also consider the risk that we will generate new journeys. If we simply cater for ever-increasing demand, we will continue to have this problem.
Ultimately, what we will be forced to accept in transport debates, whether as a result of physical capacity constraints, climate change targets, peak oil, or the wider energy constraints—which those of us who oppose nuclear power in my party, in the Scottish National Party and in the Liberal Democrats will have to acknowledge—is that demand reduction must become part of the transport picture. We have accepted that on domestic energy and on waste management and we will have to accept it on transport too. That does not mean abandoning travel; it means not imagining that we can travel ever more and ever further every year. Such an approach to transport is fundamentally unsustainable, whatever new modes we build.
16:16
Before I start, I will make a wee comment about Jim Tolson’s remark about the Lib Dems being a respected organisation. I would say that that is stretching it a wee bit far, and I am sure that the public will tell the Lib Dems that next year in the elections to the Scottish Parliament.
The debate has been interesting and it has been fairly consensual—
That was hardly a consensual start, Stuart.
I said “fairly consensual”.
The one thing that has come out of the debate is that Scotland wants a high-speed rail link to the south of England. The economic benefits to Scotland, particularly the central belt cities, are unquestionable—and will be to other cities en route. For me, the most important aspect is connectivity between Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. Another important aspect is the link to the European Union.
It is imperative that the high-speed rail links in the UK are not delayed. Britain has already fallen far behind many European countries, as we heard from Tom McCabe, whose contribution on that aspect of the debate was interesting—I commend him for that. We should seek assurances from the new UK coalition Government that Scotland will not be left behind when the high-speed rail timeline is finalised.
I will touch on a few statistics. Over the past 12 years, passenger numbers on the UK rail network have grown by 50 per cent, which is the fastest rate of growth anywhere in the EU. Long-distance travel has increased by 65 per cent since 1994, and the last time that rail was used by as many people was in the post-war period, when the rail network was twice as large as it is now.
The economic benefits of a high-speed rail link would be extensive. Although we recognise and appreciate that “capacity issues” have a different complexion on networks in south-east England than on the journey from London to Scotland, the need for a new rail link is becoming dire, as new research shows. The west coast main line is likely to reach capacity by 2014 and demand is still growing, despite the recession.
Recent studies have also shown that the introduction of a high-speed line between London and Scotland’s central belt potentially would bring tens of billions of pounds into the economy. The same studies show that the benefits would outweigh the costs only if the high-speed line runs the entire length of the route between England and Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I must make some progress first.
Over the past year, 7 million air and rail trips were made between London and Scotland’s central belt, but only one in six of them was by rail. It is clear that rail cannot compete with air travel unless travel times are less than three hours.
On that issue, I will touch on part of my personal life from a few years ago. From November 2000 to June 2003, I worked in London and went home most weekends. Usually, I flew home with whichever flight company was the cheapest that particular weekend. I took the train a few times, but I became disillusioned with it because of the problems that I encountered time and again. If the service had been better and cheaper, I would have used it more often. The argument that high-speed rail would be beneficial to modal shift is totally accurate. A journey of merely two hours and nine minutes from the centre of London to Scotland’s central belt would provide an attractive alternative to a short flight. High-speed rail has the ability to be the equalising factor. Similar links between Lille and Paris and Barcelona and Madrid account for 85 per cent of travel between those cities.
All those points, and the other points that we have heard in the debate, raise the question why the London-based parties have been so reticent to commit to the creation of a high-speed link between Scotland and England from the outset.
That begs the question what part the member thinks the Scottish Government should play in bringing about such a link instead of whinging about the UK Government.
Give us the borrowing powers—actually, give us independence—and then we could try to work with the London Government to make high-speed rail happen even more quickly.
Another aspect of my personal experience that I want to bring to the debate is that, when I was a student, I studied in Europe for a while and travelled extensively there. The joined-up approach, the efficiency and the value of the journeys that I made highlighted to me how much more advanced than Scotland and the UK some of our EU neighbours were. If we want Scotland and the UK to be more economically competitive, a high-speed rail link between Scotland and England is vital.
Time will tell what the new coalition Government will do. It would be unfortunate if it decided to set up an entirely fresh study, as that might take 18 months just to complete and bring to the consultation stage. When we compare the UK with the rest of Europe, one wonders how we got so far behind. It seems simple to me that we have been held back by the complacency of the London parties at Westminster in the past—there is potentially complacency at present, too—and a lack of drive and ambition. If we are to modernise our railway, we must make progress quickly. It is noteworthy that, as other members have touched on, Spain and France have 60 times the number of miles of high-speed connections that the UK has, and that even Italy’s limited high-speed network is 16 times bigger than Britain’s. Should we praise Italy, France and Spain’s developments, or should we look with contempt on the British Government’s complete lack of ambition in the past?
16:22
I want to pick up on that final question with which Stuart McMillan left us. He asked why rail projects have not been promoted, but we need only consider the Scottish Government’s cancellation of the Glasgow airport rail link and the central Scotland rail hub that was to have been based around Edinburgh airport—
Will the member give way on that point?
No, because I am only 20 seconds into my speech and I did not interrupt the member. If he lets me finish the point, he will find that it is that railways are infinitely more complex and expensive than roads. Our engineers know how to build roads. Railways are much harder to build. To see that, one need only consider the political response to the tram scheme in Edinburgh and the cost overruns. There was nothing like that in Glasgow for the M74 northern extension. That issue is fundamental to politics. Unless we accept it, we will not understand the obstacles to high-speed rail and other types of rail investment.
There has been agreement among members on the issue, which is useful. Our job is to ensure that a high-speed rail line is built in the UK and that it comes to Glasgow and Edinburgh. That is the bottom line for every party in the Parliament, so we should ensure that the UK Government hears that loudly and clearly. We must also ensure that the right route is chosen, that it suits us and that we achieve the best possible journey times for Scotland. We need to use the debate to ensure that Scotland is not left behind as the UK network begins to be built. We have to hope that colleagues from all parties in the Parliament and at the UK level will lobby the UK Government.
The issue is not only about trying to get Scotland linked in. There is a real danger that the analysis of the previous Labour Government and the research that it commissioned will be thrown out. If it is, at least a year and a half will be added on to the project. I hope that people will ask the new Government to think long and hard before it chucks out all that work.
A lot of good, respectable work has been done. Charlie Gordon made an excellent case for that work. Railways cannot just be imagined up. We know that in Scotland. I did not get to open one of the railway projects that I commissioned, because such projects take time. Stewart Stevenson is the lucky person who gets to open them. Political certainty over time is needed.
We need the right route and to ensure that it is entirely additional to the east and west coast main lines. Stuart McMillan was absolutely right about the creaking infrastructure on the east and west coast main lines. Even with the important upgrades that we have seen on the west coast main line and those that are planned for the east coast main line, there will simply not be the space to accommodate the train speeds that are needed if we are going to get journey times down below three hours. Physically, we could not do that consistently for every train that goes from Edinburgh or Glasgow to London.
No member has mentioned rail freight. With full passenger lines, rail freight will not be able to expand to pick up opportunities. If there are going to be much tighter restrictions on carbon emissions, we must get freight off the roads and on to the rails. That means freeing up capacity on the east and west coast lines, and on regional networks south of Edinburgh. Therefore, we must have a totally separate line, and that must be put loudly and clearly on the agenda.
Last night, we had a reception in the Parliament for the Scottish branch of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Afterwards, I reflected on the time that it takes to get major rail infrastructure in place. We make things particularly difficult for ourselves in the UK. I know that the new planning laws that have been passed at UK level will help the process, but members should not underestimate the power of back benchers or of MPs whose areas the new line will run through. Only last month, the new Secretary of State for Wales said that she would defy the party whip, as her constituency comes first in all instances. She was not happy about the high-speed rail link going through her constituency. I do not want to pick her out; other MPs will have the same view.
That partly answers Tom McCabe’s point about China. Other countries do not have the same democratic hurdles that we put in the way of our big infrastructure projects. There are good reasons for our democratic accountability processes, but we must ensure that we get agreement. If we can get cross-party agreement in the Scottish Parliament and in the House of Commons, that will help to get a railway put in place. However, members should not underestimate the capacity of our planning system to make the process long.
That is why Scotland needs to play its role now. I urge the minister to consider the line in Scotland. If we can cut to the chase and ensure that we get the UK Government to consider Scotland now and not see us at the end of the process—it should ensure that we are part of the process—we can go ahead and start to look at the construction process in Scotland. We need to get things through the planning system in Scotland and ensure that there is certainty. At the very least, we must get the Glasgow to Edinburgh high-speed rail connection in place so that we can link into the wider UK network. There is an opportunity that we must seize. We have an opportunity because Scotland is part of the UK and we are members of the Scottish Parliament. We must ensure that our voice is heard loud and clear. The new Con-Dem coalition colleagues must take the message on board down south and MSPs must use our powers of opposition in Scotland and as part of the UK process. We need to speak with one voice from Scotland and ensure that the rail link happens. If we let the existing process go to seed and have to start from scratch, that will add years to the process and make our discussions academic. For Scotland’s environmental—
You must close, please.
16:29
Broadly speaking, Sarah Boyack made a constructive speech in direct support of the Liberal Democrat amendment, which contains the thrust of the argument that we have been putting forward.
Some very good speeches have been made. I enjoyed the vive le Royaume-Uni speech from Alex Johnstone, but I am tempted to say that I was slightly distracted by the image that Professor Harvie tried to provide us with of the Chinese transport minister building the Borders railway to Spain. That would be a feat of engineering in respect of which even the Chinese might raise their eyebrows.
Many of my constituents in the Borders would expect me not to go without making the point that simply a normal-speed service would suffice to reverse the error of 1969 and provide rail services to the Borders.
As the minister said, the estimate is that high-speed rail would make a huge contribution of £25 billion to the Scottish economy, which is about a quarter of Scottish gross domestic product. High-speed rail is probably one of the biggest infrastructure investments that would contribute directly to the Scottish economy’s long-term success that any UK Government, working with a Scottish Government, can make. That is why having some cross-party consensus is necessary.
General agreement has been reached on the case for high-speed rail. Sarah Boyack and others expressed concern about the pace of delivery. It is fair to acknowledge that if Labour had signalled in its first year after taking office in 1997 its vision for a high-speed rail network throughout Britain—when John Prescott was responsible for setting out what he said was a strategic view for transport throughout the United Kingdom—we might, 13 years on, have been going towards the delivery stage rather than the detailed scoping stage.
It is worth noting again that the UK coalition Government says in its agreement that it is committed to establishing a high-speed rail network as part of measures to fulfil the joint ambitions of creating a low-carbon economy and having the infrastructure that we require throughout the rail network in the United Kingdom. Those valuable aims are anchored in the programme for government.
The position that the previous Labour Government left, which Charlie Gordon and Pauline McNeill slightly embellished, was in a document that was published not much more than a month ago. That proposed a high-speed service to link London purely to Birmingham, Manchester, the east midlands, Sheffield and Leeds, with connections to existing main line routes to extend the service to Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. The reference to connections to existing main line routes in the conclusion on page 151 of the UK Government’s command paper did not—unfortunately—appear in any speech by a Labour member today. The previous Labour Government had a bit of a vision deficit.
To an extent, a similar concern relates to the Scottish Government. I have mentioned the Borders railway. Although the bill to promote the railway received royal assent in the summer of 2006, it is due to be operational eight years later, in 2014. When the project received royal assent, it was proposed that passengers would be able to access Edinburgh airport through the Edinburgh airport rail link, as Sarah Boyack said. People in the Borders, which is the biggest landmass in Europe without a rail service, could be connected without changes to a network of international connectivity. However, the cancellations of EARL and of GARL are worrying illustrations of the Scottish Government’s lack of commitment to hard infrastructure to support rail and other transport modes.
Last week, I met a constituent who is a rail expert and has worked in the rail industry for more than 30 years. My constituent said that GARL was not economically viable and would not have the required passenger numbers and that, if the private sector was so positive about it, that sector should pay for it. Does Jeremy Purvis agree?
I agree with the Parliament, which voted to support GARL after considering the scheme. Supporters included nationalist MSPs for Glasgow, who I recall said that GARL was a “fantastic project”.
What do we expect from the Scottish Government? Simply saying that high-speed rail should happen is not enough. Development planning, environmental impact assessments, possible compulsory purchase issues and strategic planning links will all require to be considered as part of high-speed rail coming to Scotland. It is within the Scottish Government’s remit to make decisions on all those issues that are consistent with Scottish Government policies that the Parliament has approved. All that work needs to be done.
It is slightly odd that one SNP member after another, including members of the nationalist Scottish Government, should speak in favour of handing over to a UK body planning and delivery of infrastructure in Scotland. In today’s debate, Alex Johnstone’s vive le Royaume-Uni approach—not separation from the United Kingdom—offers the prospect of delivering high-speed rail. I cannot imagine the Spanish Government ringing up the French Government and asking, “Would you mind extending the TGV to Madrid—and, by the way, will you pay for it, too?”
16:35
Today’s debate has been interesting and, in large part, consensual—at least on the broad principles. The debate has been informed by a number of key sources, but I draw particular attention to the report that the Parliament’s Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee—convened by Patrick Harvie, who spoke earlier—produced a year ago. The debate on that report a year ago was extremely good. Developments since then have made today’s debate, too, a good one.
A couple of unusual comments were made in the debate. For the first time, blame was laid at the door of the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government, which has apparently not done nearly enough during its first nine days in office to lay tracks all the way through. We heard the interesting argument that high-speed rail would happen far faster simply by Scotland having independence, especially if we had some borrowing powers. Cathy Peattie was right to say that politics cannot be done by remote access, but an examination of whether that improved outcomes might make an interesting study.
The debate has been broadly consensual. It is important that it should be, because high-speed rail is an enormous, very long-term project that will impact on the whole of the United Kingdom. It will straddle several elections both north and south of the border, so it will probably straddle several Governments both north and south of the border. Therefore, it is critical that we proceed with a degree of consensus.
Many members pointed out that the UK is behind Europe and many parts of Asia on the issue. As Christopher Harvie indicated, we have only 50 or 60 miles of high-speed railway, so we must take forward the issue with a strong degree of consensus. Today’s announcement in the programme for government, which Alex Johnstone and Jeremy Purvis read out, is an important one. There is a vision in black and white of a truly national high-speed rail network for the whole of Britain.
As Alex Johnstone pointed out, given the financial constraints that exist, we will have to achieve that vision in phases. The Government is being realistic and is facing up to the position in which we find ourselves.
The member suggests that high-speed rail will have to be introduced in phases, because of financial constraints. How does he react to Network Rail’s assertion that the business case shows it paying for itself?
The business case is extremely good, and over time the project will pay for itself. As I recall, the HS2 report suggests that, for every pound spent, there will be £2-worth of benefits. However, that does not allow us to escape from the reality that all of the money must be paid, the infrastructure must be bought and laid, and the workforce must be paid before the benefits accrue. The fact that there is a good business case for something does not mean that all of it can be built at once, before the benefits accrue. That is why many projects happen in phases. Logically, that must apply to a project of this size, scale and scope.
Many speakers from all parties have set out the economic benefits of high-speed rail. The increase in speed from 125mph to well over 200mph, the reduced journey times, the increased productivity and the figures laid out carefully by the minister must be welcomed.
If the increased speed and reduced times work out, that will lead us to what Patrick Harvie described as the tipping point—and a degree of consensus has been reached that it is around three hours for a journey between Scotland and London. If we can get the journey time down to three hours or below, people will most likely move from the plane to the train.
We have heard the stats for journeys between London and Scotland at the moment. Only one in six takes place by train. Between Newcastle and London, however, the journey time is that bit shorter, and only 60 per cent of those journeys take place by plane, as opposed to 80 per cent of journeys between Scotland and London.
I was greatly encouraged by the figures that the minister produced. I have not checked their veracity, but I will take them at face value. In his view, judging from the research that he has seen, 67 per cent of journeys could take place by rail if we get the journey time down to three hours. I think that he gave the figure of 80 per cent if we get it down to two and a half hours. If we reach that point, we get to the nub of it all—we get the environmental benefits. We do so only if the number of plane journeys is reduced.
We do not just get the carbon efficiency benefits, as has been outlined. I also draw attention to a point that Alex Johnstone made: if we can reduce the number of flights between Scotland and London, environmental benefits accrue to the south of England—around Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted—not just in carbon efficiencies but in reduced noise pollution and less gasoline and so on coming out of the aeroplanes. That would be an enormous environmental benefit down there.
For all those reasons, I support the amendment in the name of Alex Johnstone.
16:41
The excitement that I said I felt during my opening speech has been somewhat dissipated by what has been an oddly unsatisfactory debate. On the face of it, we have all pretty much said that we want the same thing: a high-speed rail network between London and Scotland as soon as possible. The action of the new Con-Dem Government in cancelling the third runway at Heathrow should give great impetus to that objective.
Alex Johnstone appeared to share my excitement when he referred to a “brave new world”, without a hint of irony and without apologies to Aldous Huxley. He also spoke about financial constraints and emphasised the legitimate environmental concerns of voters who live near Heathrow airport. Presumably, he and his coalition partners are equally concerned about voters who might live on the proposed route for HS2’s line between London and Birmingham.
We know that the new coalition Government has tweaked the outgoing Government’s plans by insisting on the necessity of a railway station at Heathrow airport, linked to high-speed rail. There will be not much change out of £2 billion for a railway station that, no matter where at Heathrow it is situated, will be in the wrong part of the complex for a great many travellers. However, that is not, in itself, a catastrophic tweaking.
In their interventions, Robert Brown and Jeremy Purvis made many attempts at dissembling. Mr Brown worked like a switch engine. Mr Tolson gave the show away when he spoke about the devolved Scottish Government making a financial contribution to the project. Excuse me, but the proposal concerns a new UK trunk railway line, serving different parts of the United Kingdom. In my view, it is principally the responsibility of the UK Government.
What does Mr Gordon mean by “principally the responsibility”? Some planning aspects should of course be paid for by the Scottish Government, should they not?
I already elicited from the minister the comment that we need to make provision for high-speed rail within national planning framework 2 in Scotland. I have repeatedly made the point—I made it again today—that how we serve Glasgow and Edinburgh by high-speed rail could make a vast and incremental contribution to the UK’s high-speed network if we choose the right options.
I make no apologies to Kenny Gibson for talking about removing pinch points and straightening bends in the meantime, because we need to develop a market for high-speed rail. That can happen incrementally to a degree, although there is a tipping point, as has been said. It might be different for different people—for some, the tipping point might be at 3.5 hours rather than 3 hours.
Christopher Harvie rightly bemoaned the planning delays that we have in Scotland because of the might of the property owners and property lawyers. Sarah Boyack alluded to that too. I do not advocate the Chinese solution; I advocate the French one, which is to take out the public chequebook and say to such people that the project is in the national interest, so their mouths will be stuffed with gold but they must get out of the way very quickly.
I share Tom McCabe’s frustration at the sheer competitive disadvantage at which our constant falling behind on high-speed rail puts us. I do not necessarily share his whole-hearted enthusiasm for maglev, because I wonder how we would fit it into the narrow country in which we live, but I do not look down on that technology, which is successful in some other contexts.
Gil Paterson described himself as an old cynic, and who am I to disagree? I simply point out that, in a previous incarnation, I took John Prescott to court to prevent him from doing some of the things about which Mr Paterson complained.
Patrick Harvie banged on about demand reduction. At least he says that he is on our side in wanting high-speed rail, but I do not think much of his aspirations for the tourism industry. Thousands of Glaswegians, including my constituents, rely on jobs in that industry.
Does Charlie Gordon share my concern that those jobs in the tourism industry might still be reliant on visitors from long-haul aviation when oil hits $200 or more a barrel? Do we not need to reorient our economy around local tourism?
Well, when alternative jobs are available, I am sure that my fellow Glaswegians will be interested in taking them up. Until then, they have the right to remain sceptical.
What worries me is what the Con-Dems have not said today. Do they endorse Network Rail’s route and, if not, what route do they endorse? If they have another in mind, how long will it take? Why do they keep saying that there are financial constraints when the business case is strong? Are they really serious about high-speed rail? Many of us are.
16:48
The debate has thrown up a number of key questions: about the route; about whether we should press ahead with building a high-speed rail line southwards; and about the key issue of how it should all be paid for. The fact that there is a huge return does not alter the fact that we have to lay out money before the return is delivered to us.
Charlie Gordon described himself in his opening remarks as an old railman. He is desperately unkind to himself. From the elevated age from which I view such matters, he is but a young broth of a boy. He referred to Network Rail’s new line study and the sound business case that derives from that. We should all pay close attention to that study. It has been developed by those who run the railway and understand the metal that we have.
In his closing speech, Charlie Gordon referred to the need to make incremental change in the existing network, such as removing pinch points and working on bends. We are, of course, doing those things. We are also considering whether some of the speed limits on the existing network are now necessary in consequence of some things that have happened.
Charlie Gordon also pinpointed, as others did, the need for extra capacity on the network. Indeed, in many parts of the world—including France, where the TGV is held up as an exemplar for Europe—the whole reason for a high-speed rail link was driven by capacity rather than speed. The increased speed was merely a consequence of the fact that a new line had to be constructed.
The need for a local high-speed line between Edinburgh and Glasgow was also mentioned in the debate. In many ways, of course, that is the aim of our Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvement project. With the EGIP, we will bring the travel time down from around 52 minutes to around 35 minutes. Huge amounts of money would take us down to 20 minutes without delivering the same scale of benefit. Clearly, we are addressing the need for that direct connection. However, it is vital that both our major cities are served independently by the proposed high-speed rail link, rather than simply one of those cities being served via the other.
In saying that both cities must be served by the high-speed rail link, does the minister accept the case that both city centres must be served? I think that there are issues with that.
Yes, it is certainly true that the city centres must be served. I will enter a note of caution that the city centre can encompass a relatively large area of the respective cities. We are talking to the councils about that and we have preliminary views as to what that might mean. To give an example without indicating outcomes, I think that it would be formidably difficult to provide at Waverley station the length of platform that is required for high-speed trains, which will be 400m long. Even the half-length train that might come to Scotland will be 200m long. As Waverley has no platforms of that length, the stop might need to be placed a little bit further to the west. In Glasgow, we probably have the opportunity at Glasgow Central to provide the platform extension that would be necessary, but there are capacity issues on the approach. The point that I am making is that we understand the issue and are engaged in it.
Alex Johnstone correctly pinpointed how railways were central to economic development in these islands. However, such development was not all pain-free. Whereas every town had its own clock up to that point and could go its own way, the railways standardised time. We are now under the cosh of time, Presiding Officer, again thanks to the railways.
Very properly, Alex Johnstone also pointed to the substantial environmental benefit that people in west London might derive from the reduction in noise and pollutants from plane engines. That precisely illustrates why the question of who derives the benefits from high-speed rail—and, therefore, who should contribute to its funding—is a complex one with which we need to engage. The issue is not susceptible to quick responses.
The word has been that high-speed rail will start in 2017. However, the previous Secretary of State for Transport indicated to me that he expected that three and a half to four years would be required for the legislative process alone at Westminster, even under the Transport and Works Act 1992, which is similar to the Transport and Works (Scotland) Act 2007. In part, that is because of the bicameral nature of the Westminster Parliament, where proposals must be scrutinised by committees in both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, far from having the planning advantages that the Chinese Government might have, we have substantial difficulties, both north and south of the border, in dealing with these issues.
It is also worth pointing out that getting the planning arrangements to the same stage as has been achieved by HS2 for the proposals that are before us will probably cost in the order of £400 million to £600 million. That estimate is based on what it has cost to produce the most recent command paper. Therefore, the decisions involved are not trivial.
Kenny Gibson talked about energy. Electric trains of the kind that we are discussing would save 25 per cent on costs, mainly because of regenerative braking, which makes a big difference.
I listened with interest to Christopher Harvie, who was, as ever, extremely well informed on the history of railways. I had not realised that Japan’s Olympics rail link was a spur to the country’s modern development.
Tom McCabe made a thoughtful and useful speech. Clearly, he will continue to take an interest in the subject. He spoke of high-speed rail cutting 30 minutes from the journey from Amsterdam to Brussels. That example illustrates that it is perfectly possible for different jurisdictions to collaborate to deliver on the railways. In Ireland, the railway between Belfast and Dublin has been refettled. Although that is not a high-speed rail line, cross-border working was achieved nonetheless.
It is on that basis that we—good collaborationists that we are—have been working with the Department for Transport and HS2. It is important that we continue to do that. Frankly, our input is important. As the project moves forward, we will not close our minds to taking the work more directly into our own house. At the moment, we have an expert team working on the project. Members of that team have built up the skills, and it is entirely proper that we continue to work with them. That is why, at this stage, we cannot support what is encompassed in the Liberal amendment. That is not because what is proposed is intrinsically wrong, but because now is the wrong time to make the decision that the amendment calls for—it is simply too early to do so.
Patrick Harvie made some rather astonishing suggestions. He said that high-speed rail generates more CO2 than conventional rail does. I know that he relied on DFT factors in coming to that conclusion, albeit that he fundamentally disagrees with the DFT when its factors show that the project in Scotland that is causing the greatest amount of CO2 at the moment is the Edinburgh trams. That may seem slightly unlikely, but the conclusion is derived using DFT figures. On the Parliament having approved additional airport capacity, my answer is no, we did not do that. Finally, coaches have increased their carbon footprint by 10 per cent over the past five or six years.
Sarah Boyack rehearsed some old arguments about GARL, EARL and cost overruns. Under this Government, the Airdrie to Bathgate line is on budget and it is staying on budget. Similarly, the M74—for which we placed the contract—is staying on budget, as is the M80.
The debate has been interesting. We have stated our preference for a broad alignment that takes Edinburgh and Glasgow into the equation. We will, of course, work with the new Administration at Westminster. As I said, I have made initial contacts with Philip Hammond on other matters. It is clear that we will be able to have a rational discussion.
Funding issues have to be discussed. It is not clear as yet how HS2 will be funded in England, far less anywhere else. We do not use the regulatory asset base—
Order. There is too much noise.
We need to have a robust way of ensuring that we harness private and public resources to deliver high-speed rail to make sure that the benefits that we know will come are delivered.
The opportunities that are before us are substantial. However, we have to accelerate what is happening on high-speed rail. We heard from the Conservative party that it wants to include Heathrow airport. As long as doing that does not slow down journey times to Scotland, that is a matter for those south of the border. It is important that we have the shortest possible route from London to Scotland and that we have access to trains that will speed up our journeys.
At the time of the DFT’s announcement, the Conservatives were scathing of the plans, saying:
“Labour have got high speed rail wrong ... Their line to Birmingham leaves the North, Scotland and Wales out of the massive social, economic and regeneration benefits of high speed rail.”
Clearly, there should be—and I look for—a change in direction from the UK Government that gives us new opportunities to press the case for high-speed rail for Scotland.
I reiterate that, on this agenda, as on so many others, Scotland is absolutely not peripheral but central. Scotland is central to the business case for high-speed rail in the UK. It is absolutely essential that Scotland is included in the planning for high-speed rail at the outset, free from bias—including our own. The Scottish Parliament should speak at decision time with one voice. We should send the clearest and most unambiguous message to London that we need to be part of this project from the outset.