Transport
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3322, in the name of Des McNulty, on transport priorities.
This debate is as much about the conduct of ministers as it is about transport—ministers who tell their constituents one thing but who, once they get around the Cabinet table, do something else; ministers who make promises when they are seeking election, but whose constituents' interests come second to the comfort of the ministerial Volvo; ministers such as Richard Lochhead, who told voters in Moray that he would "always put voters first" and that
"the people of Elgin cannot wait until 2020 or anywhere near that for their bypass"—[Official Report, 21 June 2006; c26903.]
but who still signed off the Government strategic transport plans for between now and 2030, which make no mention whatever of the Elgin bypass.
The decision made and the dirty work done, Richard Lochhead went back to his constituents to say that he was still fighting for the bypass—the one that he said in 2006 was a "make-or-break issue" for the social and economic future of the area, but the one that his Government has rejected from its plans.
Last October, Mr Lochhead told Holyrood magazine:
"I've got a certain attitude to the way I operate as a politician and I try to avoid bullshit when I can and I try to have a frank and open relationship with the people I'm dealing with."
He should try harder.
When the Scottish National Party was in opposition, the Elgin bypass was a regional priority but, as we can see from its thoroughly dishonest amendment this morning, now that the SNP is in government, the bypass is a local matter.
To be fair to Richard Lochhead, he is not the worst manipulator of the facts. Fergus Ewing told his constituents in 2006:
"The SNP has led the campaign to agree that the A9 and the A96 should be dual carriageways … Inverness is the only one of Scotland's five major cities that lacks dual carriageway links."
Richard Lochhead contented himself with making weak excuses that he was still fighting for a bypass that he and his fellow Cabinet members had rejected, but Fergus Ewing, in his arrogant way, declared his various failures as victories. According to Mr Ewing, his failure to secure any commitment to the trunk link route through Inverness, his failure to get the Inverness to Aviemore stretch in the first phase of any upgrading of the A9, and his failure to get the dualling of the A96 to go any further than Nairn are all triumphs.
Des McNulty said that there is no provision for the trunk link route in Inverness. Does he concede that the eastern section—valued at £34 million—has been adopted by the Government as part of the strategic transport projects review?
Is that the limit of Dave Thompson's ambition? It was not the limit of Mr Ewing's ambition in advance of his becoming a minister. Let us be clear: of all the projects that the Government should have supported on the ground of safety—the first of the three priorities that are listed in its amendment—it should have made a commitment to upgrade the A82. Have Fergus Ewing and Jim Mather stood up to be counted? Have they said that there must be no more deaths or injuries on a road that everyone knows needs substantial investment as quickly as possible? No. We have not heard a peep.
Because the SNP failed to keep money aside for the Forth replacement crossing and because it spent the £900 million that it inherited instead of using a substantial part of it to fund the new bridge, every other project on its wish list is shrouded in uncertainty.
In 2006, Fergus Ewing said that the £609 million for the Edinburgh airport rail link should be redirected to a dual-carriageway upgrade of the A9 between Inverness and Perth, to the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen, to the A82, which links that road through Inverness to Lochaber, and to building a rail bridge over the Dornoch Firth. The Edinburgh airport rail link was cancelled. Where are all the other projects to which the money should have been redirected?
With no commitments on funding, the SNP's wish list is a mirage. The more it adds to it, the further we get from delivery. The only thing that is certain is that SNP ministers will not accept responsibility for their actions.
When Adam Ingram told the community in Maybole that the chances of securing their bypass were better than ever, he was wrong, because the bypass is not even included in the wish list.
Will the member take an intervention on that subject?
The minister should just let me carry on for a little while—he will get a chance to respond in a second.
It is not just lowly junior ministers or even cabinet secretaries who have failed to deliver their promises. The great haggis himself, Alex Salmond, stood on the Inveramsay bridge, which brings the busy A96 to a single-lane standstill outside Inverurie, and promised voters in Gordon that he would dual both the A90 and the A96. His election pamphlet said:
"Alex has pledged record local roads investment to dual this stretch, which connects two major Scottish cities, as well as serving local road users".
Repeated pledges regarding the Haudagain roundabout were dropped, only to be reinstated because of the intervention of my colleague Lewis Macdonald and the fear of the outcry that would be led by the Aberdeen Evening Express and The Press and Journal. Even so, the people of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire are going to have to wait a long time for their roundabout.
Throughout Scotland, the SNP made promises on which it is now reneging. The blame for the dropped projects and the delays lies fairly and squarely with SNP ministers. The choices that they made in government are not what they promised in opposition. They can dodge and weave and claim to be fighting for this or to be leaving the door open for that. If the STPR is not the only mechanism for delivery of surface transport infrastructure, even at an estimated cost of £33 billion, what the hell is it for? What on earth is the bill for the SNP's fantasy commitments? If yesterday showed anything, it was that the SNP's key priority is to keep its ministerial cars, rather than to improve the roads for everyone else.
Cabinet government is based on the principle of collective responsibility, not on the notion that each individual minister should campaign against Government decisions quietly in Moray or Maybole, Inverness or Inverurie while voting for those self-same decisions here in Edinburgh.
Why not accept the thrust of the Labour motion and the amendments that have been lodged by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives? Ministers should put aside the posturing, end the horse trading and, just for once, do what is best for Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that the Strategic Transport Projects Review lacks detail on timescales and does not commit the Scottish Government to deliver a programme of expenditure for the vast majority of the projects identified; also notes the concern of communities along the length of the A82, A77, A9 and A96 that no indication has been given as to when their needs for road improvements will be addressed; notes in particular the disappointment of people in Elgin, Inverness and Maybole who were led to believe by the SNP prior to the 2007 election that their bypass schemes would be given priority by an SNP government, and reminds ministers of the principle of collective responsibility and the need to ensure that communities are not misled about the Scottish Government's intentions.
We have just had a perfect illustration of Labour members' reading skills: they have none. Clearly, Des McNulty has read little, if any, of the STPR. The Maybole bypass is in it.
No, it is not.
It is in there, under the interventions for the A77. I can confirm that.
Would the minister accept that all that is needed to secure a bypass for Maybole, which would be of benefit to all people in southern Ayrshire, is for the Government to include the project as part of the enhancement of the A77 south of Ayr, as referred to in the strategic transport projects review? Can he give the people of south Ayrshire that commitment today?
Work for the Maybole bypass is included, and is safety focused.
Will the minister take an intervention on that point?
In the six minutes that I have, I will address as many points as possible.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will make some progress before I—
On that point—
Sorry. I beg your pardon. I will take an intervention from Cathy Jamieson, because of her constituency interest.
On the Maybole bypass, if it is in the STPR, will you give a commitment today on when that work will commence and when it will be completed?
I remind members not to use the second person.
The STPR will be funded through successive spending reviews. The Maybole bypass and all the other work will be similarly considered, as funds become available. It is included in the A77 intervention.
Reference was made to the Haudagain roundabout. The very first oral answer that I gave, in May 2007, provided an absolute assurance of the Government's commitment to dealing with the issues there. I repeat that assurance—as I appear to have had to do weekly ever since. Sooner or later, somebody will hear that the Haudagain roundabout will be fixed by the Government, in the interests of the people in Aberdeen.
The STPR is about strategic nationally important projects. It distils a huge number of projects into its 29 interventions, which we as a Government will directly deliver. We are clear about our delivery priorities and about the timescales within which interventions can be delivered.
The Forth replacement crossing is central to our strategic transport priorities. It is a vital economic link, which must be maintained, and I know that there is broad—if not universal—agreement on that point across the chamber. Financially, it dominates what is going on.
In parallel, we are able to undertake a substantial number of rail improvements: between Edinburgh and Glasgow, on the Highland main line and on the route between Aberdeen and Inverness. Those interventions will dominate the period to 2016.
The Government takes responsibility for what the STPR will deliver—and we intend to deliver. I accept that not all the decisions will be welcomed by everyone and that there are schemes that are not in the STPR. In considering 1,000 projects, that was inevitable. Good government is about approaching problems systematically and taking tough decisions.
Let me speak a bit about Elgin. There are some important issues around Elgin that will influence the way forward. There have been a number of studies and they have come up with a range of different conclusions about numbers. The Highlands and Islands transport partnership study suggests an average figure of 20,227 annual traffic movements in the centre of Elgin. However, our monitoring on the trunk road at the edge of Elgin shows 7,000. That is quite a different number that tells us that the congestion issues in Elgin are largely local.
There is also a difference of view in the modelling that we have done and the modelling that HITRANS has done on the transfer effect. We think that only 10 to 35 per cent of the 7,000 vehicles going into Elgin will transfer to the bypass, whereas HITRANS cites a figure of 60 per cent of its 20,000. That numerical difficulty does not mean that there is not a problem to be solved—of course there is. It indicates, however, that further work must be done to understand the distinction between the benefit that could be delivered by upgrading a trunk road with a new bypass to the south of the town, and interventions that would affect local traffic inside the town. That is why we are continuing to work with the regional transport partnership and the local council on the issue. We will continue to pursue that intervention with energy and commitment.
We are the first Administration to adopt the whole of the A82 route improvement plan. We have done so because 13 people died on the A82 in 2007. It is a road on which engineering interventions can make a very real difference. Safety is our top priority, and we will pursue it right across Scotland. We will continue to engage with communities and regional transport partnerships. I notice that the Labour member appeared to suggest that we should abolish regional transport partnerships, as he said that only the Government should be making interventions. We take a different view, which I think is shared across the chamber. I will be interested to hear from the former convener of the north-east Scotland transport partnership.
I move amendment S3M-3322.2, to leave out from "lacks" to end and insert:
"(STPR) focuses on the three STPR priorities of addressing safety on the network, maximising use of the network and making focused investments that deliver national benefits and notes that the STPR is not the only mechanism for the delivery of surface transport infrastructure supported by the Scottish Government which also involves working with regional transport partnerships and councils and that the Scottish Government is engaging with local communities such as Elgin, Inverness and Maybole to deliver solutions to a range of transport infrastructure issues that have important local benefits."
It is interesting how context can play a big part in what we discuss in Parliament. Earlier this week, our informal discussions with a number of other parties on what our amendment could be were simply in the context of a transport debate. Today, one day after the budget debate, we have a whole different context. I intend to touch on that, as well as on transport issues, in the limited time that is available to me.
I repeat some of the calls that we have made previously. We believe that the strategic transport projects review, when it was published, served a purpose as far as it went, and we were delighted that it had come along. The problem was one of prioritisation. Priority number 1 was the new Forth road bridge. Priority number 2 was everything else, whenever the Government could get round to finding ways to fund it. I therefore repeat my call to the Government to proceed from the publication of the strategic transport projects review, to prioritise properly, to develop timescales and to discuss funding mechanisms to put the projects in place over time.
The Conservatives will continue to work, in a general sense, with any and all political parties in Parliament to further the aim of evolving and developing the trunk road network. We know that large improvements are required all over Scotland, and they need to be delivered when they can be afforded. Although budget considerations and funding mechanisms will inevitably play a part in what we can do and when we can do it, we are prepared to explore every possible funding mechanism and arrangement that could be put in place to achieve those aims.
As I look through the motion and amendments, I conclude that the context must be taken into account. I agree that the roads that need to be improved that have been included in the motion are very much the ones that we need to deal with, and I agree with the Liberal Democrat amendment that the A90 should perhaps also have been included. I even agree with some elements of Stewart Stevenson's amendment, but we must take the context into account.
During the budget debate yesterday, I did not hear from Labour members that improving the trunk road network was among its priorities. Having voted against the budget bill, they have effectively reduced the transport budget for next year—unless something can be done—by £217.5 million. As a consequence of that, it is difficult to take into account the position that Labour has taken today.
The Liberal Democrat amendment makes no mention of the Elgin bypass, which has been that party's priority in previous debates, including last week. I look forward to hearing the opening Liberal Democrat speech and to finding out whether it features quite as strongly as it did on previous occasions. It must be taken into account that, yesterday, the Liberal Democrats once again demanded an £800 million per annum cut in Scottish public expenditure. What they have said on transport indicates that they have no intention of taking that amount off capital expenditure, and they have expressed on many occasions the view that it should actually increase, rather than decrease. Their proposal would require an annual cut approaching 6 per cent in revenue spending across Scotland. How can the Liberal Democrats have a list of spending commitments that include investment in road and rail infrastructure, but which do not take into account that proposed cut? There is simply an imbalance in the Liberal Democrats' approach.
I accept much of what is in the motion and the amendments. However, in the context of yesterday's debate, this debate has been rendered inept.
I move amendment S3M-3322.3, to insert at end:
"and, while recognising that the new Forth Replacement Crossing is an overriding priority for Scotland, calls on the Scottish Government to state its priorities by reference to the projects listed in the Strategic Transport Projects Review and others identified by regional transport partnerships and local authorities as having a major regional significance."
The strategic transport projects review process has been a long haul. It has taken 20 months, which is about the same length of time as the gestation period for an elephant. Of course, an elephant has a lot more substance than the STPR. The longer we waited for an outcome, the more we thought that there was bound to be clarity. Why else was it taking so long? However, those of us who were hoping for a coherent, costed and timed transport investment programme were disappointed.
That is for another day; today I want to focus on what is not in the plan. I want to focus on projects on which the SNP campaigned vigorously and improvements that the SNP told voters were political priorities. The title of the debate is "Transport Priorities", but in reality it is about the honesty and integrity of ministers. I give members a couple of examples of missing links in the north-east: a bypass for Elgin, and the dualling of the A90 from Ellon to Peterhead. I use those examples because they were given high priority by people who are now Government ministers.
We are becoming used to the SNP's broken promises, but worse, in this context, Government ministers continue to suggest that certain transport projects will happen, even though the review that ministers signed off in Cabinet and presented to the Parliament excludes those projects. Ministers who have failed to persuade their Cabinet colleagues of the merit of their case have gone back to their constituencies and suggested the opposite.
I wonder why Mr Stevenson did not even manage to convince himself of the merits of dualling the A90 from Ellon to Peterhead. In June 2006 he said:
"it is extremely regrettable that the Scottish Government has not taken the opportunity to extend the dualling of the A90 north of Ellon as part of the same programme of development."
If Stewart Stevenson could not persuade himself, surely the First Minister would manage to persuade him. After all, Alex Salmond said in February 2007:
"I have already put on record my commitment to bringing forward plans to dual the A90 and A96 if elected Scotland's First Minister in May".
Moreover, Alex Salmond's election address leaflet, which was entitled—members will like this—"The man you know; The man you trust' said:
"Alex has pledged to lead a step change to bring our beleaguered transport network into the 21st century, including the dualling of the A96 and A90".
We know now that the dualling of the A90 from Ellon to Peterhead has been ruled out in the STPR. That has left the First Minister clutching at straws. A spokesman for the First Minister has hinted that improvements to the road could still be in the pipeline, but on 19 January Alex Salmond was quoted in The Press and Journal as saying:
"It is up to Transport Scotland the nature of what is to be done, but the things which could be done include dualling."
That is double-speak of the worst kind, which has led to press headlines such as, "New hopes of dualling key road in north-east", although the truth is that the interventions that are proposed in the STPR—I refer members to page 68 of report 4—amount to no more than road safety improvements and are far short of what was promised. The SNP appears to be haemorrhaging credibility at every turn—and its members know it, because they resort to weasel words when they are in their constituencies.
Despite the SNP's repeated calls in opposition for an Elgin bypass, the SNP Government has not included the bypass in its investment plans. However, members should not fear: Richard Lochhead says that he will keep making the case. We might ask, the case for what—the project's inclusion in the next 20-year plan? His credibility is in tatters.
Will the member give way?
I am in my final minute.
The SNP is unwilling to prioritise and unable to admit that it overpromised, but it continues to try to mislead everyone by suggesting that we can have it all. George Orwell wrote:
"Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind".
Who knew that Orwell had met the Scottish National Party? The STPR has no substance, but how could it, when it was written by the Government?
I move amendment S3M-3322.1, to insert after "A9":
", A90".
When Stewart Stevenson announced the strategic transport projects review, I said that the only certainty that day was that the SNP would be spinning like mad across the country and suggesting that every community's wish for its local road was about to be granted. Sure enough, that was the case. No doubt the spin doctors and the SNP were happy about the following day's headlines.
Since then, however, it has been interesting that local papers have started to use different headlines as the truth has become more apparent and the spin has begun to unwind. The truth is that the STPR is not, as was spun, a transport plan. Nor is it a transport programme, a set of spending commitments or a funding document, as the minister had to admit to me in an answer to a parliamentary question the other day. The STPR is no longer even a credible wish list.
I say to all the people in my part of the world who think that a commitment has been made to dual the A9, to dual the A96 to Nairn, and significantly to improve the A82 that there are no such commitments. It is not just me who says so; the chief executive of our regional transport authority, HITRANS, has clearly made the same point. There are no commitments to fund those projects.
Will the member give way?
I cannot; I have only four minutes.
The minister himself made it clear in the debate that if I could tell him what his budget would be in 2017, he would be able to tell me what projects he would fund. There are no commitments to fund.
The STPR is not a strategic document, as is illustrated by the approach to the Elgin bypass and the Inverness trunk link route. Elgin is a significant urban centre in the north, which suffers from significant congestion. There are projections of traffic growth of 26 per cent to 2022. There has been a strong local campaign for a bypass for many years, which the SNP backed. Prior to the election, the clear impression was given that a bypass would receive the highest priority. As Des McNulty said, Richard Lochhead made it clear that people could not wait for the bypass. However, the so-called strategic document, which covers the period to 2020, makes no serious mention of solving the problem. An answer to a parliamentary question that I asked recently revealed that the Government does not even accept the principle of the need for a new trunk road. The issue has gone from being top priority before the election to having no priority after the election.
There is a similar story in Inverness. Inverness is a key hub, which is rapidly growing and rapidly clogging up. The existing road that connects the A82 to the A9 is grossly inadequate and there are huge tailbacks on the road, particularly in summer. As in Elgin, colossal growth is projected. The SNP campaigned before the election for the trunk link route—I think that Dave Thompson had the honour of chairing the campaign for a time—but in the STPR there is no mention of that key section between the A82 and the A9 being built. An answer to a parliamentary question also revealed no acceptance on the part of the Government that the current trunk route will not be able to cope in the years to 2020. The Inverness trunk link route is another project that has gone from being a key priority before the election to receiving no mention in the STPR after the election. For the crimes of misleading people before the election, Fergus Ewing and Richard Lochhead stand above all others.
However, worse, there is no mention in the STPR of emerging strategic problems in Inverness. There are huge tailbacks every day across the Kessock bridge to the roundabout to the south of the bridge. The problem can only get worse every year that the trunk link route is delayed and traffic at the junction grows.
There is no commitment to fund anything in the STPR. The STPR is not a strategic document or a transport plan, but an attempt at the biggest transport con that we have seen.
For decades, Scotland's transport infrastructure has been a low priority for Administrations at Westminster and Holyrood. It is in a sorry state—the Scottish Chambers of Commerce described it as "dilapidated" and found that almost 70 per cent of Scottish businesses think that the transport network does not meet their needs and that a lack of quality infrastructure inhibits inward investment. The economy and the environment of Scotland have paid a heavy price for that legacy.
The Scottish Government was faced with a difficult challenge, given the creaking infrastructure that it inherited. How do we maintain the current transport network, which previous Administrations have left to fall into rack and ruin? How do we cut accidents on our roads, many of which have been happening at the same black spots for years? How do we improve our infrastructure to deliver sustainable economic growth, given the numerous yawning gaps that there have been in the infrastructure for decades?
One thing is certain: we cannot improve infrastructure by leaving public services in Scotland with a funding shortfall of £1.8 billion for the next year.
Will the member give way?
I want to develop my point first.
I am pleased that the motion demonstrates Labour's faith in the SNP Government's ability to fix the transport problems that were created by Labour's neglect without even being able to borrow or invest.
The framework has begun with the STPR, which weighty document reviews projects of significant national importance. It is not the place for the commitment of expenditure, which should rightly be done as part of the budget and the comprehensive spending review process; nor is it the only way in which projects can or should be delivered. RTPs and councils will continue to play a pivotal role in delivering projects that are important to their local area.
One project that has rightly been given priority in the STPR is the Forth replacement crossing. Labour and the Liberal Democrats prevaricated, but this Government has taken decisive action. Perhaps if Labour had moved more quickly on that project while it was the Administration, the other transport projects that are mentioned in the motion, which are vital, could have been built more quickly and completed earlier and could already be assisting the Scottish economy in these difficult times. Unfortunately for Scotland's business community, Labour did not do that.
Will the proposals for the new Forth crossing, with their lack of a multimodal facility, be future proofed? Will they meet the needs of people in the Lothians and Fife?
The member demonstrates a difficulty in his understanding of what is in the project. There is a multimodal aspect to it. In fact, the crossing will be improved by having a dedicated public transport corridor that will serve the people in his constituency for many years to come.
Where do Labour's transport priorities lie? Recent announcements on high-speed rail suggest that they terminate at Birmingham. To be fair to the Tories, at least they would take the line as far as Leeds. Perhaps Mr McNulty would like to phone a friend in the Scotland Office and see whether they can provide him with a timetable and a committed budget for building a high-speed rail line all the way to Scotland—or perhaps he would not. It beggars belief that Mr McNulty can come to the chamber today and ask the Government to provide detailed timescales for long-term transport projects, when his party has thrown into doubt the transport projects that are planned for the forthcoming year. That is on top of the threat of £500 million of cuts over the next few years—budget cuts that will be handed down to this Parliament as a result of the Westminster Government's mismanagement of the United Kingdom economy. How will transport fare when Scotland's budget begins to suffer? What transport projects will have to make way to pay for Labour's depression? Only time will tell.
In any democracy, it is the duty and responsibility of the Opposition parties to hold the Government to account. That is precisely what we are doing today. The SNP made many promises over the years and in the lead-up to the 2007 election. We are all elected on the basis of our manifesto commitments. I am proud to say that the Scottish Conservatives' manifesto was fully costed and all pledges were costed. Our financial guru, Derek Brownlee, would not allow anything less. However, that is obviously not the case for the SNP.
I appreciate that an inexperienced politician can make gaffes on the way to an election. However, we are not talking about inexperienced back benchers, bag carriers or back-room boys; we are talking about pledges that were made by the First Minister of Scotland, Richard Lochhead, a local MP and previous SNP MSPs to bring forward an Elgin bypass. In addition, Fergus Ewing made a similar pledge for the Inverness trunk link route. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change has even said to the local newspaper in Elgin, the Northern Scot, in answer to a question about an Elgin bypass:
"Improving the transport infrastructure is the key to unlocking Moray's economic potential".
In the midst of all those SNP pledges and manifesto commitments, I should also mention Tavish Scott's response to a written question that I submitted in November 2005. He stated:
"We have no current plans to construct an Elgin Bypass."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 8 December 2005; S2W-21541.]
The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change has stated that the Inverness trunk link route and the Elgin bypass would provide poor investment returns. How could there be poor investment returns for congested Inverness from linking the main arterial routes in Scotland from the east, south and west? The minister's statement also begs the question that, if the Elgin bypass would give such a poor investment return, why is the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment allegedly fighting to get funding for it in the face of opposition from his colleagues in Government? There is no doubt that Inverness is the economic hotspot of the Highlands and that Moray has the lowest average wage in Scotland. We all agree that Moray's potential needs unlocking, but refusing to build the Elgin bypass will make matters worse and not better.
As someone else said,
"What we would like to know is whether the Scottish Executive is committed to help deliver an Elgin bypass. We would like to know how long this will take and where an Elgin bypass stands as a priority for the Scottish Executive."
Those are the words of Angus Robertson, the SNP MP for Moray, which I put to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change.
In opposition, the SNP slammed Mike Watson for voting with his Cabinet colleagues in favour of the Glasgow hospitals shake-up but campaigning against it at a local meeting. Nicola Sturgeon said:
"He has betrayed his constituents. His position is untenable. He has been prancing around Glasgow for the last few months telling them he would oppose the plans for Glasgow's hospitals and then he goes to Edinburgh and votes for these plans."
The same applies to the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment. I cannot confirm whether they were prancing, but they certainly gave pledges to constituents to deliver an Elgin bypass, dual the A96 and build a trunk link route around Inverness. However, when the chance came for them to deliver, they changed their minds.
What road and rail projects can we expect to be started over the next five or six years? There are the Scottish Government's inherited commitments and its current commitments. Then there is the draft national planning framework 2, which contains eight or nine big projects, although not all of them are transport related. If they are approved, that will amount to them having outline planning consent, which of course amounts to incremental progress, of a sort. There are also 29 interventions—the term that is used by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change—in the strategic transport projects review.
If members want a project to be started during this session of Parliament or the next, the fact that it is mentioned in the STPR does not necessarily mean a lot. The minister says that the 29 interventions comprise many more individual projects; he is on record as saying that it could take 20 years to deliver some of them. When the minister says yes to a project, he therefore really means that it may be an intervention in 20 years' time. That is not yes, and it is not even mibbes aye, mibbes naw; it is the unique Scottish vernacular double positive, "Aye, right!"
To be fair to the minister, on the day that we debated the STPR in the chamber, he killed off some of the other projects on the 1,000-long wish list that he mentioned. For example, he appeared to kill off the Glasgow crossrail project.
Will the member take an intervention?
Sorry, but I do not have time.
The Glasgow crossrail project could provide through rail services from south-west Scotland to Edinburgh, the Forth ports and north-east Scotland. Sadly for the minister, on that day he had to attend a scheduled meeting of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on Glasgow crossrail, of which I, too, am a member. He got a bit of a rough ride at that meeting and has been subjected to further pressure since.
Lo and behold, at a recent meeting of the Parliament's Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, the minister revealed in evidence that the deceased Glasgow crossrail project has a love-child—I will call it son of crossrail—which needs a new Glasgow central rail terminal. It is mentioned, but not by name, in the draft national planning framework 2 and the STPR document. Incidentally, the minister also said that another driver of the need for a new Glasgow central rail terminal was that the new rolling stock that he hopes to acquire will in some respects be too long operationally for the platforms at Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street stations. I have a good memory for transport issues and I say honestly that that was the first time that we had heard that in the Parliament.
Far be it from me to accuse the minister of circumlocution or obfuscation but, in the absence of a timetabled and funded five-year transport programme, he seems to be making it up as he goes along.
I welcome the STPR; I am sure that that does not surprise members. In the eight years from 1999 to 2007, Liberal and Labour transport ministers did absolutely nothing for the Highlands and Islands—that was eight years of nothing for the Highlands and Islands.
I contacted Tavish Scott when he was a minister and he refused point-blank to sanction the Inverness trunk link route bypass. I know that because I have campaigned since 2002 for the TLR. I made submissions to and attended the public inquiry on it in 2003. I say to Peter Peacock that I was not just the chairman of the fixed link action group; I founded it. I asked members of other parties such as Labour and the Lib Dems to join the campaign, but none did. The campaign had no Peter Peacock or Mary Scanlon.
Tavish Scott, the Liberals and Labour highlight their hypocrisy. That is also shown clearly by Jamie Stone of the Lib Dems, who recently called for the A9 to be dualled from Tore to Tain. Such a project is worthy, but he did not tell the people of the Highlands that he voted for the 2p tax cut, which would cut £800 million from the budget, and against the budget yesterday. Like the Labour Party, he says one thing in the Highlands and another thing in Edinburgh. The voters will punish them for that in due course.
We now have real progress by the SNP. The SNP minister has approved the eastern section of the Inverness TLR; Highland Council just needs to complete the western section. The minister confirmed in parliamentary answers to me on 15 and 22 January that he will work with the council and all others.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry; I do not have time.
It could not be clearer that Highland Council needs to come on board to complete the TLR's western section. A council report in September 2007 said that the whole TLR from the east to the west would cost £119 million, which would be met by the council, the private sector and the Government. The Government has chipped in £34 million for the eastern section, so it has done a good bit already. The council's capital plan of October 2008—barely three months ago—reaffirmed the capital budget of £119 million. It is surprising that the council looked only for council and private contributions at that stage. However, in December 2008, the SNP Government came up trumps.
The council's capital plan budget between now and 2012—before the STPR applies—sets aside £32.2 million for the TLR. That Liberal and Labour-led council could complete the TLR from the Dores roundabout to Tomnahurich and thereby complete the road section of the bypass by its own hand in the next three years, if it had the will and if it stopped sniping and trying to blame the Government for the problems. The balance of the cost can also be met from the council's capital plan, which sets aside money for future years. We can easily complete the TLR if Highland Council has the political will and if it plays the game with everybody else.
Members have—rightly—focused on the SNP's failure to prioritise key projects on the A96 and the A90. The junction of those roads at the Haudagain roundabout is the worst single pinch point on either road, but it is not even mentioned in the strategic transport projects review.
Will the member take an intervention?
After I have laid out my argument, I hope that the minister will respond. He will have the opportunity to do so.
When the STPR was published, John Swinney said that the Haudagain was missed out because the problems at the junction would be solved when the Aberdeen western peripheral route was built. He told The Press and Journal on 11 December that the traffic bottleneck at the Haudagain was
"essentially influenced by the effects of the construction of the AWPR, which will take an enormous proportion of traffic from the A90. So therefore, it seems to me to be a prudent approach to concentrate on a strategic project of that nature."
So the SNP said that it would concentrate on the WPR because that strategic project would—apparently—solve all the problems. An SNP Government spokesman backed that up when he told the Aberdeen Evening Express that the Haudagain scheme had been superseded by the Aberdeen bypass.
Stewart Stevenson has tried a couple of different explanations. When I asked him about the issue last December, he said that the STPR was about
"strategic transport projects. The Haudagain is an example of a local project."—[Official Report, 10 December 2008; c 13254.]
However, he told The Press and Journal something different—that
"the work … is set to be completed before 2012, which means it does not have to be featured"
in the STPR. He has since confirmed that the WPR will not be completed before 2012. That suggests that work on the Haudagain would have to take place alongside work on the WPR, if work on the Haudagain was missed out of the strategic transport projects review because it would be finished by 2012.
However, that is not the situation according to Alex Salmond. The First Minister told The Press and Journal emphatically that work on the Haudagain
"will be done but let's get the bypass done first, it would be daft to do it the other way round."
The Evening Express put Mr Salmond on the front page, saying:
"I will fix the Haudagain … but work to revamp the Haudagain roundabout won't start until after Aberdeen's bypass is completed."
That is funny, because Mr Stevenson has since told me in a written answer that the A90 between Charleston and Blackdog will be detrunked and that responsibility for it will be transferred from the Scottish Government to Aberdeen City Council on 1 April, following the WPR's opening. That does not suggest that much work is being done by central Government. If the project is local, as Mr Stevenson said in Parliament, perhaps the work is the local council's responsibility.
No—absolutely not.
No, indeed—Mr Salmond told The Press and Journal on 18 December that
"the key commitment is"
that roundabout improvements
"will be paid for and delivered before the road is de-trunked."
That will not be down to
"Aberdeen city. It will be the Scottish Government that will do the work and then it will be handed over as an improved roundabout."
So there we have it. John Swinney thinks that the WPR will take care of things; Stewart Stevenson wants to hand the Haudagain to the council as soon as the WPR is finished; and Alex Salmond says that he will not hand over the Haudagain until the WPR has been built and the roundabout has been sorted out. The three SNP ministers have three different plans. Just for good measure, Brian Adam told the Evening Express on 6 January this year that Stewart Stevenson
"was not in a position to give a timescale or say which option would be used."
Perhaps today ministers will finally sort out the party line and tell us what the Scottish Government intends to do at the Haudagain roundabout and—above all—when it intends to do it.
It is a little over six weeks since the Scottish Government announced in the chamber the results of the strategic transport projects review. Like many members, I welcomed the minister's statement and the scale of the review's ambition and vision. However, I noted in the debate on the review that
"In some ways, I wish that the Scottish Government could go further."
As they have done today, members around the chamber on that day
"described projects that they want to be implemented and which were not in the statement. Of course, they must tell us how those projects could be achieved; often, our hands are tied by the frustrations and limitations of the Scotland Act 1998."—[Official Report, 10 December 2008; c 13241.]
Members will not be surprised to learn that the position has not changed in the intervening period. What has changed is that we now know about the Labour Party's lack of commitment to making the Parliament and devolved government work—yesterday's events demonstrated that vividly. Under devolution, the budget is the only document in which any Government can make exact spending commitments. Where were Labour's budget amendments to finance the projects on which Labour members have focused today? In bringing its critical and carping motion to the Parliament, the Labour Party is suffering from a political reality bypass rather than showing a genuine interest in building transport bypasses.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not take an intervention from Des McNulty, given the lack of interventions that members of his party seem to be taking.
It is in the nature of strategic documents that they do not—indeed, cannot—contain spending commitments: "Scotland's transport future" in 2004 and "Scotland's National Transport Strategy" and "Scotland's Railways" in 2006 did not contain such commitments.
The reality of the situation remains that the Government's hands are tied. Even if Labour had lodged amendments to yesterday's budget to pay for the projects that its motion names and they had been agreed to, the finance would have had to come from cuts elsewhere. Labour trusts the Government in London to borrow billions of pounds to bail out banks and the automotive industry, but this Parliament's lack of borrowing powers and its limited fiscal levers inhibit the range of action that the Scottish Government can take.
I would have thought that it would be welcome that the Scottish Government has, within 18 months of being elected, put in place an ambitious, coherent and workable plan for the major development of our strategic transport network. The plan is the launch pad for transforming the travelling experience for people in Scotland, but just because a project is not in the STPR does not mean that it is not a good idea or that it is not worth fighting for.
As for the specific projects that the Labour motion mentions, it is clear that investment is planned in the A9, the A82, the A77 and the A96. On a bypass at Elgin, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change said at question time last week that he is
"confident that we can work with local interests to develop new proposals".—[Official Report, 22 January 2009; c 14301.]
That demonstrates that work can be undertaken on projects that are outwith the STPR.
People will welcome a Government that continues to listen to their concerns and wants to work with them to find suitable proposals rather than close the door to their transport needs. That is why the other implication in the motion that support for a project that has not been included in the STPR is a breach of collective responsibility or a betrayal of constituents' trust is incorrect. I am sure that members who argue the contrary will understand that individual MSPs can hold opinions and campaign on local issues while still supporting the Government. The fact that those members present their case as if that was not so ill-serves them and, worse, ill-serves political discourse.
If the transport projects detailed in the motion are of such fundamental importance to those who are calling for them today, why have they not called for them in the past? On 23 January, in commenting on the A96, The Northern Scot stated:
"Pity these opponents were not as voluble for the bypass campaigning which has been going on for years. A Labour Transport Minister visited Elgin but failed to offer any glimmer of support for the bypass call, a Lib-Dem Transport Minister, as part of the same ruling coalition, did likewise".
That is more evidence, if any were needed after yesterday's events, of the descent of the Labour Party into the realm of student politics.
Today's transport priorities debate is rather thin on transport priorities from the Government, but that is not the only thing from the Government that is thin. The STPR is fundamentally flawed because it does not detail adequate timescales, priorities and costs. As Alison McInnes pointed out during last week's Council of Economic Advisers debate, it is difficult to take a document seriously when the costs associated with it range from as low as £12 billion to as high as £21 billion. The document is so thin that it would not even prop up the minister's wobbly desk.
Alison McInnes agreed with Des McNulty's point that today's debate is as much about truth and honesty as it is about priorities. I add that it is also about the credibility of the Government, which has been severely damaged.
Stewart Stevenson and his colleague Dave Thompson tried to pass the buck to local authorities, but I would have thought that the minister would be well aware that he, not the local authorities, has responsibility for trunk roads in Scotland.
One or two other members referred to the Maybole bypass south of Ayr, on the A77. When in opposition, Adam Ingram said of Tavish Scott, the then Minister for Transport:
"The minister has met the bypass campaigners … and will be well aware of the strength of the case for the bypass and the depth of feeling in the community, which has been created as a result of decades of fruitless pleading. The campaigners have only one question left: how much longer must we wait? Will the minister be kind enough to give them a straight answer to that question this afternoon?"—[Official Report, 7 September 2006; c 27423.]
I ask the minister this morning when he will give us a straight answer on the Government's priorities and costs for the projects in the very thin STPR document.
I will now address a project that we all agree—or at least most of us do; the Green members are not here—is the key priority for Scotland: a new Forth crossing. It has pretty much all-party support. A few months ago, it was supposed to be the great multimodal link for eastern Scotland, but that is no longer the case. We now have a cut-down version with no guarantees that the multimodal option will last into the future. The road connections to the south have been cut down in the STPR and are now inadequate—they use the existing but not necessarily the best routes. When I attended one of the public meetings on this new transport project last week, I was told by Transport Scotland officials that the bridge will be a 70mph crossing. That seems strange when the road network to the north has 60mph limits. Perhaps the minister can explain that.
It does not.
The A90 north has a 60mph limit.
No, it does not. That is factually wrong.
We will take that discussion forward in due course.
There are great concerns about the lack of clarity on funding for the new crossing. I would like some information on that.
We have touched on the issue of trust. The STPR does not make the promises that the SNP made in opposition as part of its election campaign. Yesterday, the public began to understand what we have all known for a long time in this Parliament: the SNP Government cannot be trusted.
I will be as constructive as I can be and reflect what is said in the Scottish Conservative amendment. The key point in our amendment is prioritisation. Six weeks ago, we welcomed the STPR in broad terms, but we said then—and it is crucial to repeat it now—that now that there is a list of 29 projects, the process must move forward quickly to prioritise which projects will go ahead when. Which projects are planned for the early part of the period after 2012? Which ones will go forward in the middle period, if we can call it that, and which ones are more likely to fit in at the tail-end of the period covered by the review?
The minister said that the projects will be funded by successive spending reviews. Of course, spending reviews take place every three years or so, so the Government must have some idea—or if it does not, it must develop one fairly quickly—of which projects will be put forward at the next spending review and at the one after that. It is important for the credibility of the Government and, indeed, the Parliament that expectations throughout the country are managed properly, because for people in affected communities there is an enormous difference between a project that gets on track in 2012 and one that gets on track 10 or 15 years later.
It has been said that the projects in the STPR are numbered but not ordered. That might be acceptable for the review document, which is not, as Mr Tolson said, a "thin" document. If only it were; I am afraid that it is in excess of 800 pages, much to the chagrin of some spokespeople. We are looking to receive information swiftly—I hope that we can get some guidance today, if not full answers—on the likely costs of the projects, because we currently have only indicative costs from similar projects. Will we get some idea of timescales and perhaps even the funding mechanisms for taking the projects forward? Currently, of the 29 projects, apart from the Forth road bridge, which is clearly the number 1 priority, the other 28 all appear to be equal priorities. The danger is that if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.
I do not want to be overly critical of the previous Administration, but a similar lack of focus was typical of it, too. For an example of that, we need only look at an answer that was given to transport oracle David Davidson, a former member of this Parliament, 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 answer from Tavish Scott, 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.]
That was the settled position after eight years of the Administration.
We will have to move far faster and far more effectively if the strategic transport projects review is to come to fruition. That will be important to underpin our economy, especially at the present time, but also in the medium and longer term. It is important that we get it right because, as the Audit Scotland "Review of major capital projects in Scotland" showed, too many projects have not been on time or on budget: only two fifths of projects were on budget and only one third were on time. We now need to follow fine words with details.
In the limited time that I have, I will try to deal with as many of the points that members have raised as possible.
The STPR deals with surface transport and not merely roads. However, Alison McInnes clearly believes that all interventions on roads should be in the STPR. That is not true—unless she is advocating, as she now appears to be, the abolition of the regional transport partnerships.
Let me draw Peter Peacock's attention to some of the numbers relating to traffic at Elgin. If we consider an extreme situation, as few as 3,000 of the 20,227 vehicles that go through Elgin every day could divert to the bypass. That should make us focus on the fact that we are not merely talking about a trunk road intervention. It is precisely because different views exist that we are now engaging with HITRANS and the local council to work out the right interventions for Elgin. However, we acknowledge that interventions are needed.
Peter Peacock appeared to suggest that the TLR might resolve issues at the roundabout adjacent to the ground of Caley Jags. I am really not clear why that should be.
Mary Scanlon said that she was holding the Government to account. Quite properly, she said that that was the job of the Opposition, and I have no problem of any kind with that assertion. However, the mature way of making progress is to engage on the issues—such as those affecting Elgin—in order to work out the right solution.
Charlie Gordon asked what would be happening in the next five or six years, and then talked about "son of crossrail". This is another situation in which various numbers arise. We have commissioned research work from Jacobs to consider the capacity of the Glasgow stations and the rail network in the approaches to Glasgow. The research will inform a meeting that will take place in the next few weeks. Useful work will enable Strathclyde partnership for transport and the Government to determine the long-term strategy for developing son of crossrail or crossrail-plus, or whatever we choose to call it.
On the question of the rolling stock being too long, if I was misleading in the meeting of the cross-party group on Glasgow crossrail I should now be clear and say that the new rolling stock is 23m long as opposed to 20m, and in future trains will comprise eight carriages of 23m. Under those circumstances, the present ability at Glasgow Central sometimes to put three trains at one platform will be diminished—platforms will be able to accommodate only one train. It is not that we will be unable to get the trains in, but there will be an effect on the overall capacity—the overall number of trains. I know that the people who are considering the issue will acknowledge that that effect will have to be dealt with.
I will answer Lewis Macdonald's points very briefly. He brought forward a miasma of obfuscation, distortion, misrepresentation, pusillanimous persiflage, and economy of memory, facts and explanation. It will be done. We will pay for it. The people of Aberdeen will be duly grateful.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, he will not. He has got only five minutes, so he does not have enough time.
Jim Tolson described the STPR as a "thin" document. It has 3,800 pages, for heaven's sake! He has given the game away: he has not actually read the thing.
Jim Tolson went on to say that there is a 60mph limit north of the Forth bridge. The first 60mph limit on the A90 north of the bridge, or on any of the roads connecting to it, is at the delimit sign at Dyce airport north of Aberdeen. If he thinks that that will affect—
That is wrong.
Alison McInnes is quite right: I am wrong. The first 60mph limit is north of Inverurie. However, it certainly is not immediately north of the bridge. Let us deal in facts, not hypotheses.
This Government is committed to bringing forward the projects in the strategic transport projects review, and I look forward with optimism to support for our approach at 5 o'clock. We will support the Tory amendment because it makes sense, but no one else should look forward to our support.
Jim Tolson is a former mechanical fitter, so anything with only three and a half thousand pages would seem quite thin to him.
The minister will recall how unsatisfied members were at the way in which the review was first presented to Parliament. We had little time to read the information, and many of us predicted that we would end up having many debates on its contents over the years to come. Many of us were concerned about the lack of focus, and those concerns have been repeated today by Gavin Brown. Many of us were also concerned about the lack of priorities, which most Opposition members have mentioned today. All of us were concerned about how and when the projects would be delivered, because the projects are important to the communities in our constituencies. I am sure that the minister will agree that the STPR's introduction to the Parliament was not the most auspicious, and things have gone a little downhill since then.
Despite the plethora of information, the strategic transport projects review has provided more questions than answers for the Parliament. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change will not be surprised that we are now having our second debate on the STPR since he presented it last month. I predict that we will have many more debates in the months to come.
Debate has been generated across the country, not all of which has been positive. However, the minister will understand that real and legitimate concerns have been expressed about what is and is not in the review.
Peter Peacock highlighted concerns about what exactly the STPR is. On the Labour side of the chamber, we believe that it is a nationally co-ordinated local media campaign, as opposed to a proper review of projects for the next 10 or 20 years in Scotland.
The minister spoke about the Forth road bridge. I would like to respond to comments made by Shirley-Anne Somerville. Our concerns about the plans are well documented. We believe that not enough is known about the condition of the existing bridge for it to be classed as a serious long-term public transport corridor. We have real concerns about the existing cables. We will not know until 2011 whether they will be okay or will have to be replaced. I do not think that the minister was able to give guarantees about that when he last appeared at the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.
The Forth Estuary Transport Authority is considering how to examine the huge anchorages that hold the main cables. No one can be 100 per cent sure about the condition of those huge structures. I applaud FETA for doing that work. A number of skilled engineers are at work on the crossing to make it safe for us, and it is right that they are doing that. I encourage Shirley-Anne Somerville to meet FETA to find out about its plans—although she has probably done so already.
I have.
She will share my concerns that we cannot guarantee that the bridge will be fully operational for as long as we would like it to be, so that it can provide a multimodal option.
The funding of the new crossing has been a topical issue. Concerns have been raised about the Government's inability to bring forward a suitable funding package.
If the member is so concerned about the future of the Forth bridge, why did his party, when it led the Administration, do absolutely nothing to deal with the problem in a way that would not affect traffic in the long term?
If the member cares to look, she will see that our priority was a new bridge—that was in our 2007 manifesto, and there were debates in the Parliament about it. That was a policy objective of my party, just as it was of the member's party.
The SNP's 2007 manifesto said:
"we have concerns … about the construction cost"
of building a new bridge, which demonstrates that the party knew about the cost issue at that point but did nothing about it until a couple of weeks before it presented the projects to the Parliament. That is unbelievable.
I welcomed many of Alex Johnstone's comments, until he went off on a different track. I understand why the Tories are lashing out this morning, but the reality is that we had extremely constructive discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and other members of the Cabinet. I felt that those discussions were taking us in a positive direction, but we could not reach agreement. The Tories also had constructive discussions, but found that they were able to reach agreement. That is where we are. Our objective was to increase apprenticeships and skills training, which are, of course, vital to the future of our transport network. That is why we focused many of our budget discussions on those issues.
The wider issue that our motion deals with is responsibility. All of us in this chamber have a responsibility to maximise public confidence in what we say and do. That is why our motion focuses on the actions and words of ministers and the fact that they take collective decisions as part of the Cabinet. A minister cannot face two ways at once and simply cross their fingers and hope that the public will not notice. I do not know why Richard Lochhead has not been in the chamber today to defend his position. It is a convention that, if a minister is so opposed to a Cabinet decision that they feel that they cannot back it, they should seriously consider their position. The minister can either accept that the concept of collective responsibility means that he must say that the SNP is correct to miss out an Elgin bypass from its 20-year plan or consider his position and leave himself free to fight for that bypass. He cannot do both things.
Where is Adam Ingram this morning? Where is Fergus Ewing? We must give the First Minister his due, because when he made his recent faux pas about spivs and speculators he came into the chamber to defend his position. Where are the ministers I have mentioned? They could have participated in the debate.
What we, as politicians, say and what we make happen are equally important. The minister has made a commitment to bring forward an action plan in the new year. We await the detail of that with interest. I hope that the outcome of today's debate will go some way towards making that happen.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—