Climate Change (Road Traffic)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5005, in the name of Mark Ballard, on climate change and road transport.
The debate is focused on a truth that is simple and which cannot be ducked, however politically unpalatable it might be. Agreement is now widespread on the dangers of climate change, and road transport is of course one of the major contributors to Scotland's total greenhouse gas emissions. It is almost entirely in the Parliament's power to decide on the future of the road transport infrastructure in this country. If we are serious about climate change, that must be reflected in the decisions and positions that we take on transport policy.
Road traffic growth is not a new problem—Governments have grappled with it for the past 20 years. In the 1980s, the Tories went hell for leather on the biggest road-building programme since that of the Romans. In the huge public backlash that followed, new Labour in 1997 and then the Scottish Executive pledged to reduce or stabilise traffic levels. Famously, John Prescott even promised that within five years fewer journeys would be made by car.
However, the fuel protests then took place and the Government took fright at being seen as anti-car. One by one, the Tory roads came back. Road schemes that Sarah Boyack froze when she was the Minister for Transport and the Environment, such as the Dalkeith bypass, were suddenly defrosted by Tavish Scott. Despite a predicted 27 per cent increase in road transport, the Executive is now talking about abandoning national targets to stabilise or reduce road traffic.
I am not saying that climate change and road traffic are easy to tackle, but simply planning for more of everything—more trunk roads, road bridges and rail stations—is fantasy politics to which no hard choices are attached. That is a scatter-gun approach of contradictory policies that certainly fuels gross domestic product, which I have no doubt delights the Executive's friends in the Confederation of British Industry, but which does little to gear us up economically to the challenge of being a low-carbon economy in the decades that are ahead of us. Making our economy even more structurally dependent on the most inefficient transport modes when fuel prices will go through the roof again and again in the years to come is economic ineptitude.
Mark Ruskell talks about ineptitude. We know that he is against road building, but did he just say that he is against new railway stations, too? Will he explain that?
I am absolutely not against new railway stations. I said that we are against a transport policy that goes in all sorts of different directions at once. To tackle road traffic reduction seriously, policies need to be joined up and to be consistent, not contradictory. The problem with the Liberal Democrats in government in the past eight years is that their policies have not achieved that.
I will be positive for a moment. I congratulate the Executive on allocating an additional £91 million to genuine public transport improvements between 2005 and 2008, but Mike Rumbles must realise that a backward step has been taken, because ministers have also launched a massive road-building programme with an additional £143 million for new motorways and trunk roads in the same period.
Do the Greens accept that, as the RAC Foundation for Motoring argues, motorways are substantially safer than dual carriageways and dual carriageways are substantially safer than single carriageways? A strong case can be made for making roads safer on the basis of saving lives—80 young people were killed on our roads last year, for example—which means upgrading roads such as the A9 to dual-carriageway status.
I absolutely agree that we should invest in safety. We should invest in junctions such as that at Ballinluig on the A9 and we should redirect some money to that. However, is Fergus Ewing honestly telling me that the safety record of the A9 south of Perth to Dunblane is good? It is not, although that road is dualled. If he thinks that dualling the whole A9 would produce a dramatic safety increase, he obviously has not driven on that road recently.
We must face up to the reality of some of the investments that the Executive has made under its road programme. The public inquiry reporter said that the M74 extension would increase climate-change emissions without delivering significant economic growth, yet Nicol Stephen not only gave the extension the go-ahead but described it as a sustainable development. It is clearly not that. It is right that Friends of the Earth has now branded Mr Stephen the politician who has made the worst environmental decision since devolution took place.
We do not need the M74 extension, but we need a Glasgow crossrail scheme. We do not need an Aberdeen bypass, but we need an Aberdeen crossrail scheme. We need to free up the dozens of pinchpoints that Network Rail has highlighted and we need realistic investment in Waverley station so that it can host new services that stop at towns that should never have been taken off Scotland's rail map. We do not need a second Forth road bridge; we need one road bridge and options to extend its life should be considered and acted on now. The clamour in the Parliament to support the Forth Estuary Transport Authority in gaining a doubling of the road capacity across the Forth, which would blight Fife and Lothians communities and would lead within 20 years to exactly the same congestion problems as exist now, is irresponsible.
We are on the verge of having a new transport strategy for Scotland. The environmental assessment makes grim reading, as transport comes second only to energy on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland. Between 1990 and 2003, those sectors were not only the largest sources of emissions but those with the highest growth. Why should transport take the lion's share? If it continues to grow, what sectors will compensate so that we can meet our targets?
The Greens have repeatedly made the case for serious action on climate change. The Executive parties and all parties in the Parliament have adopted some green rhetoric, but their record on taking action and making the tough choices is poor. If we are serious about tackling climate change and about Scotland becoming not just the best small country in the world but the most efficient small country in the world, we need to tackle traffic growth—full stop. We need to make hard choices and we need to spend our finite resources with vision and common sense.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes growing public and parliamentary recognition of the threat posed by climate change; notes that cuts in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions of 60% to 90% are necessary to stabilise climate change within a generation; notes that transport, excluding aviation, accounts for 19% of Scotland's climate change emissions, over 97% of which comes from road transport, and that road traffic is predicted to grow a further 27% by 2021; recognises that without reducing traffic levels it will be impossible to reduce Scottish greenhouse gas emissions to a level consistent with the need to address climate change; further recognises the need for urgent political action within the next four years to achieve year-on-year reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and calls on the Scottish Executive to set year-on-year overall greenhouse gas reduction targets and interim targets to reduce road traffic levels.
Climate change is a serious challenge that faces Scotland, the United Kingdom and the world of which we are part. Political parties in the Parliament must decide whether they live in the real world or in some green utopian ideal.
Scots travel in this country and beyond. To deny Scots travel—that is the unwritten and unspoken approach that the Greens advocate—would not be to act in the real world. If we are to convince people that they need to consider their lives and the choices that they make from an environmental perspective, we must take the issues seriously and not as a university debating society would treat them.
Yes, transport has an environmental impact. It contributes to carbon emissions in Scotland, England, France and every other country. The Government does not follow a no-roads policy; no Government does, not even several in Europe of which Greens are part.
Travel is not bad, as the Greens argue. Can we make better travel decisions? Yes. Do we need investment in Scotland's roads? Yes. In the current financial year, the Government is spending 70 per cent of the transport budget on public transport. The Greens never give us credit for that.
We will continue to invest in the road network—buses need roads—but we will also invest for road safety. I agree with Fergus Ewing about that. The investment in road improvements to reduce casualties led to a rate of road accidents in 2005 that was the lowest since records began 50 years ago. That includes a 57 per cent reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured. The number of road fatalities is below the European Union average and the current trend is falling. Significant reductions took place in casualty numbers in 2005—the number of casualties was down 4 per cent and the number of serious casualties was down 5 per cent to the lowest figure since 1952. However, there is still much to do.
The A830 Arisaig improvement eliminated a single-track lifeline road and bypassed a fragile local community; 11 per cent of the benefits of that are from road safety. The section of the A78 from Ardrossan to Saltcoats bypassed three Ayrshire towns, which removed congestion and local pollution and produced benefits of which £14 million are from road safety. The section of the A1 from Haddington to Dunbar bypassed East Linton as part of our development of east coast links with England. Of the total benefits from that, 30 per cent are from accident savings. The M77 to Kilmarnock replaced a notorious stretch of single carriageway and is predicted to generate benefits of which 28 per cent will be accident savings.
An horrific fatal accident occurred at the Symington junction some days ago. We have been examining that junction, which I have personally looked at. I discussed the accident this morning with Strathclyde police and, following their advice, we plan to introduce 50mph zones in that area and to consider any other appropriate measures for the junction. I will also review with Transport Scotland the current trunk-road programme, with a view to bringing forward work on Symington and Bogend toll.
We will do work in other areas of Scotland. The Dalkeith bypass, which the Greens oppose, will take heavy traffic out of Dalkeith town centre. The Glendoick and Kinfauns junctions and the final grade separation on the A90 between Perth and Dundee will eliminate accidents that result from drivers having to cross the dual carriageway; 55 per cent of the benefits from that will be in road safety.
The Government takes sustainability seriously. We focus on safety, access and the environment. Some 70 per cent of our transport investment is being spent on public transport.
That massive investment provides quality alternatives to the car. Rail passenger journeys rose to 72.9 million in 2004-05, which is the highest level of rail passenger journeys in 40 years. Mr Ballard might want to comment on that.
I am happy to welcome the increase in the number of rail passenger journeys and to support the Executive putting more money into public transport, but will Tavish Scott say something about the predicted 27 per cent increase in road traffic levels, which will vastly overshoot the target that has been set? The issue is not the money that the Executive is making available but the outcome of increasing road traffic levels.
The recent transport statistics show stable traffic growth, which I hope the Greens welcome. It is clear that our switch in spending has helped.
Traffic levels are already at their highest-ever level.
The Greens are again crying, moaning, whingeing and groaning. When we do something positive, they still do that.
The challenge is to investigate new fuel-production technologies—clean fuels and hydrogen, for example, must be investigated. The north-east Scotland transport partnership, for example, is currently investigating the feasibility of a hybrid hydrogen fuel cell bus, which I strongly welcome.
In our national transport strategy, which is to be launched later this year, we will spell out our full approach to a transport network that is fit for the 21st century. However, transport is only part of the wider picture on climate change. This year, the Government launched Scotland's climate change programme, and members are already familiar with the it's our future campaign, which is a sustainable development campaign that is now being broadcast on television and radio. However, a safe, reliable and accessible transport network is pivotal in delivering sustainable development, which is exactly what the Government is delivering.
I move amendment S2M-5005.3, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
"supports the Scottish Executive's record investment of 70% of the transport budget in public transport; notes the significant investment in Scotland's bus services, which rely upon a modern road infrastructure, and in the rail network, where the Executive has already opened the Larkhall to Milngavie line, all with the aim of improving the environment; further supports the Executive's investment to reduce road deaths and casualties, improve safety on roads outside schools, and provide attractive, integrated and affordable public transport alternatives, and welcomes the Executive's climate change programme and sustainable development campaign."
The Scottish National Party welcomes this latest of the debates on climate change in recent weeks. There is now political consensus on the matter in the chamber. The Conservatives sponsored their first debate on climate change in the chamber a few weeks ago. We know from daily media coverage that climate change is a clear and present danger to Scotland and the rest of the world. It is good to have such political consensus, which is one good thing that the Scottish Parliament has delivered—there would have been no such consensus pre-1999. I hope that we can now have a sensible debate on the impact of climate change on Scotland and how to tackle it.
Despite the political consensus on the threat that climate change poses, there will be political disagreement in the chamber about how to tackle that threat and reduce Scotland's carbon footprint—indeed, we have already heard such disagreement. We must accept that we do not live in a low-carbon Scotland. Therefore, our challenge is to get society from where it currently is to the point where it is a low-carbon society and to address how society in Scotland can transform its behaviour to reduce our carbon footprint.
We know that the highest emissions in Scotland are from the energy sector and the transport sector, which is the subject of today's debate, and land use. However, it is not helpful for the Greens to walk around the Parliament with sandwich boards that say that the end of the world is nigh and to suggest that the only way forward is to close down Scotland's airports, not build any new roads and shut down the oil industry—that tends to be the Green party's message in the chamber. Such proposals will simply cause economic dislocation in Scotland's communities and will not win support from the people of Scotland for environmental policies or do anything for Scotland's environment. We must have a sensible and rational debate and plot a way forward for Scotland that its people can sign up to.
Of course the SNP accepts that the transport sector is responsible for emissions that cause global warming and deteriorating air quality, particularly in many of Scotland's urban communities. We must address that important issue. The Parliament must do what it can to encourage the people of Scotland and the Scottish business community to change their behaviour. We must encourage people to take up alternatives to cars and ensure that we have a sustainable public transport system for the 21st century.
I live in Elgin. At most times of the week, it is extremely difficult—indeed, it is virtually impossible—to get from Elgin to the Parliament by public transport. It is much more tempting for me to use my car. Doing so is much easier, quicker and more efficient, although I try to use trains whenever I can. We must ensure that alternatives exist for the people of Scotland so that they can use the public transport system.
Our public transport system must be integrated. An issue that I raised recently is that if a person is travelling from Glasgow through Aberdeen to Inverness, Moray or somewhere else in the Highlands, the train from Glasgow arrives in Aberdeen 60 seconds after the Inverness connecting train has left. We are light years away from having an integrated transport system in Scotland, but if we want to tempt people out of their cars, we must create such a system.
A clean transport fuels strategy has enormous potential for cutting our emissions from transport and creating thousands of new jobs in Scotland. Opportunities exist to grow biocrops to fuel our cars, and biodiesel plants have been set up in Scotland. The Government's schemes to convert our vehicles so that they could use clean fuels collapsed because the European Union stepped in and said that the schemes were illegal. The European Union has said that tackling climate change is important, but it has then said that the schemes to use cleaner transport fuels that were in place in Scotland were illegal for competition reasons. The situation is ludicrous and must be tackled at the European level. A clean fuels strategy in Scotland could create thousands of jobs. We should remember that it is the fuel in cars that causes emissions, rather than the cars themselves, or roads.
I move amendment S2M-5005.2, to leave out from "within a generation" to end and insert:
"recognises that a range of measures are required to reduce transport emissions, including a clean transport fuels strategy and provision of sustainable alternatives to road transport, and further recognises that the energy sector accounts for the greatest proportion of emissions and that Scotland has enormous potential to develop cleaner and renewable energy to reduce our carbon footprint."
This is an important debate, as
"climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism."
Those are not my words but those of the UK's chief scientific adviser, David King, in 2004.
Mark Ballard was right to remind us in the motion that nearly 20 per cent of Scotland's carbon emissions come from transport, excluding aviation—the bulk of those emissions come from road transport. Assuming that the Greens do not really think that the developed world will give up motor cars and flights, the main way of avoiding the problems that are associated with growing road and air transport appears to be developing more emission-friendly motor cars and aeroplane engines; there is also a need to persuade more people to use public transport. However, there is little temptation for me and many others to abandon our cars in travelling from the part of Fife in which I live to the Parliament and back because the trains are so unreliable—Richard Lochhead and others have spoken about that unreliability. We have been told that improvements are coming, but it seems that I have heard that for a long time. Mark Ruskell referred to the fact that we do not seem to have a strategic integrated transport plan. Trains do not link up with our buses or our airports. Again, improvements are promised, but we must live and do business in today's world with our current transport systems.
We should all get involved in car-share schemes—I commend the Minister for Transport for his reported excellent personal example in that respect. I am not one of those people who object to Ross Finnie jetting off around the world no fewer than 13 times last year to have talks with his environment and fisheries counterparts. The suggestion that he should get on his bike to go to Brussels or walk to Atlanta is not sensible or practical. Businessmen who are trying to compete in an ever more competitive world tend to shake their heads at some of the transport solutions that the Greens have offered.
Mark Ruskell criticised the Tories for our road-building programme. Of course, the Greens are well known for their aversion to new road-building projects, but buses use roads. The most recent figures show that 449 million passenger journeys on local bus services are made each year in Scotland. The only way to attract more people out of their cars and on to buses is by providing high-quality roads. My remarks apply to both local and long-distance bus services.
I would like to take an intervention but, unfortunately, I have only four minutes.
It is dangerous for the Greens to ignore the urgent need to upgrade Scotland's road network on the basis of safety and the economy. Bad roads cause more emissions as a result of cars having to stop and start again.
Mark Ruskell again dismissed the idea of having a new Forth road bridge. However, he has been quoted as saying:
"If the Forth Bridge is genuinely going to fall into the sea and there's no strengthening work that can be done … then of course, it will have to be replaced."
That does not the address the issue that the economy of the whole of the east of Scotland largely depends on having assured road and rail links across the major firths. People's livelihoods depend on the movement of goods up and down the country. It would be nice if a greater volume of goods were transported by rail, but the capacity for doing so simply does not exist. In that connection, it was a serious mistake not to plan the Borders rail line so that it could carry freight. The existing rail infrastructure could be massively improved at a relatively low cost. As a result, there could be more high-speed services on key routes, such as the Edinburgh to Glasgow and Edinburgh to Perth routes and perhaps south of Aberdeen.
Why do we not go further and consider the possibility of the eco-friendly maglev—magnetic levitation—system, which already operates in the far east? The train runs on a monorail, which it does not touch, as it is raised by magnetic propulsion. Air provides the only friction that the train must overcome. The system is incredibly fast and cheap. Are we considering that for the new links to Scottish airports? I do not know.
Attacking people who drive four-by-fours captures a few headlines, but is that not more to do with perception than reality? Instead of attacking four-by-fours, surely it is better to invest in biodiesel plants and help Scotland's farmers to grow valuable emission-friendly crops for biodiesel manufacture? Why does the Executive not talk to Westminster about lowering the road tax on the new breed of hybrid cars? Why has it always got to be the stick rather than the carrot?
I give the Greens credit for stimulating this transport debate. We fully support David Cameron's call for a climate change bill with meaningful and realistic future targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In the short term, however, it would be hugely damaging for our hard-pressed Scottish economy to drastically penalise those who use our roads, railways and air routes.
I move amendment S2M-5005.1, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:
"believes that, along with global poverty and terrorism, climate change is one of the three greatest challenges facing mankind today and therefore supports David Cameron MP's call for a Climate Change Bill to be included in this year's Queen's Speech to establish year-on-year targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60% by 2050 and to establish an independent monitor to report to the UK Parliament on Britain's progress in meeting those annual targets and to audit government policy to assess whether we remain on track to hit future targets; acknowledges, however, that ongoing investment in the Scottish road network remains vital for public safety, cutting congestion and to protect both small businesses and remote rural communities in particular; further acknowledges that more must be done to encourage modal shift from road to rail for both passenger and freight traffic, and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to ensure that those road and rail projects of greatest importance be prioritised for investment, specifically a new Forth crossing, the refurbishment of Waverley Station, the completion of the central belt motorway network and the upgrading of many important trunk routes alongside increased efforts to move more freight from road to rail."
I advise the chamber that I have to leave before the closing speeches because I have to meet a visiting school group, so I apologise to the closing speakers.
A debate on the impact of road transport on climate change is important. Scotland should be seeking to improve the sustainability of its transport systems. However, the Greens' credibility on the issue is considerably damaged by their continued non-attendance at the Local Government and Transport Committee. According to my memory, members of the Green party have only twice attended the committee since the 2003 elections. I know that they will complain that they do not have a voting place on the committee, but every member of the Parliament is entitled to attend any committee that is held in public and when non-voting members attend my committee, I normally endeavour to give them an opportunity to ask questions. Only this week, Tavish Scott gave evidence to the committee about the Executive's transport policy. He was very closely questioned by politicians from all parties except the Greens.
What has the Scottish Parliament been doing to improve the sustainability of our transport systems and tackle climate change? The minister correctly identified that, in some circumstances, it is necessary to invest in roads to improve their safety, to ensure that they operate efficiently and to take heavy traffic away from residential areas. Scotland is therefore not going to move to having no roads and no roads investment.
Equally, Richard Lochhead was right—that is something that I do not say too often—in identifying that we need to create opportunities for people to travel by public transport and leave their cars at home. That is why I believe that we have been pursuing the correct agenda. The minister correctly identified that we have been investing in new public transport links such as the proposed new links to the airports, the reopening of the Larkhall to Milngavie line and Edinburgh crossrail. In future, the Airdrie to Bathgate line will reopen—I know that my colleague Mary Mulligan would want that to be highlighted.
In addition to investing in rail, we have been investing in buses, mainly through making them free for our older people. That has injected a massive amount of investment into the bus industry, which has seen an increase in the number of new buses being bought and the first growth in the number of people travelling by bus for about 40 years. At the same time, the number of people travelling by rail has increased in recent years.
More broadly, climate change is not just about how Scotland deals with transport issues. We need to recognise that we have to have a global impact if we are serious about changing the climate. In that regard, I draw attention to the efforts of the Labour Government to put climate change right at the top of the international agenda. Labour committed Britain to the Kyoto protocol and put climate change on the G8 agenda. In terms of meeting our obligations on climate change, the United Kingdom Government is on course to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 23 per cent from 1990 levels by 2010, which is double our Kyoto target. We are one of only two countries in the pre-accession EU 15 to be on track to meet our Kyoto target. However, we need to go further than that and try to ensure that those countries that did not sign up to the Kyoto protocol do so.
I will conclude because I know that I have only a short time. The Scottish Executive has a strong record on rebalancing transport policy towards greater sustainability, which is resulting in a renaissance for public transport. At UK level, the Labour Government is an international leader in the tackling of climate change. The global need to tackle climate change demonstrates another reason why Scotland benefits from being part of the union and the UK's international influence on climate change.
There has been a lot of talk about offering carrots rather than sticks. I think that Scotland would move towards sustainable transport better if we could get in a Government strategy recognition that we are miles behind and that many simple things can be done by using the resources that we have, such as making our transport network that much better.
Let us take the example of railways and the potential for electric railways powered by infinite and easily available renewable resources. We could easily have an electric rail service on the east coast route from Aberdeen; it would work far more efficiently and there would be lower carbon emissions. Is that the kind of target that the minister has been talking about? No; he has been talking about suburban lines and the central belt. Large sections of Scotland north of Perth and west of Aberdeen have never been invested in to any degree. Perhaps we should start to think in terms of electric railways in those large parts of Scotland where there are huge electricity resources. That might seem a bit futuristic, but it is quite practical.
The rail infrastructure will continue to have bottlenecks such as those that we have on the Fife circle, so we need to undertake the kind of planning and programmes that the Irish have undertaken in their £30 billion programme for rail and roads that is opening up lines all over the country, not just in the suburban areas. I hope that the debate gets some answers to such questions and I thank the Greens for raising these matters. We really have to use the carrot and not always the stick.
Another interesting development is the installation under tarmac surfaces—roads, airport runways, transport yards or supermarket car parks—of a water heating system that creates energy to heat the road or reduce the heat on it and heat water for nearby buildings. The costs of running major roads could be reduced by installing such heating systems as they are now doing in the Netherlands. Companies in this country, such as Invisible Heating Systems Ltd in Ullapool, are involved in that kind of work, but it is in its infancy. The Carbon Trust needs to back that kind of approach because it could lead to the creation of modern roads that do not suffer so much from wear and tear and so have reduced maintenance costs. We do not have any of that kind of thinking permeating transport at present.
I realise that we cannot compare ourselves directly with the likes of Sweden. Bristow Muldoon is happy to say that Britain has great influence in the world in dealing with climate change. Sweden is trying to become a carbon-free economy by 2020. That is the kind of ambition—thinking big—that we need in Scotland, but it is totally lacking in the responses to this debate so far.
It is important for those of us who live in the far-flung parts of the country to get the kind of investment that balances road and rail needs as a prime necessity in order to make our economy work in future. Clean fuels can make a contribution, but we have to make an effort. On the bottleneck issue, surely we cannot continue to condone people travelling or commuting alone in a car; we have to find ways to sort that out. This is a short debate, but I hope that I have made a positive contribution to it.
We have already heard how road transport contributes approximately one-fifth of all our carbon emissions and that that figure is set to rise to almost one-third during the coming decades. Tony Blair says that we need to reduce carbon emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2050, but scientists now estimate that the true figure is a 90 per cent reduction by 2030.
Over the past couple of years, there has been an almost seismic shift in the political landscape regarding climate change. All parties are now trying to outdo one another in their greenness. We welcome that. However, we do not have the time to wait for actions to catch up with fine words.
Something that has not changed is politicians' apparent fondness for high-profile, glamorous projects. One such white elephant is being planned in the region that I represent. It is a monument to unsustainability and a victory of vanity and spin over common sense. The Aberdeen western peripheral route will drive a dual carriageway through an international school, homes, farms and the vital countryside around Aberdeen. Its backers claim that it will reduce congestion, cut journey times, reduce air pollution and deliver safety benefits, but we all know that the chosen route will do nothing to cut congestion and air pollution where reductions are needed most—in the centre of Aberdeen. Any journey time reductions are likely to be fleeting at best, because the predict-and-provide model of road construction ensures that the AWPR will become just as congested as the roads on which it is designed to ease pressure.
The road's backers also claim that it will reduce carbon emissions in the centre of Aberdeen, but they will not tell us how much extra carbon dioxide the road will be responsible for elsewhere. Taxpayers have a right to know the full facts and would rightly be appalled to learn that more than £16 million has already been spent on the project, even before the route was finalised. The voters need to know that, in complete contradiction to the Liberal Democrats' greenwash, it was a Liberal Democrat minister who discarded all five routes that had been the subject of public consultation and announced a completely new route that had been neither consulted on nor properly assessed.
For the record, I indicate that the five routes were not discarded. The route that was chosen is a combination of two of the routes. Perhaps Ms Baird will confirm that that is the factual position.
The final route was not properly consulted on—the evidence is there to show that.
Since then, Mr Scott has been remarkably reticent about the criteria that informed his decision and about the escalating costs, although I understand that about £5.5 million has already been spent so far this year.
Will the member give way?
No, I am nearly out of time.
There are many projects that desperately need funding—none more than Aberdeen crossrail, which is languishing in the sidings, awaiting endless reviews and feasibility studies. The sustainable transport study for Aberdeen that the Scottish Office produced in 1998 found that traffic levels in the city could be reduced by 29 per cent by 2011 through a low-cost combination of measures, including parking controls, extended bus priority measures and improvements to walking and cycling routes. Those may not be the glamorous, big-budget schemes that are so beloved of politicians, but they are the schemes that will deliver genuine improvements to our transport infrastructure. That is where the money should be going—not on a white elephant that will do no more than allow our ever-expanding car population to create more traffic congestion.
Everyone acknowledges that we need to reduce significantly carbon emissions from transport. If the Executive is serious about climate change, it needs to show leadership by not only keeping the targets for traffic stabilisation but strengthening them by having meaningful interim targets. I urge all members to support the motion in Mark Ballard's name.
The issue that we are debating is important for us all. In the global context, Scotland is part of the problem and must be part of the solution. As a developed nation, we have a moral responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint, and we can demonstrate to others by our actions and results that that can be done sustainably. I believe that the Scottish Executive is making an invaluable contribution to meeting that challenge.
The profound injustice of climate change is the distribution of its environmental impacts and social consequences. Developed countries have been and still are responsible for most human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, but the poorest countries are likely to be most vulnerable to its effects. Our work in the Parliament is important and affects the big picture.
However, I take issue with the Greens and others in the chamber. Mark Ballard and Ted Brocklebank said this morning that there is no integrated transport plan and that there are no intermodal developments. It is important to bear in mind that not long ago David Cameron's team in the Westminster Parliament did not even turn up to vote for climate change and air passenger levies. Only a few weeks ago in the chamber, the Greens and others voted against one of the most important intermodal and integrated transport proposals for the east of Scotland that we have seen in decades—the new proposed railway hub at Edinburgh airport.
The member can sit down. He really needs to listen to the views of the people of Scotland on the second Forth road bridge, which will not be simply a new bridge, but a replacement bridge. If he has not seen the presentation by the bridgemaster, I urge him and other Green party members to see it urgently. It is vital for Scotland that we make progress and get a new Forth crossing now, not in two or five years' time. We need to make that decision now.
The Greens are living in fantasy land. I accuse Mark Ballard of being Scotland's equivalent of Nero—fiddling while the Forth road bridge burns out from corrosion. He is guilty, and so are the Greens as a whole. Plainly, they have not recognised the crucial issues that politicians are being called on to address on behalf of Scottish business and society.
From its first days in power, the Executive has constantly promoted travel behaviour change and modal shift to more sustainable forms of transport. When the Executive came to power, the first rail freight access grant in 18 years was awarded. Twenty-nine projects received grants, which will remove more than 26 million lorry miles from Scotland's roads. In the north of Scotland, £600,000 was awarded to enable Safeway and other local companies to use rail freight and to remove more heavy goods vehicles from the roads. A £13 million fund is available to pay for projects that reduce the impact of transporting timber by road.
I could provide members with pages and pages of figures that I have prepared, but unfortunately time does not permit me to do so. However, I will say that buses need roads and that one of the best things that the Scottish Executive has ever done was to introduce the free Scotland-wide bus travel scheme for elderly and disabled people from 1 April 2006. Scotland is the only part of the UK with such a scheme. The total number of bus journeys that were made under concessionary travel fare schemes increased from about 103 million in 2001 to about 145 million in 2004-05.
The charges that have been levelled against the Executive are simply not true. If time permitted, I could regale members with pages detailing all the important moneys that have been made available, the strategies and policies that have been introduced and the real happenings that have taken place to develop new public transport measures. The need for behavioural change is being impressed on the people of Scotland. We are all changing what we are doing and we will continue to change. That is why I will support the Executive amendment this evening.
This is a strange debate. Mark Ruskell argues not only that the Greens are opposed to all new roads but that they are now also against all new railway stations. When I gave him the opportunity to set the record straight, he would not take it. The message for next year is clear: vote Green for no upgrading of roads to save lives, and vote Green for no new railway stations, such as the station at Laurencekirk in my constituency. How bizarre.
In its motion today, the Green party says that less than 19 per cent of Scotland's climate change emissions come from transport.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have only just started my speech.
The Greens say that it will be impossible to reduce emissions to meet the challenge of climate change if we do not tackle road traffic levels—how bizarre. I would have thought that Green party members would recognise that we need to tackle all sources of emissions, instead of focusing just on road transport. What about the remaining 81 per cent of climate change emissions that have nothing to do with transport issues?
If transport emissions continue to grow, which sectors of the Scottish economy does the member think should pick up those increases?
Most of the 81 per cent of emissions to which I refer are domestic. That is the issue on which we should focus. The Greens cannot tell us why they are not focusing on the main causes of greenhouse gas emissions.
The Green party opposes every major new trunk road building programme in Scotland, including the much-needed western peripheral route around Aberdeen. I know that that new road development will badly affect residents who live close to the route, but every Aberdeen city and Aberdeenshire-based MSP and MP recognises the need for the road, whereas Dundee-based Shiona Baird does not. That says everything. It will relieve traffic in the city and, more important, it will save lives by ending the rat runs on the rural roads in my constituency.
While all the city and shire MSPs support the bypass, despite having different opinions on the best route for it, only the flat-earthers in the Green party oppose it. If it were left to the Greens, I suppose that we would all end up with a horse and cart.
How often do we hear the Greens advocating their nationalist cause of independence for Scotland? That is curious, as they seem to have so much in common with the SNP, especially on road transport projects.
And the Edinburgh airport rail link.
Fergus Ewing is shouting from a sedentary position. I can just about imagine a Cabinet meeting scene involving Fergus Ewing as transport minister discussing his plans for more and bigger roads throughout Scotland—never mind more and cheaper air routes from every airport in the country—with his Green counterpart, whoever that would be. I wonder how they would get on.
How often do we hear the Green party advocating its socialist cause of renationalising the railways and, while we are at it, nationalising all our public utilities? I am reminded of the pledge to nationalise all means of production and control, as advocated by other left-wing and nationalist parties in Scotland. I wonder what planet the Greens are on—do they ever bother to cost out their fantasy policies?
I welcome the Scottish Executive's positive record on its transport programme as outlined by the minister in today's debate. It is clear that there has been an historic shift in investment towards public transport and that the Government has delivered more trains with more capacity, abolished the Skye bridge tolls, established cheaper lifeline flights to the islands, introduced free national bus travel for older people and is delivering much-needed improvements to our national road and rail network.
We need to tackle all Scotland's climate change emissions and not just focus on the less than 19 per cent of emissions caused by transport. The Greens should be the green conscience of this Parliament. Instead, as their motion and today's debate testify, they are seen as an ineffective and extreme party that is not ready to take part in the governance of this country.
In an ideal world the Greens' transport policies might make sense. If Scotland were not a nation of 5 million people but a city of 5 million on a continental plain, we could decide to have such policies and probably make them work. The problem with the Greens' policies is that Scotland does not conform to them.
Scotland is a diverse country with a diverse geography. Its main cities are spread out over hundreds of miles and people's need to move between and around them is made more difficult by geography.
Scotland's economy depends more on transport, and on road transport in particular, than do many other comparable economies, including that of Sweden with which positive comparison has been drawn today. Scotland needs more roads and more road improvements. Ignoring climate change and carbon emissions for a moment, there is great demand and great necessity to improve road links, for example to Inverness from Elgin, where road transport is still difficult, as we have heard during the debate. We need to improve road connections to Stranraer, to benefit not only the south-west but Northern Ireland, which depends on those connections for access to ferry services.
We need the Aberdeen western peripheral route. The clear economic gap between the north and south extremes of Aberdeenshire is caused simply by the difficulties of getting lorries and cars past the obstruction that is Aberdeen. The case is clear: we can improve Scotland's economy by improving transport, and roads will always be a key part of transport links.
As members from many parties have said, a clear and present danger is associated with carbon emissions and global warming. We all admit that climate change is here, but we have a difficult fence to sit on. Scotland cannot afford to take more radical measures—at least, not at this stage—yet we need to take action. For that reason, we need to look at a range of ideas and technologies, some of which are a long way off.
We heard good suggestions from Rob Gibson today about how road construction and maintenance could be made cheaper through the use of new technologies. We heard Ted Brocklebank speak at some length about the availability of technologies such as magnetic levitation and how that might make rail travel more efficient, but that is a very long way off.
What we can do is look at moving away from using fossil carbon as our source of energy on the roads. The first thing that we need to do is consider biofuels, because that technology is the easiest for us to grasp and include in our systems now. Roads are not the polluters and neither are cars; the polluter is the fuel that we put into our cars. Moving to biofuels is not easy to achieve. If we are to use a much higher level of biofuels, decisions must be made outside this Parliament about the level of taxation to which such fuel is subjected. In many other European countries, arrangements have already been reached under which, by virtue of lower levels of taxation, biofuels compete with, or are even more competitive than, the fossil fuels that they replace. The opportunity to introduce cyclical carbon-based fuels to power our cities' bus systems and make them carbon neutral is not beyond us.
I praise the Scottish Executive for the actions that it has taken so far to support the fledgling biofuel industry in Scotland. The first bullet that we all have to bite is considering how we can divert yet more resource to that important fledgling industry. It would benefit us as consumers, our country's environment and even our farmers. Let us have some radical decisions on how we can divert those resources.
I am told that it is easy to be negative, so let me eschew that approach, as always. On Monday this week I had the pleasure of cutting the ribbon at a ceremony to celebrate the launch of six new Stagecoach bus services; I also had a pleasant chat with Scottish Natural Heritage staff at their new headquarters in Inverness. This evening, I will travel to my constituency by rail—I congratulate First ScotRail on receiving the accolade of UK public transport operator of the year. Many commercial companies in Edinburgh and other cities provide excellent public transport and it behoves us to recognise the good work that they and their staff do.
The Greens urge us in today's debate to adopt targets in order to tackle climate change. My good friend Mark Ballard and I agree about a great many things, as members heard in yesterday's freight debate, such as the folly of spending £1 billion on a rail link to Edinburgh airport when that money could be used to update the whole Scottish rail network, including, as Alex Salmond announced at our conference, the SNP's pledge to cut rail journey times from Inverness to the central belt by 45 minutes.
We have much common ground, but in responding to the debate, my serious point is that although the Greens say that we should adopt targets, they have not—to my knowledge, over nearly four years of the current parliamentary session—explained to us how those targets can be met. Although the Greens set objectives, they do not spell out how they should be fulfilled. I think that that is fair criticism. In that way, they do not take an entirely responsible approach to politics. If they wish to be in government, as we do, they have to say what they will do and how they will do it.
If I was a Green party MSP, I would say, if I was being honest, that fuel tax is not high enough. I accept that it takes a leap of imagination to imagine me as a Green MSP—I struggle myself. However, the tax on diesel in the UK has been the highest in the 25 European Union states for the past three years, so we are contributing to the environment. Indeed, the more fuel a car consumes, the more tax is paid. It is reasonable to point out that Scotland, Europe's leading oil producer, is paying through the nozzle at the pump for the privilege of driving on the goat-tracks that we call our roads.
The Greens do not say that fuel tax should be doubled or trebled, that people should be banned from going on holiday to Majorca or that there should be a car tax of £1,000, £2,000 or £3,000. If they were being honest, they would say that those are the kinds of measures that they believe in their hearts would have to be imposed. I will postulate why they do not say that: it is because they have perhaps become a slightly grey party. They know that, if they tell the truth about what they believe needs to be done, the votes will disappear like snow off a dyke. That has been the fundamental failure of our good friends in the Green party over the four years of this session of Parliament.
This has been a good and at times enlightening debate. Parliament can agree that the challenges posed by climate change are immediate and demanding, and I respect the range of views that have been presented. The debate comes down to, on the one hand, those who take decisions and are rightly held accountable for them, and, on the other hand, the no-roads—and therefore no-buses and, as Mike Rumbles would have it, no-horses-and-carts—policy of the Green nationalists.
The Executive is tackling emissions from all sectors, including the transport sector. We have set an ambitious target to exceed Scotland's fair share of UK carbon savings by 1 million tonnes of carbon by 2010. Of course, different sectors will have different scope for making carbon savings and for applying devolved policies. Our aim is to meet the Scottish target in the most sustainable way, by maintaining flexibility in the contribution of the different sectors.
Helen Eadie was right to point to the Tory record. The Tories have some way to go before we will take them seriously on these issues. After all, it was only last year that John Redwood—who, I am told, is a leading thinker in the modern Conservatives—said that it was not clear that human activity is changing the climate. David—or Dave—Cameron wrote the 2005 Tory general election manifesto, which mentioned climate change only once. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have said:
"This manifesto gives the impression that the environment will not be safe in Conservative hands."
The Tory MEP Caroline Jackson has called David Cameron's environmental policy review
"all talk and no action"
and she has said that
"in the general election I suspect we will roll back from some of this."
With the greatest of respect to Ted Brocklebank, who has made a spirited effort to move his party forward on these issues, I suspect that his party still has some work to do.
I greatly admire Fergus Ewing's brass neck. For a moment, I thought that we were not going to have the benefit of his contribution to this environmental debate, because it is not territory on which he is particularly comfortable. After all, he has spent some time trashing public transport projects all over Scotland. He has U-turned—although "handbrake-turned" might be a better expression for Mr Ewing—SNP policy on Edinburgh trams and the Edinburgh airport rail link. As we constantly remind the Greens and the SNP—who are in coalition on this issue—the airport rail link is not just for Edinburgh but, as Helen Eadie rightly said, for the whole of Scotland.
Does the minister agree with TIE, which has said that BAA's reasonable request for an indemnity against the losses that might arise if its runway has to close means that the project is no longer deliverable?
We will deliver the project. No matter how much Mr Ewing's party whinges, and no matter how much he exaggerates—as he does, day in and day out—the issues that have to be dealt with in any capital transport project, we will deliver that project. It is time for Tarmac Fergus to come clean on what other public transport projects the SNP would cancel.
Mr Ewing has a problem. He says where he would save money, but Mr Salmond, his leader and boss, has already committed the SNP to a bullet train—an uncosted bullet train, members will not be surprised to hear—between Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is Mr Salmond's on-the-record commitment, but there are no costings for it. At the general election, we look forward to that kind of spending commitment being made very clear indeed. It is time for the SNP to come clean. It cannot promote rail on one hand and oppose it on the other.
Did the minister interpret Fergus Ewing's remarks as suggesting that the bullet train will be going to Inverness as well?
I take that as a helpful contribution to the debate. I am sure that the SNP will consider the point carefully as it develops its policies.
Rob Gibson made a serious point about rail procurement. We will unveil an unprecedented investment in new rolling stock, and we are adopting the latest technologies—that, to some extent, deals with Ted Brocklebank's fair point about newer and cleaner fuels in respect of carbon emissions.
The only point on which Mr Gibson came unstuck was the Irish example. The Irish are promoting a fast rail link to Dublin airport, so Mr Gibson might want to go over there and change his mind—and SNP policy again—on the airport link to our capital city.
I finish by considering the Green nationalists. My party is occasionally accused of being a bit sanctimonious, but the Greens do sanctimonious far better than we ever could. Let me give just one example. I am pleased that Chris Ballance has returned to the chamber, because I have here the Carrick Gazette, a paper that I read regularly. On 29 June 2006, Chris Ballance said of Maybole that
"a by-pass would transform the quality of life of residents."
When Mr Ballard sums up for the Greens, he will have to explain why, on one side of the south of Scotland, it is all right to support a bypass, but on the other side, at Dalkeith, that is not all right.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No. Mr Ballance said what he said and I am very grateful that he is on the record on that point.
What we need from the Greens is a little clarity—which I am sure Mr Ballard is just about to provide—and a little less hypocrisy on road policy.
We have just been asked by the Minister for Transport for a little less hypocrisy. The hypocrisy in this debate has been fairly clear to see.
Mark Ruskell and Shiona Baird laid out the challenge that we face from climate change. According to Tony Blair, we need a 60 per cent reduction by 2050; according to the latest scientific research, we need a 90 per cent reduction by 2030. We have heard fine words from all sides: Bristow Muldoon talked about his commitment to the Kyoto process; Ted Brocklebank went so far as to give us a quotation to the effect that the most important threat that we face is climate change; and Richard Lochhead has set ambitious targets for the SNP of 2.5 per cent reductions in CO2, rising to 3 per cent.
There has been good rhetoric, but the reality is that—no matter how much we welcome extra spending on public transport—we face a 27 per cent increase in road traffic levels by 2021, according to the latest Audit Scotland report. The projections completely overshoot the Executive's targets. If we are serious about tackling climate change, and if we are serious about making 60 or 90 per cent reductions, it is no good ignoring the fact that road traffic levels are shooting up.
There are lots of fixes that people can come up with. Richard Lochhead and Alex Johnstone mentioned biofuels. According to figures that I have seen, it would take about two acres of oilseed rape to grow enough biofuel for the average family car. There are about 30 million family cars in the UK, so we would need to devote 60 million acres of the UK to oilseed rape to produce enough biofuel just for those cars—and more for buses and heavy goods vehicles. The SNP objects to wind farms being placed on Scotland's hills; I wonder what its response would be if every hill in Scotland had to be covered with a thick yellow carpet of oilseed rape in an effort to do something serious about replacing petrol.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am sorry; I do not have enough time. I will come to the Liberal Democrats in a moment, and hope to give the member an opportunity then.
We heard from Ted Brocklebank that bad roads give rise to higher emissions. That may be true, but I say to him that we are talking about a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of between 60 and 90 per cent. Fixing the potholes will not give us that reduction.
Mike Rumbles talked about the other sources of carbon dioxide in Scotland, such as lights. He might not have noticed, but the Scottish Parliament does not have power over whether people switch lights on or off in their own homes, although we have power over transport infrastructure. The Parliament decides what transport infrastructure we will have in the future. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to deal with that issue.
Shiona Baird covered very well the fact that it is always quite easy to justify new roads by quoting safety and congestion figures. However, I return to the fact that we need a 60 to 90 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
On the specifics of roads and being very straight, the Green party seems to support the bypass in Ayrshire but opposes the bypass in Midlothian. Can Mark Ballard explain why? While he is at it, can he explain whether the Green party will support a Selkirk bypass in my constituency?
A comparison was drawn between my opposition to the proposed Dalkeith bypass and my colleague's support for the proposal in his area. We must remember that, when the Dalkeith bypass project was frozen by Sarah Boyack, she promised a multimodal study to find the best way of reducing congestion in Dalkeith. We have not had that multimodal study; instead, that road programme has been defrosted. The key issue is that we should seek the most effective way of dealing with genuine congestion problems in places such as Dalkeith. We need to make some hard decisions.
Despite what Mike Rumbles seems to think, in general we support new rail developments. However, along with my good friend, Fergus Ewing, I have opposed the Edinburgh airport rail link because it is the wrong rail proposal. In general, we oppose the massive plans for motorway expansion that are proposed by other parties, although there may be exceptions for safety reasons. Mark Ruskell mentioned the Ballinluig junction as a good example of a place where limited work may be necessary for safety reasons. Nevertheless, it is all too simple to take the easy option of building more roads.
I support the Executive entirely in its decision to give local authorities the right to introduce congestion charging. A Labour-led local authority tried to do so but faced a barrage of opposition—easy and irresponsible opposition—from the Liberals, the SNP, the Scottish Socialist Party, the Tory party and even surrounding Labour councils. Introducing congestion charging is the kind of hard choice that we have to make if we are to achieve a 60 to 90 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Of course, it is welcome that the Executive is spending more on public transport, although I could argue with Tavish Scott about the way in which roads are treated differently from rail in the budget and about the inclusion of road haulage modernisation funds and air route development funds in the public transport figure. In the end, however, the debate comes down to the 27 per cent increase in road traffic levels and the requirement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 to 90 per cent.
We all need to face what Al Gore has called "An Inconvenient Truth"—that business as usual is not an option. We cannot continue to do everything that the Tories describe in their amendment. Ted Brocklebank seems to want everything from the completion of the central belt motorway network to the upgrading of trunk routes, the shifting of more freight to rail and more investment in public transport. The reality is that we have hard choices before us—tough decisions that we have to make about what we are going to invest in.
In answer to Fergus Ewing, I say that we need to support congestion charging, not oppose it as his SNP colleagues did. We also need to support massive investment in rail infrastructure, the pinch-points in which have been mentioned. We cannot do that at the same time as making the investment in roads that other parties are talking about. We have a choice about what investments we are going to make in the future.
The time has come when we can no longer wriggle out of the requirement to make a 60 to 90 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. We can no longer pretend that business as usual is possible. We cannot continue to build more new motorways. I ask members, please, to support the motion in my name. Let us make progress towards the targets for the reduction of CO2 emissions and use the Scottish Parliament's powers to take the steps that are necessary to tackle the problems of road transport. There is no other option: there is no way off that twin hook.