Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Official Report 732KB pdf

---

Portfolio Question Time

---

Culture and External Affairs

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions. In order to get in as many people as possible, I would like short and succinct questions and answers, please.

---

Edinburgh Economy (Winter Festival)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its estimate is of the value to the Edinburgh economy of the winter festival season. (S4O-01496)

In 2010-11, Edinburgh’s hogmanay festival—the flagship event of the winter festival season—contributed £32 million to the Scottish economy, of which £27 million directly benefited the Edinburgh economy. Scotland’s winter festivals send a clear message that Scotland is open for business in the winter months, which provides a welcome economic boost for businesses.

The minister will be aware that one aspect of this year’s winter festival is a promotion to try to get cafes, shops and retail outlets to open later in December and that the council is going to offer free parking to encourage that. Given the recent success of the museum late events and the need to offer more than just retail therapy in Edinburgh in December, will he undertake to speak to the National Galleries of Scotland and National Museums Scotland to see whether they, too, might come alive after 5?

Of course, we are happy to engage with partners to explore the expo fund. A couple of years ago, the expo fund allowed museums, galleries and other attractions to open on 1 January for the first time, so that those tourists who were not in too fragile a state after the hogmanay celebrations could go out and enjoy what Edinburgh has to offer. The member makes a very good point and I am more than happy to engage with partners on that.

What role has the Scottish Government’s expo fund had in supporting Edinburgh’s winter festivals?

When the expo fund was initiated, many attractions opened on 1 January for the first time. On top of that, Scottish Government funding for the winter festivals this year will be £350,000 for the City of Edinburgh Council. Of that, £100,000 is for hogmanay, £65,000 is for St Andrew’s day celebrations at Edinburgh castle and £4,000 is for Burnsfest at the Scottish storytelling centre. Edinburgh has received £200,000 for hogmanay from the Scottish Government’s expo fund and £160,000 from EventScotland.

I thought that I heard just a hint of the criticism that Edinburgh gets too much. I put it to the minister that he must always remember that Edinburgh is the hook that gets tourists into Scotland, and it therefore deserves the money that is spent on it.

I certainly intended no criticism. Although I am a born and bred Glaswegian, I appreciate everything that Edinburgh has to offer.

---

National Museums Scotland (Collections)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether National Museums Scotland should make its collections available throughout the country. (S4O-01497)

The Scottish Government expects National Museums Scotland to give wide public access to its collections. There are many ways in which it can achieve that, including by digital as well as physical means, and its partners in the museums sector, including local authorities, can help to facilitate that.

I entirely agree that National Museums Scotland can go about this in many ways. I know that the cabinet secretary is fully aware of its proposal to close its national collection of costumes at Shambellie house. Indeed, there is to be a members’ business debate on that this evening, which I am sure the cabinet secretary is looking forward to as much as I am. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in putting forward the proposal without any prior local consultation, National Museums Scotland is failing to explore the many alternative arrangements that could make Shambellie a more sustainable operation? Does she agree that a postponement of the decision for around 12 months would give an adequate period of grace in which to do that?

As I explained to Alex Fergusson when I met him and a number of MSPs on 7 November, that is an operational decision for the NMS board. However, I have met the board’s chair and director to explore the different ways in which NMS can support and improve its collections offering in Dumfries and Galloway.

With regard to the future of Shambellie house, we must remember—as I mentioned at the meeting on 7 November—that we should not take for granted the position of staff who work there, as they may have other opportunities on offer. Local members have expressed strong views, and I have indicated that I will pass those on to the board as there is an important board meeting coming up in the next week or so. Although I take those concerns on board, it is not for me to determine whether there should be a postponement. However, I can and will ensure—along with the local authorities and local members—that the NMS board is fully cognisant of the need to improve the provision of national collections in Dumfries and Galloway.

I am grateful to the minister for her helpful answer to Alex Fergusson on Shambellie house. Like Mr Fergusson, I look forward to this evening’s debate.

I ask the minister to recognise that some collections lend themselves better than others to digitisation. The artefacts that are available in a costume museum might not be as well enhanced by that method as other collections might.

Could National Museums Scotland be encouraged to think about what use could be made of Shambellie house in the winter season, when it is normally closed, and whether that might be an opportunity to devolve some of the other NMS collections to Dumfries and Galloway, as well as to other parts of Scotland, in order to give the house more of a life throughout the year?

Patricia Ferguson will recall that my answer on digitisation was purely in response to a very general question from Alex Fergusson.

To be fair, National Museums Scotland has looked at using better public relations promotion of the activity at Shambellie house. The house is quite small and has small rooms, which means that, at any one time, only 50 out of 6,000 costumes are on display. Having said that, I think that Patricia Ferguson’s line of argument on the diversification of the use of Shambellie house is one that we could all explore, and I encourage National Museums Scotland to do so.

---

Creative Scotland

3. To ask the Scottish Government what contact the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs has had with Creative Scotland in the last month. (S4O-01498)

I met Creative Scotland on Wednesday 14 November at my regular scheduled meeting with the chair of the board. Over the month, I have kept in close contact with Creative Scotland through my officials. I was with one of the board members and Creative Scotland officials on Sunday night when I presented the Creative Scotland games award at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards.

I thank the minister for her answer, although I am not sure, given the level of discontent with Creative Scotland among the artistic community and creative organisations, whether that indicates a more hands-on approach or not.

Does the minister think that Creative Scotland’s move from long-term funding to project-based funding for the arts has been a success?

That move has not taken place: there has been a delay and an operational review, as Ken Macintosh will know if he has been following the debate. I have asked the board to look at the issues, and two pieces of work will be presented to it on 6 December, one of which covers some of the wider operational issues about which Mr Macintosh raises concerns. However, I can say—perhaps I should correct my initial answer—that the first elements of the flexible funding have been allocated. All apart from one have been allocated for two years, which is the same amount of time that the previous flexible funding programmes covered. One programme was allocated less than two years’ funding at its own request. There is no shortening of the funding period, but there is an issue with regard to operation, which is why one of the board reviews will look at precisely that area of concern.

How will Creative Scotland engage with the year of natural Scotland?

We are now moving into the year of natural Scotland. As with all the other themed years, we are encouraging different agencies to work on helping to celebrate it, and Creative Scotland will be contributing. I understand that Creative Scotland has allocated £1 million to help to celebrate the year of natural Scotland. Some of that will relate to the interpretation of John Muir, who is a very important figure in Scotland, and some will relate to other artistic formats. Opportunities are available to artists, who can look at the Creative Scotland website if they want to take part in what is planned for next year.

---

Youth Music Initiative

4. To ask the Scottish Government how it measures the impact of the youth music initiative. (S4O-01499)

Creative Scotland manages the delivery and monitoring of the youth music initiative on behalf of the Government. All funded projects are required to submit to Creative Scotland an end of project report and, where necessary, interim reports.

The real impacts and measures of this successful initiative are evident through the achievements of projects that have been undertaken by the likes of Fèis Rois with traditional Gaelic music, Sistema Scotland’s big noise orchestras and the flourishing Scottish Brass Band Association. I will attend the youth brass band championships on Saturday.

The Scotland-wide youth music initiative supports more than 300 projects annually. Since its inception in 2003, it has continued to ensure that all Scotland’s primary school children have access to one year of free music tuition. At the end of academic year 2010-11, 1.7 million attendances at YMI-funded programmes were recorded across all local authority areas.

Cultural co-ordinators at Falkirk Council and, latterly, Falkirk Community Trust have drawn down nearly £1.2 million from the youth music initiative since 2007, and the total that has been drawn down in Falkirk district in the past five years stands at £1,386,000. I have seen at first hand the benefits that the initiative can bring to young people.

Question, please.

Can the cabinet secretary assure me that this excellent initiative will continue in future years?

Despite severe pressures from the Westminster Government, I have, within the culture budget, been able to maintain the youth music initiative at a value of £10 million. I join the member in congratulating those who have been involved on the outstanding work that has been done in the Falkirk area using the youth music initiative.

---

China (Treatment of Tibetan People)

5. To ask the Scottish Government, further to the First Minister’s meeting with the Chinese ambassador to the United Kingdom in June 2012, what representations it has made to China regarding the treatment of the Tibetan people. (S4O-01500)

The Scottish Government has not made any specific representations to China regarding the treatment of Tibetan people since the First Minister’s meeting with the Chinese ambassador in June 2012. However, Scottish ministers regularly use opportunities to raise the varied issues of human rights in appropriate speeches on China and meetings with the Chinese. The Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs met the Chinese consul general in May and used the opportunity to highlight the Scottish Government’s concerns.

We are committed to engaging with the Chinese Government on human rights as part of our overall engagement. Scotland is justly proud of its reputation for ethical business practices and knows that human rights and the rule of law are key to long-term economic success and social stability. We will continue to share those experiences and values in our dealings with China in the future.

The minister will be aware of the recent and increasing instances of self-immolation as a form of protest in Tibet and will recognise how tragic the consequences of that have been for the families of those who have died in the struggle against Chinese oppression. Does the Scottish Government intend to raise the issues of Tibet and Chinese human rights abuses in any future meetings with the Chinese Government and officials? Will the Scottish Government make representations to the United Kingdom Government and ask it to apply diplomatic pressure in order to avoid the tragic consequences that the people of Tibet have become all too familiar with?

Of course I and the Scottish Government share the member’s concerns. Self-immolation is a desperate course of action for anyone to take and our sympathies go with the families of those affected. We urge the Chinese Government to work with local monasteries and communities to resolve the underlying grievance that has led to the self-immolations. We believe and have said that the long-term solution depends on respect for human rights and genuine autonomy for Tibetans within the framework of the Chinese constitution.

I reiterate that we have raised and continue to raise, when appropriate, a number of concerns on this and other human rights issues. Human rights will be a key theme in our refreshed China plan, which is due out before the end of the year.

---

Historic Scotland (Conservation Areas)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what assistance Historic Scotland provides to support and regenerate conservation areas. (S4O-01501)

Historic Scotland provides grant support for the regeneration of conservation areas in Scotland through the agency’s conservation area regeneration scheme. Since 2007, more than £16 million has been invested in 35 separate projects in 24 local authority areas. That has levered in match funding of more than £96 million.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Robert Adam planned village of Inveraray in Argyll and Bute is a fantastic example of a thriving conservation area and a popular tourist destination? Is she aware of the need for about £3 million-worth of building repairs to the historic buildings of Inveraray, including the avenue arch and the courthouse? Will she join me in expressing the hope that Historic Scotland will respond positively to Argyll and Bute Council’s recent application for funding support to restore and maintain Inveraray’s built heritage under its conservation area regeneration scheme?

I agree that Inveraray is one of Scotland’s most important planned towns and that it can tell a positive story about place making not only in the past but in the future. I understand that Argyll and Bute Council’s application for £970,000 has been submitted to round 5 of Historic Scotland’s CAR scheme; the round 5 applications are being assessed and applicants will be notified in early 2013. I am sure that Argyll and Bute Council’s proposal is very positive and look forward to the response when Historic Scotland makes its decision in early 2013.

---

Scottish Catholic Archives

7. To ask the Scottish Government when the Scottish Catholic archives will be made available to genealogy centres in Kilmarnock and Glasgow in addition to the Edinburgh centre. (S4O-01502)

The records referred to are the property of the Catholic church and the National Records of Scotland does not have its permission to make them available at local family history centres. The records are available at the ScotlandsPeople centre in Edinburgh and on the internet at www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk.

The cabinet secretary will of course be aware of the importance of providing access to Catholic archives and history as close as possible to the west of Scotland centres where many Catholic people live. Will she agree to consult further with the Catholic church on whether it will review the arrangements to ensure that there is equal access for people who live in the west of Scotland as well as for those in Edinburgh?

I reiterate that permission is required from the Catholic church. I recall that Willie Coffey last wrote to me on this issue in January and on the back of this question I am happy to again ask the National Records of Scotland to seek the Catholic church’s permission to provide access. As I have said, it will be up to the church to make that decision, but I am happy to take forward the issue on Willie Coffey’s behalf.

Question 8 has not been lodged by John Park, for understandable reasons.

---

Sites of Historical and Archaeological Interest

9. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to protect sites of historical and archaeological interest. (S4O-01504)

Through Historic Scotland, Scottish ministers work closely with local authorities, landholders and communities to protect and enhance the country’s historic environment, and that work is carried out in the context of a wide range of legislation, policy and guidance delivered at national and local level. Historic Scotland also administers grants for historic environment projects on behalf of Scottish ministers, with £14.5 million a year available to help to enhance and promote the historic environment for the benefit of our communities.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that these sites are often under threat as a result of planning applications from developers. The Douglas Support estate in Viewpark glen in North Lanarkshire is an area of historical and archaeological importance to the local community, and was acknowledged as such in a survey by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. Despite that and despite the fact that a previous application was withdrawn in 2004, the site is again the subject of a proposed development. Will the cabinet secretary outline the action that local communities can take and what support, if any, is available from the Scottish Government to help local communities and organisations such as the Viewpark conservation group to protect sites of historical and archaeological interest both in these circumstances and in general?

I know that the member was in touch yesterday with Historic Scotland about the Douglas Support or Rosehall estate, which I believe is near to the M8 in the Bellshill area of North Lanarkshire. However, the organisation has had no recent involvement in the matter. Although an application was made to list the structures, which are ruinous, it was decided not to designate them as they were not of sufficient interest to be so designated.

However, as the member has noted, there might be some archaeological interest in the area. Such matters should be addressed in the planning process, which, of course, is ultimately the responsibility of local authorities. Nevertheless, I encourage the member and her constituents with an interest in the issue to look at the archaeological angle rather than to pursue the matter on the basis of the structures themselves.

Is it not incumbent on everyone who knows the Douglas Support estate to reflect the proposal accurately? Is it is not the case that protection of the archaeology and wildlife in the area is part of the plan? Instead of framing the debate in terms of the area’s destruction, should we not debate the potential to protect the area, protect the wildlife and bring much-needed jobs to the community?

Michael McMahon will know that, as a minister, I will not make a judgment on whether the planning application should go ahead. If there are concerns about heritage or archaeology, those issues can be pursued but, as I said, that is part of the planning process. I am sure that, as part of that process, the local authority and its members will consider all the issues, including the protection that is planned in the application and the wider circumstances. I will not make a judgment on whether it is appropriate to approve the planning application; that is a matter for the local authority.

That concludes this set of questions. I apologise to John Pentland that we did not reach question 10.

---

Infrastructure, Investment and Cities

---

Road Improvements (Scottish Borders)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to improve the A1, A7 and the A68 roads in the Scottish Borders. (S4O-01506)

The strategic transport projects review recommended a programme of active management and targeted individual investments on the A1, A7 and A68 to maintain and safely operate the routes.

Since 2007, we have completed the A68 Dalkeith bypass and major improvements on the A7 at Auchenrivock. Our trunk road programme contains further planned major improvements for the A68 at Pathhead and Soutra. We have also invested around £30 million since 2007 on maintenance and road safety activities across the three routes. We estimate that, in 2013-14, we will spend up to a further £4 million.

The minister will know that those roads provide vital links from the Borders to the rest of the United Kingdom. However, none of them was identified for significant investment in the Scottish Government’s infrastructure plans, which were published last year. Does the Government have any intention to change those plans? Will the minister explain why none of the routes was identified for improvements in last year’s plan?

I have already explained the improvements that have taken place, and that about another £4 million is to be spent in 2013-14. In addition, the STPR identified the best solution for the routes as being that we actively manage their safety.

Of course, there are demands for upgrading roads. The A1, A7 and A68 were not upgraded under previous Administrations; perhaps that bears some examination. The amount of maintenance that we carry out is commensurate with safety needs. To make further improvements and to implement further projects would, of course, have substantial capital implications. Perhaps, in that context, John Lamont should reflect on the fact that he supported £500 million being spent on the trams project rather than on those projects, and that he therefore bears some responsibility for the capital situation that we are in.

What impact will the operation of the Borders railway have on reducing traffic usage on the A7?

As was stated when the announcement on the Borders railway was made, we expect that the Borders railway will take some traffic off the roads and have significant environmental and safety benefits.

As Christine Grahame knows—because she was at the launch—the Borders railway project is hugely supported in the Borders. I very much look forward to the day when the trains start to run on that route and to the benefits that it will bring in terms of congestion and the amount of traffic on the roads.

The minister will be aware that the A7 is trunked only as far as Galashiels and then ceases to be the responsibility of Transport Scotland. Given the widely acknowledged concerns of many people in the Borders over the safety of stretches of that road north of Galashiels, does he agree that safety on the A7 must be improved and that it would be more appropriate for Transport Scotland to take ownership of it at Galashiels and north of it?

I am trying to recall whether Jim Hume made that suggestion when the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition was in power here at Holyrood or whether his conversion to it is just recent.

He and his party have talked about increasing centralisation. Why would we want to take control of the roads that are properly in the control of local authorities? The A7 is a local authority road. Of course we have an interest in its safety and will continue to discuss that with the council. However, the trunk road network was set by the Conservatives in the mid 1990s. Jim Hume’s party has not challenged it previously, and I see no reason to change it now.

---

House Building (Planning Applications)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what impact it expects the average of 77 weeks for a decision on major housing applications to have on the house construction industry. (S4O-01507)

Delays in the planning system inhibit sustainable economic growth. As my statement to Parliament in September made clear, I put performance at the very heart of an efficiently functioning planning service. This is the first time that we have seen performance statistics showing the average time taken to make a decision. In addition to the next steps package of proposals that I have already announced, my officials will look specifically at why particular decisions took so long and identify where the barriers to determination were.

I thank the minister for his most sincere answer. Given that the wait is now almost one year longer than the statutory 16-week period, will he consider the example that is being set by the Westminster Government, which is prepared to cut red tape in order to achieve improvements in planning decision timescales? Will he consider similar measures and will he accept that, if he does, he will have the sincerest support from me and my party?

I am sure that Mr Johnstone would agree that I am always sincere when giving answers in Parliament. I agree that the 76-week timescale is unacceptable, but it is refreshing that, in looking at the statistics, we can flush out the issues that need to be addressed. We have gone beyond the traditional two-month and four-month targets.

On what is happening in England, I think that the Conservatives would have us take the quite curious position that centralisation of the planning system should be the way forward in Scotland. That does not quite fit with the Conservatives’ other press releases on the planning appeals system, especially in relation to renewables and other matters.

The Scottish Government will drive up improvement by delivering a range of actions, in partnership with planning authorities, key agencies and other stakeholders, in order to ensure that we have better performance. I refer Alex Johnstone to the better regulation bill consultation, which considers penalties when performance is not delivered. Crucially, this is about delivery. I ask him to reflect on the fact that approvals in Scotland—including housing—are at some 93 or 94 per cent. That shows that the system is working and that there is more than just timescales to planning: consents and confidence in the system are also required. We will continue to ensure that many measures are taken so that the planning system can contribute fully to sustainable economic growth.

---

Affordable Housing Supply Programme

3. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the affordable housing supply programme will have on levels of poverty. (S4O-01508)

Housing is a key part of our physical, economic and social fabric, and getting housing right will contribute to our purpose of sustainable economic growth. Our target is to deliver at least 30,000 affordable homes during the lifetime of this Parliament. That will contribute significantly to our wider aims of tackling poverty and health inequalities and building confidence and capacity in our communities.

In evidence to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, Shelter Scotland said that the combination of aggressive welfare reform and a 45 per cent cash-terms reduction in affordable housing expenditure over the spending review period amounts to

“a real one-two knockout punch for low-income families”.—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 24 October 2012; c 970.]

The United Kingdom Government has got it wrong on the budget and on welfare reforms, but will the Scottish ministers accept that they have got it wrong in presenting an affordable housing budget that has been cut so much that social landlords are now faced with an impossible choice of putting up rents or putting the brakes on house building altogether? Why should the Scottish budget be balanced on the backs of those who are in the most need?

First, let me say to Margaret McCulloch that we are suffering, or are about to suffer, the impact of aggressive welfare cuts—I have just come from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations conference on welfare reform—because this Parliament is unable to make decisions on welfare for us in order to ensure that we have a welfare system that is fit for purpose and which protects the most vulnerable people in our society. Anybody in this Parliament who is concerned about those changes would do well to argue for this Parliament’s having the power to change things rather than simply to mitigate the impacts of Tory Westminster policies.

On housing, all budgets are under pressure right now, and I absolutely acknowledge the pressures that are faced by those who work in housing provision. However, in the face of a 33 per cent cut to our capital budget over the spending review period, this Government will invest at least £760 million in our affordable housing supply programme over the next three years—that includes, of course, the £260 million within the local government settlement. What we have to do—this is our challenge and our determination—is to get as much out of that money as we possibly can, so value for money and leverage from that resource are absolutely central. I will give the member some statistics that show what we are seeking to do.

Briefly, please.

In the last year of the previous Labour Government, £562 million delivered fewer than 5,000 houses. In 2011-12, the Scottish Government spent £352 million and delivered just short of 7,000 houses. That is what happens when we strive for value for money.

---

High-speed Rail Project

4. To ask the Scottish Government when it will publish the cost and cost benefit analysis of the high-speed rail project between Glasgow and Edinburgh. (S4O-01509)

We will embark on detailed business-case planning early in 2013. The detail of that will, of course, be shared with Parliament before any decision to give formal approval to the project.

On 12 November, the Deputy First Minister announced, amid clouds of rhetoric, the intention to cut the train journey time between Glasgow and Edinburgh to under 30 minutes by 2024. That was all very exciting, but the distinction between a realistic aspiration and pie in the sky propaganda is a fine one. In 2007, the Scottish Government costed the project at £7 billion. Is that figure still relevant and, if not, by how much is it irrelevant?

I agree with Annabel Goldie that the project is exciting and ambitious. I am pleased that the Scottish Government is seeking to pursue an ambition on that scale. It is not “pie in the sky”, as I think Annabel Goldie described it. Our position on high-speed rail is informed by the output of close partnership working on the business case for high-speed rail to Scotland. That partnership brought together the expertise of local authorities, business organisations, regional transport partnerships, trade unions and environmental and infrastructure expert groups. Their recommendations, including that a high-speed Edinburgh to Glasgow line could bring early economic benefits, are being acted on. We have technical and planning reports, which suggest that the building of a new line by 2024 is feasible and that we can achieve sub-30 minute connections between the two cities.

The most recent financial estimate is actually from HS2 Ltd in 2009, which suggested a figure of about £8 billion to £9 billion, but we will of course have to work with the Department for Transport and HS2 to fully understand the costs that are involved, once we have taken more decisions on, for example, the route. Parliament will be fully informed about the process as it develops.

If the cabinet secretary is willing to spend £8 billion or £9 billion—which is even more than Annabel Goldie suggested—on the route, where is the logic of cutting a third of the budget from the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvement plan, the benefits of which would be far more cost-effective and felt much sooner?

If Richard Baker had been listening, he would have heard me say that that was the latest estimate; I am not saying that that is what the budget will be. What the budget will be and how we will fund the project will flow from the decisions that we take on the route and other matters. Parliament will be fully informed in the decision-making process. I encourage Richard Baker and others to consider the economic benefits that are estimated to flow from high-speed rail—not just between our two cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, but if Scotland is fully linked to high-speed rail to London. Any good Government should strive to achieve that. I hope that we can encourage all members to get behind us on that.

Margo MacDonald can ask a question, if it is brief.

With all due respect to the cabinet secretary, I think that the priorities are wrong. I do not think that too many folk will be put off doing business in Glasgow or Edinburgh because of a few minutes on the journey between the two. It might be more imaginative to try to get into the high-speed rail link going down the east coast and to get in bed with some of the English authorities that would also benefit from that.

Can we have a question, please?

That is it.

We had a summit in Glasgow just last week, which included people from England. Margo MacDonald might have been right—if we were focusing on the link between Glasgow and Edinburgh as the be-all and end-all. However, ultimately, we want Scotland to be fully linked with high-speed rail right to London. That will bring economic benefits, so the Scottish Government should work towards that. Other members, although not Margo MacDonald, might lack the ambition that would see that being delivered, but the Government does not.

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the proposals for the high-speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow will have no effect on the proposed improvements to the line from the central belt to Inverness, some of which have already been implemented? A local member of Parliament has been mischief making and saying that the Glasgow to Edinburgh line will take all the money away from the north line.

I am happy to confirm to Dave Thompson that we will press ahead with the improvements that were announced in the high-level output specification on 21 June. That will deliver infrastructure improvements and reduced journey times in the coming investment control period, which will come on top of the journey-time improvements of up to 17 minutes from next month between Glasgow and Inverness.

I am clear that in order to gain the maximum benefit from high-speed rail’s introduction in Scotland, connections from its destination points to the rest of Scotland must also be improved.

---

M8 Upgrade

5. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made toward the commencement of construction of the Newhouse to Baillieston M8 upgrade. (S4O-01510)

The M8, M73 and M74 motorway improvements non-profit-distributing model contract is in procurement, with construction currently targeted to commence in late 2013.

The minister will be aware that I have been in constant contact with Transport Scotland about progress on this issue. At the last meeting that I had with Transport Scotland, sometime in September, I heard that an indication on the final decision on the contract would be given around this time. Can the minister confirm that that is the case?

Does the minister agree that the issue is not just about the jobs that will come from building the M8, the Raith interchange and the M74, and that the potential economic growth of the area depends on the swift construction of the M8? Will he give a commitment that there will be no further slippage on the project, which matters a great deal not only to the economy of central Lanarkshire but to Scotland as a whole?

Michael McMahon might have had this information from Transport Scotland already, but I will give it to him now in any case. The invitation to tender took place in June. The change in bidders from four to two will take place in December. We will announce the preferred bidder in May 2013, and the financial close and award will be in October 2013.

The length of time for the procurement and construction process will be comparable to those for the M74 and the M80 projects.

I agree with Michael McMahon about the economic benefits that will arise from the improvement in the roads. There will be substantial benefits not only from having faster links but from the construction work and the jobs and local spending that will be created. We intend to keep to our timetable, which is similar to those for previous projects.

---

Cycling Infrastructure

6. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it will take to improve cycling infrastructure. (S4O-01511)

Since 2007, the Scottish Government has invested more than £83 million in cycling infrastructure. In the remainder of this spending review period, a further £28.5 million will be allocated to Sustrans, and local authorities will be able to bid for a share of that money on a match-funding basis. In addition, £20 million will be allocated directly to local authorities for cycling, walking and safer streets projects.

What commitments has the Scottish Government made to ensure that segregated cycle paths are included in all new transport infrastructure, whether it be rail or road? A lot of research shows that a journey culture change can come about only with the creation of safe cycleways.

As the member knows from previous discussions on this topic, we say that every new major project must include accommodation of active travel options. It is fair to say that the accommodation of segregated cycle tracks will be easier in some of those projects than others. Through the moneys that I mentioned earlier, we have invested in specific cycle networks, which often run alongside main arterial routes. Our recent announcement will improve that infrastructure in various places—not least from Edinburgh to Fife, a connection that was mentioned by several members in the recent debate.

If we are spending large amounts of money on the roads projects that we have to take forward, we ensure that there are active travel options to go with them.

The minister will recall that one of the actions in the cycling action plan for Scotland was to join up the national cycle network in Scotland. I therefore welcome the additional investment that will be made to assist in achieving that goal.

Given that other European countries have areas that are segregated for the use of cyclists, which Claudia Beamish mentioned, what more is the Scottish Government doing to encourage councils to invest in dedicated cycle paths? Many more people in Scotland would cycle if they felt that it was safe to do so.

I understand that point. I have already mentioned the moneys that we have made available, which local authorities can bid for in order to improve the cycle networks in their areas.

It is fair to say that some authorities have done more than others. For example, the City of Edinburgh Council has been effective in what it has done to encourage cycling in the city centre, and my local authority area in Clackmannanshire has an almost complete cycling network. Other areas have not been quite as proactive, but they have the chance to be proactive with the moneys that we have announced, because they can match fund them.

On the overriding issue of cycling safety, I refer to the recent announcement, which is accompanied by a commitment to ensure that as many children as possible have on-road training—we want to achieve 100 per cent in that regard. That approach gives children more experience of being on the road and, crucially, reassures parents that their children will have the correct training so that they can allow them to use cycling as an option whenever necessary.

---

Active Travel

7. To ask the Scottish Government what the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities is doing to ensure a modal shift toward active travel. (S4O-01512)

The Scottish Government has a range of work under way with partners to promote active travel and, in particular, to deliver the cycling action plan for Scotland, published in June 2010, with its ambitious vision of 10 per cent of journeys to be by bike by 2020. A refresh of the cycling action plan for Scotland for spring 2013 has recently been announced.

Around £30 million is being invested in supporting cycling and walking during the current spending review period. The Scottish Government also funds all local authorities to deliver cycling, walking and safer streets projects through the ring-fenced capital plans, with a £6.06 million allocation this financial year. In addition, a national walking strategy is now under development, and policy to promote travel will continue to be developed following the evaluation of the smarter choices, smarter places demonstration programme.

The minister will be aware that a cyclist died yesterday in a collision in Aberdeen and that The Times reports that the cyclist death toll on United Kingdom roads is heading for a five-year high. Many organisations agree that transforming our infrastructure for cycling and walking is key to improving safety and the perception of safety, which is a barrier to modal shift. For example, a survey of 20,000 Automobile Association members found that 62 per cent wanted more cycle lanes.

As Cycling Scotland has said, without a fully costed action plan, it is difficult to see how the current levels of investment will achieve the Government’s own 10 per cent target. Will the minister commit to spending a much larger proportion of the transport budget on active travel, and will he work with ministerial colleagues to get more funding from other budget areas?

I responded to a number of the points that have just been raised in my answer to Jim Eadie. In addition, the member will get more detail on the points that she and Jim Eadie raised in their joint letter.

I agree with the member on the issue of the perception of safety, which is absolutely crucial to ensuring that more people go out on the roads on their bikes. I have already described what we are doing to help achieve that and what we are trying to do to make things safer.

We are not starting from the same position as the Dutch authorities; we are starting from a very different position in relation to the infrastructure that must be put in. However, I think that we have given a strong commitment in that regard, and I am willing to continue the dialogue with Alison Johnstone and Jim Eadie to see how we can do even more in the future.