Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Official Report 889KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

---

High Speed 2

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether any economic benefits will accrue to Scotland from high speed 2. (S4T-00229)

The Secretary of State for Transport’s announcement yesterday on the proposed extension of high-speed rail to Manchester and Leeds is supported by analysis that suggests that £3 billion of economic benefits to Scotland will be delivered after that line is completed in 2033. That is based on figures from High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd. However, our ambition is to have a full high-speed connection that links both Glasgow and Edinburgh with London and other cities throughout the United Kingdom. Our analysis is that a full network will deliver economic benefits worth £24 billion to Scotland.

The HS2 analysis also shows that other areas of Britain will benefit more from HS2 and will benefit sooner. It shows that the West Midlands and the north-west will both see more than twice the economic benefits that will be delivered to Scotland. That is why we are pressing the UK Government for joint work towards Scotland’s inclusion in a full UK high-speed rail network, and we will work with the UK Government to achieve that.

The minister clearly shares the view of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and our municipal leaders that Scotland cannot afford to be marginalised by its exclusion from this multibillion-pound investment. If Scotland remains part of the UK, Scottish taxpayers will be expected to contribute a proportionate £3 billion-plus in construction costs. Does the minister agree that the UK Government is adding insult to injury through Scotland paying towards increasing the competitiveness of English cities at the expense of our economy? What does he think of the comments by the Tory MP Michael Fabricant yesterday on Radio 4’s “The World at One”? He said:

“This is a long-term project anyway. Eventually HS2—and we do need a new line going from north to south—isn’t going to be completed right up to Scotland until 2050, 2060”.

The last thing that I want to do is act as somebody who can interpret the comments of Michael Fabricant. I will leave that to others who are better qualified than I am.

Kenneth Gibson makes a very good point about the benefits and the cost to Scotland. It will be interesting to see, for example, the treatment of consequentials from the expenditure that the UK Government incurs on the project.

Kenneth Gibson’s other point about the benefits that will accrue is relevant when we think of previous experience. For example, everyone expected that the bulk of the benefits from the line between Madrid and Seville would accrue to Seville but, in fact, they accrued to an even greater extent to the larger and more populous capital. London and England will also benefit greatly from the high-speed link coming all the way to Scotland, and that is what we are trying to achieve.

By 2033, Manchester to London journey times will be almost halved, whereas the improvement from Glasgow might be only 12 per cent—it is not really a case of better together, is it? If HS2 is not to be extended to Scotland in the foreseeable future—like the Tories, the previous UK Government had no such plans—will the minister demand additional resources to upgrade and enhance the Scottish rail network to help to end the growing economic imbalance between the northern half of the UK and the south-east of England?

I have already commented on consequentials, which we will bear in mind. We would, of course, much rather see a commitment from the UK Government to extending the high-speed rail link right through to Scotland, and I do not believe that the door is closed on that. Very positive statements have been made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport, which were perhaps not borne out by last week’s announcement.

We will continue to push the UK Government. We believe that we can work with it to ensure that we get those benefits. That would be the best way to spend the money. We have shown our bona fides in the cabinet secretary’s statement that we will push ahead with the high-speed rail link from Edinburgh to Glasgow. We want the UK Government to come with us so that we can deliver a high-speed rail network that will deliver benefits to the whole of the UK.

Does the minister agree that the construction of the high-speed rail line should start in the south and the north of England at the same time to speed up the network coming to Scotland? Can he explain how on earth making that case would be assisted by breaking up the United Kingdom?

Richard Baker mentioned the north of England, but we have said to the UK Government that we are happy to start at this end now. In constructing the Borders railway, we are not starting at one end and going to the other—we are starting at both ends and trying to push ahead as fast as possible.

We are trying to work constructively with the UK Government. Although we are not content with its position so far, it certainly moves ahead of the position that the Labour Party took. It had no commitment at all to bringing the high-speed rail link to Scotland. At least we have moved on from that position, and I am confident that we can make further progress.

---

Electoral Commission (Referendum Recommendations)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will accept in full the recommendations of the Electoral Commission regarding the conduct of a referendum on Scotland separating from the rest of the United Kingdom. (S4T-00231)

The Electoral Commission submitted extensive comments in response to our consultation on the conduct of the referendum last year, and Scottish Government officials have been in regular contact with it on the development of detailed arrangements since then. As with referendums that are held under United Kingdom legislation, it is for the Government to propose the referendum question, the Electoral Commission to test that question and the Parliament to make a final decision. The Scottish Government will consider the wording of the question and, indeed, other matters relating to the conduct of the referendum in light of the commission’s advice. Of course, the Scottish Parliament will have the final say during its scrutiny of the referendum legislation.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer, but I am disappointed to note that even now, with the publication of the Electoral Commission’s advice imminent and with a growing clamour of voices—including that of Blair Jenkins, the head of her own campaign organisation—calling on the Scottish Government to commit to accepting the advice and recommendations that will be made, she cannot bring herself to reassure the chamber that her belief in independence extends to independent scrutiny. I ask her again whether, to ensure that the referendum is carried out in a fair and proper manner, she will accept all the Electoral Commission recommendations.

I am not surprised to hear Patricia Ferguson express disappointment—it seems to be a bit of a permanent state. Let me try again to explain the process that we are engaged in. I have made very clear the considerable weight that the Scottish Government will attach to Electoral Commission recommendations, not just on the referendum but on any relevant issue. I have also made very clear, and will do so again, that there would have to be a very good reason to depart from Electoral Commission recommendations and any Government that did so would have to explain its position to this Parliament.

However, given the respective roles of the Scottish Government, the Electoral Commission and the Scottish Parliament, it would be an abdication of my responsibility to the Parliament for me, as a minister, to say what I think of Electoral Commission recommendations before I have even seen them. As Patricia Ferguson says, we will hear those recommendations very soon so, before too long, we will be in a position to have a meaningful discussion. I certainly look forward to that moment.

The Deputy First Minister is right: I never fail to be disappointed in the Scottish National Party over this issue. Does she not understand that, for the referendum to be carried out in a fair and proper manner and—just as important—for it to be seen to be carried out in a fair and proper manner, the Electoral Commission recommendations must be the guiding principles for its conduct, both in terms of the question to be put and with regard to the spending limits to be applied?

I have made crystal clear—not just in my previous answer, which I had hoped that Patricia Ferguson would listen to a bit more closely, but previously—how much importance we attach to the Electoral Commission recommendations. Due process means that we wait to hear those recommendations. Having had that opportunity, we will say what we think of them and what our view is in light of them, and we will ask Parliament to take the final decision on that. I do not know how Labour used to run the Government—actually, I do, because I was on the Opposition benches at the time—but this Government does not operate on the basis of commenting on recommendations of this nature before we see them. I will continue to operate according to good due process and I look forward to having a meaningful debate when we have the recommendations.

It is in the interests of all sides of the discussion that the referendum is seen to be conducted fairly. I believe that that fairness could be compromised by Scottish Government proposals on spending limits, which would leave lead organisations with less than half to spend in real terms than was allowed in 1997 and political parties with less to spend than they would have in council elections. Does the cabinet secretary not agree that the impartiality of the referendum process could be undermined if the Scottish Government proceeds to impose such unrealistic spending limits?

The referendum will be conducted completely impartially and to the highest standards—not just domestic standards but international ones. That is beyond doubt. I have a suggestion for Labour members—why do we not wait to see what the Electoral Commission recommends? Then, by all means, they will have the right to ask me questions about my view on those recommendations. [Interruption.]

Order.

However, I am not sure if Labour members appreciate how ridiculous it sounds to ask a minister to comment on recommendations that have not been published yet. Let us have the debate when we have the Electoral Commission recommendations. [Interruption.]

Order.

I look forward to having the debate then.