Transport Infrastructure (West of Scotland)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3938, in the name of Des McNulty, on west of Scotland transport infrastructure. I call Des McNulty to speak to and move the motion. He has 11 minutes—less the time he took to walk across in front of me.
For generations, Glasgow and the west of Scotland were the industrial heartland of the Scottish economy. Glasgow is a proud, dynamic city, the core of a conurbation in which more than 40 per cent of the Scottish population lives and works. Glasgow and its adjoining towns have wrestled with the economic legacy that they were left by manufacturing industries and have risen to new challenges.
However, much of the infrastructure in the conurbation is outdated. Major new infrastructure investment is needed. In part, that has been recognised—the replacement of much of the waste water system in the east of the city has been listed as one of the projects in the national planning framework. The Scottish Government has also taken forward the M74 link, which is regarded by business and local government leaders as vital in unlocking traffic congestion in and around Glasgow, especially at its worst choke point, the Kingston bridge.
However, major investment requirements do not figure in either the strategic transport projects review or the national planning framework. Glasgow has two rail systems—lines that go south and west from the city, and lines that go east and north. Glasgow's subway has not been extended since it was built in the 1890s, and its last refurbishment was in 1990. Top-quality new facilities at hospitals in Clydebank and Govan are not easily accessible for many patients and relatives.
The projects that feature in the STPR have no starting dates. The A82, the main road between Glasgow and Fort William, has never been brought up to standard along its full length, and two particular sections are extremely hazardous. The A77 between Ayr and Stranraer is similarly unsafe. The stretch of the A8 between Baillieston and Newhouse, which has the highest benefit to cost ratio of any project assessed using Scottish transport appraisal guidance methodology, seems to have stalled, despite the urgent need to connect key development projects such as Mossend and Ravenscraig to the motorway network in order to attract business.
Would the member approve of any suggestion to bypass the planning system with regard to certain projects?
The first step is to incorporate these projects in the national planning framework.
I regret that the Conservative amendment places partisanship before the needs of the people who live in the area that I represent. My constituents are not really interested in Punch and Judy politics, especially at a time when their jobs or those of their friends and neighbours might be at risk. The attention of elected west of Scotland representatives is—or, at least, ought to be—focused on the impact of the current downturn on Glasgow and the former shipbuilding and heavy engineering towns that surround it. Figures that were released last week showed that the increases in the numbers of those claiming benefits are significantly higher in local authority areas such as North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire, Inverclyde and Renfrewshire than elsewhere in Scotland, and that, of the core cities in the United Kingdom, Glasgow was the third worst affected after Birmingham and Leeds.
After yesterday's budget, certain matters over which the United Kingdom Government has jurisdiction—the tax and benefit systems, for example, and macroeconomic management—are being actively discussed at Westminster. Those in this chamber who speak on behalf of the people of the west of Scotland should ask themselves how we as Scottish parliamentarians can contribute to laying the foundations for longer-term prosperity.
Investment in transport and infrastructure projects plays an important part in economic success. Research has shown that transport improvements are key ingredients in increasing the efficiency of regional labour markets, enhancing the competitiveness of local firms, stimulating inward investment and triggering growth. Sir Rod Eddington's transport study, which is the most systematic appraisal of the contribution made by transport investment to economic performance, concluded that, for maximum economic benefit, transport investment should focus on supporting economically vital locations—for example, congested urban areas, interurban corridors, ports and airports—where it is most likely to stimulate further growth.
The Government's investment plans, as set out in the STPR and even the national planning framework, have been influenced by Eddington's thinking; for example, ports and airports feature prominently. However, too many projects in the most urbanised region in Scotland—an area that is vital to Scotland's economic wellbeing—either have been omitted or have been given no place in the spending programme, which amounts to the same thing. I have not read all 3,000 pages of the STPR, but the apparent exclusion of Glasgow crossrail and Clyde fastlink, the latter supposedly on the basis that it is a regional project, is unjustifiable.
The minister will have the chance to respond in his own speech.
Both projects score far higher in the assessment process than other projects that have been included in the list. I am sure that the minister will tell us that he does not have the money to do all that he would like to do. I accept that; indeed, I am deeply conscious of the financial overhang of the Forth replacement crossing. However, many people in the west, in local authorities and in the business community, feel short-changed by the STPR. They are angry at this Government's reluctance to abide by its own criteria in determining the projects for inclusion in the list of 29, and they feel let down by the lack of firm dates for or firm commitments to construction of the projects that have been included.
By the way, I do not think the current Government is necessarily better or worse than previous coalition Administrations in that regard. I was openly critical of certain decisions made by previous Administrations on transport priorities when I felt that decision making appeared to have been driven by political rather than hard economic criteria. However, we should do things in the right way, and I hope that members of other parties will join Labour members in speaking up louder for the west of Scotland and putting a strong case for the key infrastructure projects that are vital to the region's economic and social wellbeing.
My colleague Jackie Baillie will make the case for the A82, and Michael McMahon will focus on transport issues in Lanarkshire. I want to talk about a project that is number 24 in the list that is set out in the STPR: west of Scotland strategic rail enhancements. I am pleased that discussions are going on between Strathclyde partnership for transport, Glasgow City Council and Transport Scotland and that studies are being carried out on public transport in the conurbation. However, neither fastlink nor crossrail can progress much further without firm commitments from the Scottish Government. It is not just the transport infrastructure to link developments along the Clyde corridor, access to key sites including major hospitals through fastlink and the linkage of 220 stations across Scotland via the cross-Glasgow movements that crossrail would permit that are at stake but access to key Commonwealth games sites via segregated busways, light rail and heavy rail.
Time and time again we speak in the chamber about modal shift, reducing congestion and climate change emissions and improving public transport. These public transport projects have some of the most favourable social, economic and patronage returns. The business case for them is very strong and I hope that, when he responds, the minister will be much clearer than he has been in the past and will make a commitment to delivering fastlink, Glasgow crossrail and the station improvements at Dalmarnock and Bridgeton that, as Robert Brown's amendment makes clear, are needed to improve access to the main Commonwealth games stadium.
We know that the outline business case for modernising the Glasgow subway is due in the summer. Although SPT has funds available for some limited improvements, the costs of a full refurbishment are well beyond its means and the Scottish Government will need to make a sizeable contribution towards a major upgrade of signalling, tunnels and rolling stock. The need for such an upgrade may not be as urgent as some other projects—notably fastlink, which is needed both for the Commonwealth games and to improve hospital access—but the subway has a high level of patronage and attracts many of its customers out of their cars.
I welcome this Government's strong commitment to tackling climate change, and tomorrow the minister will receive the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee's recommendations for strengthening that commitment even more. If car use in the west of Scotland rises to the levels that have been seen in other regions of the country, it will blow a huge hole in emissions reduction targets and put us in a position from which it will be almost impossible to claw our way back. As a result, it is vital that the Scottish Government reprioritises key improvements to public transport in the west of Scotland and support for walking and cycling—in that respect, I regret that the Presiding Officer did not accept Patrick Harvie's amendment—and gives them the financial support that they merit.
I finish with a final message to the minister. My postbag is full of letters and e-mails about the state of the roads and pavements in the west of Scotland. According to the Accounts Commission, only Argyll and Bute has worse roads than East Dunbartonshire, but I feel sure that colleagues from West Dunbartonshire, Glasgow, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and many other local authorities get the same complaints. Single outcome agreements seem to be making things worse, not better. Repairs are not being carried out; the backlog is ever increasing; and more and more claims are being met out of exhausted budgets. The Scottish Government blames local authorities for the situation, and councils blame it right back. The only losers are walkers, cyclists and motorists, whose complaints are becoming more and more vociferous. Surely to goodness the different tiers of government in Scotland can and should sort the problem out.
I look forward to the minister's response not only on that matter but on the issue of the west of Scotland's transport infrastructure needs and the focus that the Scottish Government intends to give to delivering the transport projects that are needed to improve the region's economic performance at a time when its economy is under such pressure.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the need for investment in transport infrastructure in the west of Scotland, particularly in the Greater Glasgow travel-to-work area, to ensure the continued competitiveness of the area, especially given that Glasgow and surrounding areas linked with traditional manufacturing and heavy industry, which suffered badly in previous recessions, are experiencing disproportionate increases in unemployment compared with the Scottish average, as illustrated by claimant count statistics.
Most of the time, we in the Scottish Conservatives do our best to be as constructive and as consensual as possible. I agreed with plenty of things in Mr McNulty's speech and thought that he made many perfectly sensible, straight and honest points. However, the Labour Party should be very wary of the credibility gap when it comes to transport infrastructure projects. After all, in its eight years in power, Labour was synonymous with delay after delay in transport projects; indeed, I find a small irony in the fact that this Labour debate on transport had to be delayed as Mr McNulty got his card from the clerks.
I was also interested to hear Mr McNulty say that the Glasgow subway has not been upgraded since 1990—when, of course, the Conservatives were in power. In the eight years that his Government was in power, nothing happened with the subway. However, since Labour lost power, its upgrading seems to have become an extremely urgent matter.
The other point about credibility is that even since becoming a party of opposition, Labour has been a little inconsistent on transport. On 29 January—just as today—Labour had a Thursday morning debate on transport. Labour had had a month and a half to reflect on the strategic transport projects review and to decide what it thought that the priorities were and which projects the document lacked. None of the projects to which Des McNulty referred today was mentioned in the Labour Party debate a few months ago. In the previous Labour transport debate, in which Labour set out its priorities and where it thought that the gaps were in the STPR, no Labour member mentioned the Clyde fastlink, transport infrastructure in Lanarkshire or west of Scotland rail enhancements. The projects that are Labour's priorities today did not seem to be its priorities when it was in government, or even when we debated the issue a few months ago.
I turn to where the Scottish Conservatives stand and how we want to move the debate on. The first issue on which we want to make progress is prioritisation, which is relevant not only to west of Scotland transport projects but to all transport projects throughout Scotland. A number of months have passed since the STPR was announced. The next step has to be to determine in which order the projects will happen and, once the projects are ordered, what the target timescales and budgets will be. Of course, this debate has a specific focus on the west of Scotland. Therefore, in the context of the STPR, we are particularly interested to know about timescales and priorities in relation to Glasgow to Edinburgh rail improvements, west of Scotland rail enhancements, improved road journey times on the M8, M80, M74 and M77 and improvements to links between Glasgow and Oban and the west Highlands, including the A82.
The projects in the STPR are numbered, but not ordered. We need clear prioritisation now, and I hope that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change will comment on that in his speech. We need prioritisation for two reasons. The first is that by prioritising, we make actions happen. If everything is a priority, the problem is that nothing becomes a priority. Secondly, it is important that we manage the expectations of communities and commuters. A project starting in 2012, at the beginning of the STPR, will be very different from a project starting in 2022, two and a half parliamentary sessions later. Prioritisation has to happen in early course. I hope that we can get some steer on that from the minister today, because, as he said in the debate on the STPR last year,
"vision and ambition are not enough."—[Official Report, 10 December 2008; c 13201.]
On the areas where we want action to be taken sooner rather than later, I turn first to the Glasgow to Edinburgh rail improvement programme, which we have advocated for some time—we have made commitments on it in several manifestos. Twenty-four individual improvements are suggested, and we want them all to happen so that the flagship Glasgow to Edinburgh route can truly encompass greater modal shift and help the economies of both the west and the east of Scotland. Of course, that includes the electrification of the flagship route between Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh Waverley; the possibility of six trains an hour from Queen Street to Waverley; and journey times for some trains as short as 37 minutes—there is a big economic benefit for both sides of the country from every single minute of time saved on that journey—coupled with the possibility of express services between Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley.
We will push hard for the upgrading of the M8, too. That vital project needs to be progressed, because, 10 years after devolution, Scotland's flagship motorway is still not of motorway standard throughout. The M8 was named as the worst commuter route in Britain for congestion in a survey by the traffic information service KeepMoving in spring 2007. It was named as Scotland's least popular road and the second poorest road in the United Kingdom in a survey by the insurers Cornhill Direct in February 2007. I am sure that members will have heard anecdotally that many of the junctions and slip roads are of great concern to our constituents.
I appreciate that Mr Brown is an Edinburgh member, but we are supposed to be discussing west of Scotland transport infrastructure. So far, he seems to have concentrated entirely on the route between Edinburgh and Glasgow. There are bits of the west of Scotland that lie beyond Glasgow.
Of course there are. I am talking about the projects that have the biggest economic benefit, but members sitting beside me, who represent Glasgow and the West of Scotland, will elaborate further on issues such as Glasgow crossrail and other specific transport projects. Mr McNulty might wish to reflect on his contribution in the previous Labour transport debate, to which I referred earlier, in which he did not mention a single transport project in the west of Scotland. It is a bit rich for him to criticise me in that regard.
We are disappointed that action was not taken sooner in relation to the M8, because the budget has risen from an estimate of between £123 million and £125 million to an estimate of between £170 million and £210 million. Of course, the estimated completion date has moved back from 2010 to 2012-13.
Ultimately, any Administration has to be judged on what it delivers. That is why I have focused so heavily on prioritisation. Previously, the primary problem was a straightforward lack of prioritisation, which was encapsulated in a question from David Davidson to Tavish Scott, the then Minister for Transport, in March 2007. The question was:
"To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will publish a list, in priority order, of its announced transport infrastructure schemes."
The response from the then Minister for Transport was:
"The planned programme of transport infrastructure schemes may be found on the Scottish Executive and the Transport Scotland websites ... All these projects are considered as a priority, which is why they have been included in the programme of committed projects."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 23 March 2007; S2W-32430.]
The settled position of the Administration after eight years in government was that all the projects were a priority.
That is probably one of the reasons for the results of a recent Audit Scotland report on infrastructure projects. The report looked at 43 projects between 2002 and 2007—not just transport projects, but all infrastructure projects—and found that only two fifths of the projects were completed on budget and only one third were completed on time. That is why we have pushed for prioritisation and why we want to see progress made on the projects in the west of Scotland as quickly as possible.
I move amendment S3M-3938.2, to leave out from "especially" to end and insert:
"; therefore regrets the previous Labour-led administration's disappointing record on delivering improvements to key road links connecting the west of Scotland, notably the substantial delays and cost overruns in upgrading the M8 and M74; welcomes the fact that the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link project pioneered by the previous Labour-led administration has been cancelled, thereby freeing up investment for the crucial Edinburgh to Glasgow Rail Improvement Programme, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure the clear prioritisation of transport projects both in the west of Scotland and elsewhere."
The Labour motion is on an important policy area. As we have heard in the limited time so far, transport is one of those issues that gets us all going. However, the underlying point about the employment advantages of transport infrastructure for people who are employed on transport projects and people who benefit from them, on which Des McNulty majored in his speech, is valid.
Although I do not like the terms of the Conservative amendment, which is not surprising, Gavin Brown's point about prioritisation is important, because there is an element of uncertainty about what is and is not likely to proceed under the Government's programme and about what is and is not achievable.
Everything in our programme will be done.
Perhaps there is a question about the definition of the programme, to which we might return.
And about when things will be done.
That is absolutely right.
To get away from the talking that is happening beside me, I will focus on the specific and vital issue of the huge driver that the Glasgow Commonwealth games present, which we will debate from another perspective this afternoon. In 2006, SPT identified Dalmarnock station as a key transport infrastructure asset, given its proximity to the new national indoor sports arena. After that, the decision was taken to locate the athletes village and the velodrome in the same area, which, incidentally, is also close to Parkhead stadium.
The line through Dalmarnock to the east connects through Rutherglen and Cambuslang to Lanarkshire destinations, and to the west it connects through Argyle Street and Glasgow Central at low level to Partick and destinations in Dunbartonshire. However, the line badly needs modernisation, including the installation of disabled access facilities, modern signage and frontage on to Dalmarnock Road, and associated walkway and cycleway connections to local facilities, which are being looked at by Clyde Gateway. A redeveloped Dalmarnock station would give superb regular and speedy access to the key Commonwealth games locations and to Celtic Park, with good hub links to a variety of bus services on Dalmarnock Road.
The Commonwealth games will be Glasgow's window on the world, and it is vital that the transport infrastructure that supports the games is in A1 condition. Dalmarnock railway station urgently needs a dramatic transformation if it is to serve as a key gateway for the games and to be part of the legacy of the games.
Clyde Gateway has made a commitment to the project, which is costed at £8 million to £10 million. The organisation's business plan includes the project and it is ready to contribute funding. The project has support from SPT and it could attract support from Glasgow City Council, Network Rail and First ScotRail. Above all, it now needs solid support and commitment from the Scottish Government.
For the minister, a gold-plated opportunity is available. The project will lever in money from other partners, has a modest and definable scope, and will require the sort of money that any Government can find, given the political will. It also levers in development funding for local shops at the station and for paths for pedestrians and cyclists in the wider area. Above all, it will provide the 21st century transport window to the Commonwealth games that Scotland needs and a visible and effective transport legacy. It could very much be Glasgow with style.
Do Robert Brown and Des McNulty agree that spending £500 million on a tramline is a complete waste of money that could have been used for projects in the west of Scotland, such as Dalmarnock station?
I disagree. That point is for a previous debate. My point is that the Dalmarnock station project involves modest money and is deliverable. I hope that the SNP Government will recognise the opportunity and provide its part of the funding, which is modest in Government terms.
The Government has done well at seizing the credit for projects in the west of Scotland that were—incidentally—all developed under the previous Administration, such as the M74 extension, the Glasgow airport rail link and the Airdrie to Bathgate line. The Government has not yet come up with the goods on Glasgow crossrail. Dalmarnock station offers the Government a modest opportunity to make a difference—a one-off chance to help to get the transport infrastructure for the games right and to leave a permanent legacy. I hope that the minister will say today that the Government will commit to, or at least discuss committing to, the project.
Last year, the minister said:
"If it is about anything, transport is about a long-term commitment to take things forward."—[Official Report, 17 April 2008; c 7783.]
I agree. By their nature, transport projects take time to develop, plan, procure, finance and deliver. I have described a key project that has proven potential and leverage that can be delivered. However, on closer examination, the minister's fairly typical statement, which he made in a debate on Glasgow crossrail, contains some ambiguity and the suggestion that what is long term is reaching the commitment rather than sticking with a commitment that has long-term benefits.
That brings me briefly to Glasgow crossrail. The famous gap between Central station and Queen Street station, across which many of us trudge daily, is possibly one of the most significant drawbacks in what is otherwise a good suburban rail system in greater Glasgow. To his credit, the minister has listened to the representations of the cross-party group on Glasgow crossrail, but we remain without a solid commitment. The Government seems to favour the city centre station project, which would be attractive in times of unlimited capital—if ever such times came—but is almost certainly unaffordable this side of the second coming. The funding for crossrail is still substantial, but it is in the realm of the affordable. Crossrail would provide more options for improved and interconnecting services and relieve the growing pressure on capacity at the two main stations.
Finally, I return to where I began, with the Argyle line through Dalmarnock, which is, as I said, a main commuter route from Lanarkshire, Rutherglen and Cambuslang into the city centre. I occasionally use the line and it is clear that, like other routes, it has become a victim of its own success. The trains at Rutherglen are hugely compressed and overcrowded.
You should finish now, Mr Brown.
I am on my final point, Presiding Officer. Will the minister examine the potential for agreeing with the train operator more frequent services or longer trains, although I know that they can create problems on shorter platforms? Revenue from the line must be increasing and there must be practical scope on which to build.
You should be finished now, Mr Brown.
I move amendment S3M-3938.3, to insert at end:
"welcomes the significant opportunity presented by the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games for the creation of legacy transport infrastructure projects in the west of Scotland, including the proposed redevelopment of Dalmarnock station as a key public transport hub for the Games and the area, offering speedy direct rail links to the main Games venues and to Celtic Park from Lanarkshire, the city centre and the west in particular, as well as a high standard of pedestrian and cyclist pathways through the area; supports the work of Clyde Gateway in developing the project, and urges the Scottish Government to give the Dalmarnock station project its full backing."
I welcome the opportunity that the debate presents to highlight the importance that we in Government place on the promotion of sustainable economic growth in these difficult times. I welcome Des McNulty's broadly constructive speech, which made a fine opening to the debate. We will see where it takes us.
We have made it clear that an efficient transport system is essential for enhancing productivity and delivering faster and more sustainable economic growth across Scotland, in the west of Scotland and particularly in Glasgow. Against the backdrop of a global economic slow-down, the Government—through Transport Scotland—is driving forward the largest transport investment programme that Scotland has ever seen, with a number of vital projects.
The programme will support tens of thousands of jobs, almost all of which will be in the private sector. Our continuing investment is helping the hard-pressed construction sector now and is creating hundreds of construction jobs. Last year, Transport Scotland projects represented approximately 25 per cent of the construction market in Scotland. About 95 per cent of Transport Scotland's budget goes to the private sector.
We will continue our focus on providing sustainable, integrated and cost-effective public transport alternatives to the car. Recent short-term and long-term investment in road and rail has supported nearly 13,000 jobs.
We will invest £2.5 billion in our strategic transport networks over the next three years, which will support the economy. The programme includes a new railway between Airdrie and Bathgate that links Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Borders railway, and reluctant but now entirely committed support for the Edinburgh tram project. We have also progressed—at last—the M74 project. People can plan for as long as they like, but what matters is making projects happen. The Glasgow airport rail link, the M8 between Newhouse and Baillieston, and the upgrading of the A80 to a motorway between Stepps and Haggs will all be completed in time for 2014.
I note that the minister continues to repeat that nothing happened with the M74 under the previous Administration. Will he clarify for the Parliament's benefit whether the M74 route that has only just begun to be built is being constructed on top of the many factories that were in its road? If not, were those factories relocated by accident or were they successfully relocated by the previous Executive?
The one thing that I did not say was that nothing had been done. It is clear that transport projects are long term and that they cross boundaries between Administrations. I acknowledge what was done. However, there had been no engagement to deliver the project, which is now happening.
Through Transport Scotland, the Scottish Government supports Network Rail's Scottish operations and ScotRail's passenger services, which involve about 7,000 jobs. Work on the new Clackmannanshire bridge—which was started under the previous Administration and delivered under the current Administration—and on the M74 involves 2,000 construction jobs. The M74 project will employ 900 people and the Stepps to Haggs project will employ 500 people. Lots of jobs are involved, such as the 3,000 that relate to the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link and the Edinburgh trams.
Like the minister and other members, I welcome the start on the A80 from Stepps to Haggs. A transport model considered the long-term plan of having a station at Abronhill in Cumbernauld, which would greatly assist commuters between Cumbernauld and Glasgow. Will the minister comment on the feasibility of that proposal?
Not at this stage.
Through a major infrastructure programme, we are delivering significant benefits to businesses throughout Scotland.
The strategic transport projects review, which has been mentioned, is a 20-year programme. The motion requires us to consider prioritisation. We have, of course, prioritised the projects in the review over the nearly 900 other projects that are outside it. As we go through comprehensive spending reviews, we will continue that prioritisation process.
Cross-city travel in Glasgow is important, which is why we are talking to SPT about a range of improvements. We are ensuring not only that we support short-term needs but that we consider the need for termini for high-speed rail and that we do not overload other parts of the network. Much is going on.
Labour's motion presents an opportunity for a subject debate and is therefore welcome. However, I will make a point that Labour politicians in Wales and England seem to have understood but which Iain Gray's team might not have. Rhodri Morgan, the Labour First Minister for Wales, said:
"The Archangel Gabriel could not find such proposed cuts in budgets without damaging public services",
and Harriet Harman told the Scottish Trades Union Congress that
"you cannot cut your way out of recession".
The efficiency savings that are being talked about for Scotland are, in effect, cuts. Removing resource only makes our job more difficult. I hope that we will have some unanimity in the campaign to ensure that we have the tools. Only then can we here do the job.
We move to the debate. Members will have to stick to a tight six minutes. I have already had to tell a member that she will not be called.
I will use the short time that is available to me this morning to address two projects that are important to my constituency and which I believe are also of strategic importance to the west of Scotland. They are, of course, the upgrade of the A82 and the Airdrie to Bathgate rail line. I dare to correct the minister on the latter: it will enable direct travel from Helensburgh and Dumbarton in the west right through to Edinburgh Waverley in the east.
I acknowledge that.
I turn first to the A82. I welcome the inclusion of the A82 in the strategic transport projects review. I praise the A82 campaigners for their persistence and imagination in putting the issue centre stage. However, my question to the minister is this: when will the funding, which is estimated at £100 million to £250 million, be committed to enable the necessary work to start? Transport Scotland has committed £16 million, which is welcome, but the phasing of the remainder of the investment is of interest to the local community.
As I travel around my constituency, I spend much of my time on the A82 between Bowling, Dumbarton, Balloch, Luss and Tarbet. I am very familiar with the traffic gridlock that results from but a few minor accidents. I am equally familiar with the 30-year-old temporary traffic lights just past Tarbet at Pulpit Rock. There is no doubt that it is a challenging stretch of road. There is a sheer rock face on one side and Loch Lomond on the other, with very little space for manoeuvre. However, any engineering solution should not be so difficult as to make improvement impossible. After all, it is more than four decades since we put a man on the moon. Surely we can tackle those temporary traffic lights and widen that stretch of road to make it fit for purpose.
The A82 is undoubtedly a lifeline for communities from Glasgow to those throughout my constituency and those north to Fort William. The road is essential for tourism in the west of Scotland. Each year, it carries hundreds of thousands of visitors from home and abroad to the very many delights of our country. It is equally essential for our haulage industry and local businesses. There is no doubt that the A82 has a value to the everyday life of many Scots and our local and national economy.
There is equally genuine and long-standing concern about the A82's safety record. Previous route accident reduction plans resulted in a lowering of the number of accidents and fatalities, but the figures that I have seen for 2007-08 indicate that the numbers are rising again. Indeed, there are more accidents and fatalities on the A82 than even on the A9. It is perhaps not surprising that the majority of accidents happen on the single carriageway stretches. If someone arrives in Scotland from abroad at Glasgow airport, picks up their hire car and heads north, they are on a dual carriageway from the moment they leave the airport until they get to the Stoneymollan roundabout. With little warning, they then find themselves on a single carriageway with cars rushing past them at around 60 miles an hour. I am thinking in particular of the stretch of the A82 near Firkin Point, where the single overtaking lane along Loch Lomond is on an uphill gradient and near to a relatively sharp curve in the road. There have been a number of accidents on that stretch of road. I invite the minister to look into that and consider erecting central barriers to define clearly the roadway, if dualling proves too difficult.
Another issue is the stretch of the A82 at Dumbarton between the Dumbuck junction and the Dunglass roundabout and onwards to the Kilbirnie roundabout in my colleague Des McNulty's constituency. When, very happily, the previous Scottish Executive removed the tolls from the Erskine bridge—an issue in which the Presiding Officer has an interest—a commitment was given to consider the impact of the anticipated increased traffic volume on the surrounding roads. I would welcome a commitment from the minister to consider the congestion that is evident at the Kilbirnie roundabout and to work with West Dunbartonshire Council on a proposal for a new road at the pinchpoint on the A82 between the Dumbuck junction and the Dunglass roundabout. That would enhance substantially the local transport infrastructure.
I turn to rail, specifically the Airdrie to Bathgate rail line, which was approved by the previous Scottish Executive. The line is, of course, the missing link between Helensburgh and Dumbarton in the west and Edinburgh Waverley in the east. The rail link will bring enormous benefit to commuters in my constituency and our local economy. My concern relates to the implementation of the rail line and investment in rolling stock. I have bored the minister and his predecessor with successive parliamentary questions on the subject. In their answers, I have had promises that sufficient rolling stock will be procured in plenty of time and that it will more than cover the increase in patronage. I refer to the 3 per cent per annum passenger growth that was identified in the network utilisation strategy. It is anticipated that there will be 4.1 million extra boardings per annum on the Airdrie to Bathgate rail line alone.
I would welcome the minister's assurance that there will be sufficient rolling stock capacity to cope with projected demand. I also seek his assurance that the class 334 Juniper—I am becoming a trainspotter in my old age—is the preferred train and that there will be no delay in delivering the rolling stock to allow the rail link to commence in December 2010.
I associate myself with Des McNulty's comments on potholes. I fear that the potholes in Argyll and Bute are merging to form craters the size of the craters on the moon. I urge the minister to help hard-pressed local authorities.
I hope that we will see investment in transport in the west of Scotland, not least because we need to retain the region's competitiveness, attract jobs and retain skilled people in the area.
Having read the motion and amendments a number of times, I believe that six minutes is not enough time in which to focus on the many points and issues that I want to raise. I will touch on a few, leaving Glasgow city centre to other members who I am sure will raise it.
The potential for transport infrastructure in the west of Scotland is limitless. We have heard on a number of occasions about the issues and projects that could be taken forward. One suggestion that could be put into the mix is the greater use of the River Clyde. I am thinking of river taxis from Braehead to Glasgow city centre and a river boat from the tail of the bank to the city centre. Another suggestion is for more trains on the Wemyss Bay to Glasgow line. At the moment, one train runs per hour, despite a massive westward shift in population in the Inverclyde area. I have raised the issue with the minister. Also, the Gourock to Dunoon Caledonian MacBrayne ferry saga must be finalised, one way or another.
The road infrastructure could be improved, with Transport Scotland adopting some roads in the East Dunbartonshire area where there are no trunk roads at the moment. If Transport Scotland adopted some roads in the area, it would aid investment and relieve pressure on the local authority. Also, consideration could be given to a bypass around Inverkip and Wemyss Bay to address the traffic chaos in the area. There is also the saga that is the Gourock interchange project, about which the minister knows a great deal.
Those are only some of the issues that have been a problem for many years and which the present Scottish Government inherited on coming into office in 2007. If Government ministers solved all of the issues in four years, they would be miracle workers. That is even more the case following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget yesterday and the cuts that are coming Scotland's way in the near future.
Some time ago, numerous constituents contacted me about the Inverkip situation. I conducted a survey in the Inverkip and Wemyss Bay villages on the danger of trying to cross the A78 at Inverkip. Delay in crossing the road is bad enough, but at peak times—particularly in the morning and evening—the manoeuvre can be akin to taking a chance with one's life. I mailed out 2,150 survey forms, and the response rate was a massive 41 per cent. With 41 per cent of the population having taken the time to voice their concerns, the issue cannot be ignored.
After a disappointing initial response, I persisted in contacting Transport Scotland. As of this week, Transport Scotland has agreed to undertake a three-month survey and to let me know its results at the end of the summer. Two junctions lead from the A78—one to Inverkip village and one to Kip marina. The amount of traffic that zooms up from North Ayrshire in the morning and from the villages to Greenock is one important issue, but we must also consider the safety element. The local authority has built a new secondary school, with approximately 900 pupils, only 2 miles up the road. Because of the amount of traffic that uses the road, it is dangerous for pupils to go on to it. I am delighted by the action that Transport Scotland plans to take, which is a step forward. I look forward to seeing the results of the survey.
There are many reasons why investment in road infrastructure is vital. I have already mentioned safety. I highlight to the minister and to the chamber the tremendous shift in population to the western part of Inverclyde. Many more properties are being built in Inverkip and Wemyss Bay, and there now seems to be a shortage of people in the eastern part of the district, compared with the west. That is a really important issue. The minister and I have spoken about it before, and I am sure that we will speak about it again; no doubt it will be discussed later this morning.
A further issue that exacerbates gridlock is the lack of investment by the proper authorities in flood prevention measures. As you know, Presiding Officer, when there are heavy rains in Inverclyde, floods can block off part of the district, especially at the Newark roundabout in Port Glasgow. As Inverclyde royal hospital no longer has consultant services, ambulances must take people to the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley or the Southern general. Sometimes every second counts, so it is important that the whole transport infrastructure and flood prevention measures are taken fully into account.
I could go on, but I am running out of time and must close. I agree that there should be more investment in west of Scotland transport infrastructure, but I wish that members of the previous Administration had thought the same, instead of burying their Executive heads in the sand and realising only in May 2007 that there were shortfalls in our infrastructure.
Stuart McMillan's final point, that there is sometimes a mismatch between what Administrations say on transport and what they do, is fair. I will develop it in my speech, but I will not reserve it for the previous Administration—rightly and fairly, a significant amount of criticism will be levelled at the current Administration, too.
Des McNulty's motion asks us to note
"the need for investment in transport infrastructure".
No one could disagree with that statement, which contains an almost non-existent level of specificity. Perhaps if the motion had been specific about the kind of transport investment that the previous Administration pushed, against all the facts and even the conclusions of a public local inquiry, when it approved the M74 extension, there would be only two votes against it—not for the first time and, I am sure, not for the last. From the two Liberal Democrat speeches so far, it is clear that the Liberal Democrats' enthusiasm for the worst environmental decision taken by the previous Administration has not dimmed since they left the coalition.
My case is that we need not incremental improvements to the existing system but transformational change—a dramatic shift to walking, cycling and public transport, not as an addition, but to produce far lower levels of car traffic. I have made that point before and will do so again. Creating such transformational change would require substantial investment. Every political party and MSP who talks a good game on sustainable transport should ask themselves why schemes such as Glasgow crossrail have gathered dust on the shelf for so many years. Perhaps Christina McKelvie's intervention earlier in the debate gives us a clue as to the reason: some simply cannot help taking every opportunity to attack a public transport scheme for being expensive, while supporting consistently for years, at immense cost, schemes to increase the capacity of the road network. Des McNulty should not dismiss as a financial overhang—as though it can be forgiven on that basis—the absurdity of sinking hundreds of millions, even billions, of pounds into increasing the capacity of the road network, either in Glasgow or over the Forth. In fact, that is an appallingly damaging example of 1960s thinking and an utter waste of money.
Rightly, the Labour motion raises the issue of social justice in the context of transport, which is important. I ask Des McNulty and the colleague who will close for Labour to follow through on the logic of that by making bus users, rather than car users, the priority. The road or motor lobby is phenomenally powerful in political terms, but bus users barely have a voice. I ask Labour members to think about the impact of pollution from schemes such as the M74 extension and other projects that increase road traffic levels. Clearly, pollution has a disproportionate impact on communities that already suffer from multiple forms of deprivation. Both pollution and the impact of transport are social justice issues.
I will use the second part of my speech to be a little more positive—it is not unrelenting criticism. The amendment that I lodged referred not only to walking, cycling and public transport as parts of a sustainable transport system but to the use of the River Clyde, which has been much ignored. The river has a substantial history of use as a commuter and transport route, and it is good that attempts are beginning to be made to return it to that use. It could again be a major transport route for the west of Scotland, serving some of the communities that Jackie Baillie mentioned in the context of roads, which could use the river as a more sustainable transport route.
The findings of a recent study by Glasgow City Council demonstrate that there is core demand for a water bus service. The council believes that that demand will increase once it has been provided for. A water bus service could encourage modal shift. We must think about what modal shift means. Often what we see is modal spread—more of everything—but what we need is modal shift. The council argues that a water bus service would support on-going economic development and regeneration along the waterfront and—in yet another use of my least favourite form of jargon—talks about improving connectivity between the north and south banks of the river. The point is fair, even if the jargon is a bit unwieldy for my taste. The council also argues that the service could be seen as part of a world-class public transport network in Glasgow. What a vision that could be. Oh for the day when it is made a reality, instead of our pouring ever more concrete into the transport system, with all the impact that that has.
I will support the Labour motion, but I cannot welcome the Conservative amendment. I express no disappointment at all at the fact that the M74 extension was delayed; I wish only that it could have been delayed by a few more decades.
Members must now stick to their time limits.
In a debate of this type, it is inevitable that we will hear a lot of localised complaints and special pleading—that is perfectly understandable. However, if we could apply our minds, there would be general agreement that a good transport system should include speedy, efficient business connections and comfortable, convenient commuter links. I even support Patrick Harvie's view that, where at all possible—in most cases, it should be—such links should be provided on a sustainable basis.
Another key word should be integration. Mr Carlaw and I were speaking earlier about the city of Vienna, where there is a high level of integration. The transport system there works very well, with an underground system and a fast and accurate surface system, consisting largely of tramcars. It works. However, we are where we are and if we had started off with a blank sheet of paper, we would probably not be where we are at the moment. We have to live with the situation.
We need to consider the question of integration. There is a compelling argument for the crossrail project, which would affect not only Glasgow. As Robert Brown pointed out, it would have a significant effect on areas outwith Glasgow, including Ayrshire. It would benefit everyone who goes to Central station and requires to continue their journey from Queen Street station, as well as those who commute on a more localised basis within Glasgow city centre. There is a clear argument for crossrail.
We should give some thanks to our enlightened Victorian predecessors—to the city fathers of Glasgow—who introduced a subway system that was primitive although still years ahead of its time. The problem is that to institute a substantial extension to the subway system, which I think Des McNulty was suggesting, is likely to be technically very complicated. As such, it would inevitably be very expensive. Like every other argument and debate that we are likely to have in the years ahead, the argument about that extension must be predicated on the fact that the economic situation that we are confronted with is grim. We must remember that.
I take issue with Mr McNulty's criticism of Gavin Brown's remarks on the M8. It depends where we define the start and finish of the west of Scotland, but we cannot detach Glasgow—much as we might sometimes wish to, given its enlightened position—from the rest of Scotland. The fact is that those who commute into Glasgow contribute to Glasgow's economic infrastructure. Cathie Craigie's constituents, for example, need to make their way into the city. The new part of the M80 is certainly helpful, but there are bottlenecks elsewhere that require to be eradicated. We need to face up to that problem. The issue of the Edinburgh to Glasgow train link is vital—preferably for coming in the one direction, one might be tempted to say. Speedy links are absolutely vital from the business perspective.
I turn to the question of commuting. The vast majority of commuters going into Glasgow from elsewhere in the west of Scotland do so by train, but not all of them do. Many travel by bus—I do so myself, and I know that others do likewise. We must ensure that bus services are safe and convenient, and are of a standard of comfort that attracts people to use them. In that respect, and taking into account the difficulties that have manifested themselves from time to time with regard to routing, it was a great pity that the previous Executive saw fit to emasculate SPT, and we should bear in mind the fact that it was a creature from the days when Labour—in the guise of Mr McNulty and Charlie Gordon—ran Strathclyde Region. I found it surprising that they attempted, in the words of Councillor Alistair Watson, to reinvent the wheel. There are arguments that we should be considering how a regulatory body might be made somewhat more specific to the west of Scotland, compared with the degree of uniformity that Labour always seems keen to impose.
The issue of the regulation of buses frequently raises its head. In all sorts of things, I am a great believer in learning from lessons elsewhere. For example, we might consider the undoubted success story that has been Lothian Buses, which has benefited from a very light level of regulation. Perhaps we in the west of Scotland should consider that too, to explore whether it might add some benefits to the existing system.
Transport will be a vexed issue in the years ahead. Given the financial situation, everything else will be a vexed issue, too. However, some of the ideas that are around could be used with advantage as we consider the transport infrastructure of the west of Scotland. I look forward to the argument continuing.
When the Vestas plant in Campbeltown, the Inverurie paper-mill and the NCR plant in Dundee announced either a closure or major job losses, ministers were falling over themselves to make it clear that the Scottish Government would do everything in its power to help, and quite rightly so.
What a pity, therefore, that, when Vion in Cambuslang, Freescale in East Kilbride, Corus in Mossend, in my constituency, and too many other Lanarkshire companies made similar announcements, that same rush to offer direct assistance was missing. Why should that be? I believe that it is because Lanarkshire does not attract the same interest from the Government as those parts of Scotland that favour the governing party. For more evidence of that bias we need look no further than the strategic transport projects review, which clearly favoured projects in other areas of Scotland over those in the west of Scotland.
At a time when unemployment levels in Scotland's traditional heartlands are on the increase, it is nothing short of shameful that the Government's concerns for those areas are diminishing. Only yesterday the latest figures revealed an increase to 5.7 per cent unemployment in my constituency. It would be wrong to blame the Government for the demise of many of the companies that have failed as a result of the worldwide economic downturn, but we can ask the Government where the investment is that is urgently needed to alleviate that adverse economic impact.
For example, Terex, in my constituency, has made more than 100 people redundant in the past six months. I met representatives of the management there a few weeks ago. I used to work for that firm as an apprentice, and I have a vested interest in seeing the company continue. I asked managers what they needed to happen, in this economic climate, for the company to return to being the thriving business that it once was. They made it absolutely clear that they needed more infrastructure projects. The company makes earth-moving equipment to lay the groundwork for roads and houses, and other capital infrastructure projects. We need investment in that area to allow companies such as Terex to make a comeback.
In Lanarkshire, we know from our experience of previous recessions that the road network, which centres on my constituency, with the M8 and M74 just 2 miles apart, and with the M80 and major trunk roads in close proximity, forms the basis on which we can combat some of the economic problems that we face. The area has become synonymous with distribution and logistics, which, in the past, have helped to attract numerous major employers, corporate headquarters and inward investment to locate in the many excellent commercial locations across the county, such as Eurocentral. However, rather than the major works that are in the pipeline being advanced, there are signs that they are being subjected to delays. Those projects would benefit from the type of intervention that the Government pledges to its favoured areas.
The M74 link is now under construction, but the equally vital upgrade of the remaining section of the A8 to motorway status concerns many people in my area. One company in particular, which seeks to build a connecting road to the existing A8, has brought to my attention the fact that a decision on the road, which was expected in the autumn of 2008, is still no nearer.
The key junction upgrade at the Raith interchange needs to be completed as quickly as possible to secure the full economic benefits of forthcoming schemes and to eliminate unnecessary congestion. Local knowledge is telling us that the timetable for the underpass work at the Raith is slipping. I urge the minister to tell us what he is doing to progress the matter. Delays will bring huge cost to the taxpayer and will mean that people will continue to get caught up in traffic jams at the Raith interchange every day, especially at peak times. The jams can stretch back dangerously far from the roundabout, on to the inside lane of the southbound M74.
In addition, there are delays to the Ravenscraig development, mostly due to the development's having been downgraded from a national project to a regional project. The biggest brownfield development in Europe is no longer regarded as a priority by the Administration, in yet another sign of anti-Lanarkshire bias. The subsequent shortfall in investment has delayed the dualling of the A723, which connects Ravenscraig to the A8 via Holytown.
Time does not permit me to go into detail about the many consequences of the Government's continuing failure to invest in transport infrastructure projects in the west of Scotland. I have been able only to scratch the surface of the problems that are being caused by this Government's applying of the brakes to our transport projects. I urge the minister to get investment into the fast lane and to start applying the accelerator.
I am a resident of Glasgow and I frequently travel around the city and beyond, so I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I cannot possibly cover everything that I would like to mention—from potholes to trunk roads to the Clyde tunnel—but I will do my best in the short time that I have.
I welcome the Government's commitment to the building of the Glasgow airport rail link, which will bring huge benefits to business and tourism in the city and will enhance Glasgow's already enviable reputation as a world-class, dynamic and cosmopolitan city that embraces the 21st century.
Other dynamic projects are going on throughout Glasgow. I recently travelled through the long-awaited refurbished Partick railway station and was hugely impressed by its design and functionality. I put in a plea to SPT for public toilets at the station, because people constantly write to me about the facilities in the station, which I think amount to just one disabled toilet—I hope that SPT is listening. Scotland's fifth busiest station, which is a major hub and gateway to the west, offers a perfect opportunity to promote an integrated transport model. The newly reopened Partick station is welcomed by people in Glasgow and beyond.
Does Sandra White accept that someone who travels from Partick to Dalmarnock station for the Commonwealth games will have a slightly different experience? Does she support my call for the Government to give serious consideration to the need for investment in Dalmarnock?
I certainly support the member's call for investment in Dalmarnock. It is important that we have an integrated rail system.
Michael McMahon painted a picture of doom and gloom in his bitter speech. Des McNulty also painted a picture of doom and gloom in Glasgow and the west. They are right to point out that we are experiencing an economic recession. However, the recession was caused by the Labour Government at Westminster. Scotland has its own Parliament and Government and we must get on with doing our best for Scotland. Labour members should not shed crocodile tears when their Government is responsible for what is happening.
People still want to invest in Glasgow and Scotland. Last Friday, plans were announced for the creation of a £90 million office, retail and leisure complex in the burgeoning financial services district, which will create around 2,500 jobs. As we know, the district used to contain warehouses and was the departing point for the Clyde ferries and Irish steamers during the early 20th century. Jim Fitzsimons, the chief executive of Capella Group, which is behind the investment, said:
"We believe the city is far better placed than most other UK cities to quickly come out of the current downturn".
That is the opinion of a professional.
Another professional, Peter Wood, the boss of insurance giants Esure Insurance, recently announced the major expansion of the firm's Glasgow office and said that he wanted to bring the posts to his favourite city because of Glasgow's workers' can-do attitude. He claimed that he would "need his head examined" to do business in London, because of the city's high costs and transport problems. The two examples that I have given demonstrate that we are attracting major investors as a result of Glasgow's unique attractiveness and ability to embrace new technologies and opportunities.
However, more could be done. I welcome GARL, but consideration must also be given to high-speed rail and other rail connections and to road upgrades, for the benefit of Glasgow's wider community and Scotland as a whole. In that context, I agree with Des McNulty and other members that the Glasgow crossrail project has been on the drawing board for far too long, gathering dust when it should have been gathering speed. Members might be interested to hear that I corresponded recently with the new chief executive of Transport Scotland, David Middleton. I was assured that the linking of rail services across Glasgow is a priority, that an initial meeting of the steering group has taken place to drive forward that aim and that the outcome will be known by June. Given the need for GARL and crossrail to be in place before the 2014 Commonwealth games, will the minister say whether minutes of steering group meetings will be published and whether the outcome of the group's deliberations will be available for the Parliament to debate before the summer recess? The 2014 games present a fantastic opportunity to create a lasting legacy and to showcase Glasgow's transport infrastructure to the world.
We all want the Commonwealth games to be as green as possible—I bow to Patrick Harvie on that. The games offer an opportunity to develop the city's green transport network. It is essential that when we consider the transport needs of Glasgow and the west, we include among the many priorities the need to encourage people to walk, cycle and travel by boat. It would be wonderful if we could open up the river and make it the dynamic asset that it should be, so that Glasgow's people and visitors could use it to get around and see what our beautiful city has to offer. Perhaps the minister will say whether such issues fit into his vision of the overall transport infrastructure in the future.
By and large, members have acknowledged that the development of transport infrastructure is very much a long-term process, which spans the period from the conception of the general idea and working up of plans—as the minister graciously acknowledged in an intervention, we must have due regard to the planning process, even if it sometimes takes longer than we want it to take—to procurement and delivery. It is therefore inevitable that the development of projects spans several Governments.
At the heart of the motion lie the continuing structural economic problems in the west of Scotland. Many Governments have attempted to address those problems since the collapse of shipbuilding and heavy engineering. It is important that we recall that, under the previous Government, the location of urban regeneration companies was specifically directed to such areas. It is regrettable that the structural economic problems continue, despite Governments' efforts. I do not want to be pessimistic, but the fact that the area's unemployment statistics have rocketed demonstrates that the structural problems remain, which must concern all members.
Consideration of what to do about transport infrastructure is always part of the response to structural economic problems. We all acknowledge that we are considering the long term and that priorities must be set. However, the focus of the debate has been not just the call for a pan-Scotland approach and the questioning of what the Government regards as its top priorities, but a probing of the Government to ensure that it does not neglect areas that have structural economic problems.
Bill Aitken—I am sorry that he has left the chamber—referred to SPT's proposals. I do not think that SPT has been as emasculated as he would have us believe, but its proposals for the west of Scotland must be encouraged. The fastlink scheme is important and deserves more attention, as does crossrail. Crossrail raises an issue to do with links to Ayrshire, which have not been mentioned much. In the west of Scotland we make the mistake of not understanding the north-south dimension and the great difficulty of ensuring that there are economic links from Ayrshire—an integral part of the west of Scotland—to Renfrewshire and areas north of the river. There are important projects in that regard.
Stuart McMillan and other members talked about using the river, which is important. Much structural development has made the river banks more attractive and accessible, thereby making the use of the river itself more possible and likely.
Of course, there are also road projects. The Liberal Democrats are much more concerned about infrastructure projects that deal with the public transport aspect of rail, particularly in the west of Scotland, but the road projects that have been mentioned are important. Jackie Baillie referred to the A82, and I well remember an uncomfortable journey in which the bus I was on had to reverse for more than a mile and a half along the side of Loch Lomond. I pay tribute to the skill of the bus driver, but I was still a nervous wreck when I concluded the journey. I will not tell the minister the speed at which the bus driver seemed to go backwards. It was a most unsettling experience, but it highlighted the enormous difficulty of the A82 being a major road link. The same is true for the A77, particularly its southern end, which takes me back to the links with Ayrshire.
The Government ought to keep continually at the top of its agenda the structural effect of all those issues on the difficulties of economic regeneration within the west of Scotland as a whole. The Liberal Democrat amendment specifically relates to the station at Dalmarnock. My colleague Robert Brown eloquently made the case for the redevelopment of the station being part of the developments that will be discussed this afternoon in relation to the Glasgow Commonwealth games, and I was glad to have Sandra White's support for the proposition. However, the project seems to slip down behind several pages and, given the timing of the games, it is important that we have a more encouraging response from the Government about giving some priority to ensuring that people who arrive at our Commonwealth games arrive at a station that is worthy of Scotland and the games.
We commend the motion and the amendment in Robert Brown's name, which call on the Government to take seriously the real economic structural difficulties that continue to obtain in the west of Scotland and to give due and careful attention to the transport infrastructure that will support a sustainable economic recovery.
Some of us were somewhat astonished at the Labour Party's chosen subject for debate. In the 24 months that I have been in the Parliament, barely a Labour motion has gone by without a ritual demand that we prostrate ourselves in tribute to its grand assessment of its record in office in one respect or another but, today, the Labour Party has extended us a rare opportunity to examine in its own time its lamentable transport record, as the previous Scottish Executive was a model of dither and delay.
I am reminded of an observation by one of my favourite actors, the late David Niven—a man who was proud of his Scottish heritage. Interrupted, when presenting an Oscar, by a streaker who sought to dazzle the audience with his talent, Niven observed without missing a beat that it was unfortunate that, for the rest of his life, the man would be remembered chiefly for his shortcomings. As far as transport infrastructure in the west of Scotland is concerned, there can be small doubt that the previous Labour-led Executive will be remembered chiefly for its manifest shortcomings.
I waited in vain this morning for a heartfelt proposal from the Labour Party to raise by public subscription the funds to erect a statue to my good friend Lord Selkirk—Lord James Douglas-Hamilton—who, as transport minister in the Scottish Office, was a positive transport visionary and genius in comparison with those who followed after 1997. Many a time, Labour members berate the Government's school building programme as merely a completion of their previously planned projects. In transport terms, that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
How can those of us who were in business in Glasgow in 1997 forget the orchestra that accompanied Labour into office? There were bags of wind led by John Prescott, who had talked relentlessly in opposition of integrated transport policies, which transpired in office to mean no more than that he should have two Jags. Depressingly, his integrated policy was fuelled by nothing more than an anti-car prejudice, which delayed all developments in its wake, including in Scotland. The M77, a road that is now completed and regarded as vital by all who use it throughout the west of Scotland, was delayed by Labour, while its obfuscation and dithering in relation to the completion of the M74—a project that, under Lord James, would by now have been a reality—must stand as a monument to the Labour Party's colossal failure.
I must object. Would Jackson Carlaw not be generous enough to note that the environmental campaigners who risked so much and put in so much of their own time and energies are due some of the credit for those delays?
I was not going to miss the opportunity to pay tribute to Mr Harvie. As someone with 25 years' involvement in the motor industry, I must say to him that the vast majority of Scots regard his views on the development of Scotland's roads as supreme bilge. To be frank, I regard the extension of car ownership in Scotland to be one of the most socially liberating changes of the past 50 years.
Even last year, in its budget submission, the Labour Party sought to cut the capital works budget for roads yet again, despite Mr McNulty's acknowledgement that business has long held the completion of the M74 link to be vital. Disconcertingly, Labour in government allowed fence-sitting on major transport decisions to become an art—and who was better experienced to sit on the fence than the Liberal Democrats to whom Labour regularly awarded the brief? Nicol Stephen and Tavish Scott, with generations of political fence-sitting in their genes, predictably played their part.
At last, the M74 extension is under way. We welcome too the Government's planned programme of improvements to the Glasgow to Edinburgh rail service and continuing improvements to the M8.
I noted in the strategic transport projects review the Government's willingness to consider the possible adaptation and use of hard shoulder on the M8. My sister-in-law now lives and works in the south of England and, when visiting her and using the M42, I have been impressed with the success of the scheme that has been piloted there to make use of the hard shoulder, particularly at peak times. It is not that the hard shoulder becomes a generally accessible, additional lane of stalled traffic; rather, it becomes accessible in advance of exit junctions, which allows those who are leaving the motorway to move out of the on-going traffic, providing them with a speedier exit and everyone else with a more continued traffic flow. The M8—a road that we all acknowledge would be difficult to widen along its length—would be ideally suited to an M42-type scheme, and I encourage the Government to investigate fully the benefits of that.
I have some sympathy with Stuart McMillan regarding the Inverkip junction and hope that progress can be made on that local concern. I also enjoyed the case that Jackie Baillie made for the A82. As so often when I hear her passion in opposition, I wonder where she was in government, but she is right that the temporary lights past Tarbet cause any—
Will the member give way?
When I finish the sentence. She is right that the temporary lights past Tarbet cause any traveller to shake their head in bewilderment.
Perhaps Jackson Carlaw would care to reflect on the numerous parliamentary questions and motions on the A82 that have been lodged in my name and withdraw his comment.
I refer only to the fact that, in the eight years in which the Labour Party was in power, Ms Baillie was singularly unable to influence the Government and now seeks to influence the Scottish National Party Government instead.
Although I found little to commend in Labour's record in the Parliament, I happily acknowledge the positive contribution of Councillor Alistair Watson. He has not only a considerable command of his subject but a passion and evident enthusiasm for it. On crossrail, I hope that the Government will listen a little more carefully to him and others who seek to progress a practical development plan, such as the Conservatives have previously supported and encouraged. To be frank, the suggestion in the strategic transport projects review for some new complex to replace both Central and Queen Street stations is far fetched.
The Government has an opportunity to make success out of Labour's failure and will now be judged on what it achieves. Where it acts sensibly, it will have our support.
It has been a pretty good debate. A great deal of ground has been covered one way or another, and it is clear that, in my remarks, I will not be able to address every detail that members have raised today. However, members should be assured that we will examine the Official Report afterwards and, if it is appropriate, write to them on matters that I do not manage to cover in my eight or so minutes.
Des McNulty said that the improvements to the Baillieston to Newhouse stretch of the A8 should be in the NPF. That, of course, would delay that project. We want to deal with the planning issues that are associated with it in a shorter timescale than the NPF would allow but, ultimately, communities that have issues with transport interventions of whatever nature have an absolute right under the planning system to make their views known and ensure that their issues are dealt with.
I warmly welcome Des McNulty's acceptance that the minister does not have the money to do everything—ministers of whatever political complexion will always find themselves in that position. That is a genuine issue with which ministers must always engage when deciding spending priorities, and the STPR is primarily about identifying key priorities.
Let me turn to the west of Scotland strategic rail enhancements. A number of people, including Sandra White, referred to the work that is going on between the Scottish Government and SPT, which I think is going well. We are looking to have a delivery plan for project 24 in the STPR by the summer. It is genuinely important that we understand the long-term implications because they involve not just the stations but the network capacity, particularly to the south of Glasgow Central. A range of projects, some initiated by us and others by previous Administrations, will load into the network capacity and reduce the number of paths that are available for further update. We could choose to have a short-term fix, but that would create long-term problems. It is important that the constructive dialogue continues.
Does the minister accept that, while station improvements, the fastlink scheme and some parts of the crossrail scheme could be achieved in advance of the Commonwealth games, crossrail as a full scheme is unlikely to be in place before the games come to Glasgow?
The interventions that we are considering will happen over a long rather than a short time. As I said in my opening remarks, they will have to take account of high-speed rail as well, because we need somewhere effective for that to land when it arrives in the west of Scotland.
I think that Mr McNulty made the point that car use in the west of Scotland must not rise because it is a climate change issue. Glasgow has one of the lowest figures for the number of cars per household—I am prepared to be corrected, but my recollection is that the figure is 47 per 100. Of course, in many socially deprived areas, one of the first aspirational things that people wish to do if their circumstances improve is acquire a car. I acknowledge that we must capture those people for public transport rather than have a rise in car ownership, but we should not underestimate the nature of that challenge. The different tiers—local authorities and central Government—must work together on it.
Gavin Brown and others highlighted the A82 as a key part of the west of Scotland's transport infrastructure and, indeed, of that of the north of Scotland. Of our major roads in Scotland, it has the highest rate of people who are killed and seriously injured. It comes in at number 1 in the top 20, as would be shown by a reworking of the numbers that I gave in an answer to John Scott some months ago. We are very much focused on that issue, although road engineering is only one way in which to reduce deaths on our roads, because about two thirds of deaths are down to drivers and one third could be attributable to the roads.
Gavin Brown referred to there being plans for six trains an hour between Edinburgh and Glasgow, but that is only for the route through Falkirk High station. When we take all the different routes into account, there will be 13 trains an hour between Edinburgh and Glasgow. I am not sure that prioritisation has anything to do with whether projects come in on time and on budget; I think that that is a different discipline, but we will look at it.
Robert Brown's speech focused on Dalmarnock station, and in his intervention later in the debate he asked us to look at financing its development. His amendment to the motion is a bit more prescriptive, so I say to him that, because we are still discussing the issue, we will abstain on his amendment but vote for the motion, whether amended or not, thus reflecting the fact that we are not yet in a position to commit but have sympathy with the point being made.
Longer trains were talked about in the context of a variety of options—I think that Jackie Baillie made that point. We are looking at having 23m coaches, which have greater capacity, and trains with up to eight coaches, so we are making the changes that will increase capacity. Incidentally, there is already a train between Helensburgh and Edinburgh, but it leaves Edinburgh at 4.45 in the morning and involves a seat on the sleeper. The Airdrie to Bathgate line will perhaps benefit those commuters who wish to travel during more normal hours.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
Incidentally, it is not quite four decades since men landed on the moon; that will not be the case until July 2009. I am a geek, Presiding Officer, and I just cannot help it.
Hear, hear!
The figure of 3 per cent growth in the rail network grossly understates the growth that we have seen in recent years, so we must be conscious of that.
On water taxis in the Clyde, we need to get the balance right because the CO2 cost per passenger mile on water is the highest for all transport modes. In order to balance that higher CO2 cost, we must ensure that putting people on the water reduces the overall length of the journey. Nonetheless, the principle of water taxis is sound.
I congratulate Stuart McMillan on his active engagement with local interests on the issue of the A78. Patrick Harvie made various points about transport. I hope that one thing that the regional transport partnerships will do over the next while is work hard to ensure that bus lanes are better enforced because that would deliver terrific benefits at relatively low cost.
On Bill Aitken's reference to regulation, we should use the options available in the powers for statutory bus partnerships. I say to Jackson Carlaw that we are looking at hard-shoulder running. There are significant safety problems—
I am afraid that the minister's time is up.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I apologise for my late arrival to the debate. To be fair, it was not attributable to the west of Scotland's transport system but entirely my own fault.
The west of Scotland—the Clyde valley, if you will—is a spatial reality as a travel-to-work area. It used to be a political reality, although it is not any more, but political reality today does not change the spatial reality. Improvements in the connectivity—a word that annoys Patrick Harvie, so I will use it incessantly—of the region can bring local as well as regionwide benefits, depending on the projects prioritised. Strathclyde Regional Council proved that point in the 1980s and 1990s in developing the second-largest but best suburban rail network in the UK.
It can be the same with roads—for example, the M77. Incidentally, Jackson Carlaw was wrong to say that Labour delayed the M77. I was the Labour transport convener of Strathclyde Regional Council, which built the first phase of the M77. That road has helped to create well over 2,000 jobs in Pollok town centre, whose regeneration would not have happened without it. Similarly, the second, trunk-road phase of the M77 has led, among other things, to the development of new homes in the Kilmarnock area. In addition, the completion of the M74 will bring new jobs and homes to the east end of Glasgow and benefit the whole city region by relieving pressure on the M8. Any MSP who purports to represent Glasgow ought to support that rather than bemoan it.
Jackie Baillie has persistently made an eloquent case for treatment for the A82, especially that bizarre pinchpoint at Pulpit Rock. I usually buy into the notion that there are no bad roads, only bad drivers, but I think that the A82 at Pulpit Rock is the one exception that proves the rule, and getting it sorted out is long overdue. I congratulate Jackie Baillie on becoming a trainspotter in her—I was going to say her middle age rather than her old age.
Jackie Baillie mentioned potholes, something that I have looked into a lot in my work as an MSP as well as in my previous incarnation. Regarding the pothole epidemic in the city region, it is nonsense for grant support for local government to be based on road length rather than traffic volume. It is perfectly possible to count traffic volume, and a change in the formula would bring immediate relief to the city region, as would a rebate in the business rates. Such a sum would probably be spent first on fixing the potholes.
Patrick Harvie twittered on in a way that was against integration. There must be a role for roads—and, indeed, for the car—in an integrated transport strategy.
We have heard enough from Patrick Harvie in this debate; we need to hear a wee bit more from me.
Patrick Harvie wants to be against the car but ends up being against the roads. He must understand that vans and lorries do not use public transport.
Bill Aitken also talked about integration. That was somewhat rich for a member of a party that abolished Strathclyde Regional Council and deregulated the buses.
Michael McMahon made a powerful case in listing the human cost of rising unemployment in his part of the west of Scotland. That underlines the point that the Clyde valley is Scotland's largest single economic unit and that new and integrated transport infrastructure must be moved up the political agenda as part of our response to recession.
Sandra White asked us not to be gloomy about Glasgow. I, for one, never have been. She praised—correctly, in my view—the city's can-do attitude.
Ross Finnie pointed out the continuing and structural nature of some of the region's economic problems. He rightly reminded us that crossrail would bring enormous benefits to the Ayrshire ports and to Prestwick airport.
Jackson Carlaw came over like, well, Jackson Carlaw. Usually, that would be enough said, but he was also wrong about Labour's role in the M77.
The minister nodded in the direction of various local concerns, which is fair enough. However, in his opening speech, he wandered out of the region in the direction of the Clackmannanshire bridge and even the Edinburgh tram, so I started to lose a wee bit of interest. In no sense did he show that he has grasped the joined-up nature of the west of Scotland's strategic transport needs. I agreed with the minister on one point—when he described himself as a geek—but he gave no commitment to money or dates in speaking about the region's transport needs.
Labour will vote for the Liberal Democrat amendment. We will not vote for the Tory amendment because it comes over, well, too much like Jackson Carlaw.
This has been an opportune debate, which is probably a sign that transport infrastructure is moving up the political agenda in the Parliament. Some members—notably the Tories—made the point that there was perhaps a loss of momentum under the previous Scottish Government. I could be unfraternal by pointing out that most of the transport ministers in the previous Government were members of another party, but I make no bones about the fact that, although Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority and Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive were correctly retained even by a Tory Government when it abolished Strathclyde Regional Council in 1996, it was probably a retrograde step for the previous Scottish Government to allow SPT to be downgraded further into a voluntary partnership. However, there is plenty of evidence—this is certainly my experience—to suggest that less formal coalitions can come together in regions to deliver on transport. Institutional issues should not be a pretext for not continuing to focus on the west of Scotland's transport needs, which should be delivered.