(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered transport links between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Lewell-Buck, for the first time. I congratulate you on your position.
I am pleased to have secured this debate to highlight the significance and importance of improving transport links between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. My constituency sits in the very south of Scotland, right next to England. That is one of the reasons why I was such a passionate campaigner for remaining in the Union in the 2014 independence referendum, and why I continue to believe firmly in Scotland’s place within the UK.
In the Scottish Borders, many of my constituents have family just a few miles away in England, and most have friends just over the border. People often head to England for days out and to socialise. Some travel south every day to work; others come north to do the same. Others regularly go south for medical treatment, especially since the SNP wrecked Scotland’s NHS.
Our lives are interconnected, so our transport network must be appropriately connected too. People’s everyday lives depend on good, safe, reliable and affordable transport across the Borders and down to England. Today, I want to talk about the railway and road connections between Scotland and the rest of the UK. I will raise some of the key routes, the challenges to improve them and the opportunities that are available if we do so.
The Borders railway has undoubtedly been a great success story since it was restored between Edinburgh and Tweedbank. For many years, I have been working hard with local campaigners to see it extended to Hawick and Newcastleton, and on to Carlisle. I have been doing everything I can to keep making the positive case for the extension.
I firmly believe that the extension of the Borders railway would be a game changer for our local area. In the general election campaign last year, I pledged to work hard to deliver the extension that we all want to see. I will keep my promise to local people by spending the next parliamentary term focused on advancing that project. I am seeking to bring together a cross-party consensus about the importance of the extension. I will work constructively with the Scottish Government where possible, and I intend to have open dialogue with the new Labour Government on what we can do to achieve that project together.
This does not need to be a party political issue. It can be something on which we work together in the interests not only of the Borders but of the south of Scotland and the north of England too. Indeed, the previous United Kingdom Conservative Government worked constructively with the Scottish Government, and in March 2021 agreed to jointly invest £10 million for a study to look at the feasibility of extending the railway to Hawick and Newcastleton, and on to Carlisle.
Unfortunately, I have to say with real regret that it appears that the Labour Government simply do not grasp the importance of extending the Borders railway and are not willing to do what is right not only for the people of the Borders but for commuters and people travelling between Scotland and England. I have not been encouraged by the early signs from the new Government regarding the Borders railway extension.
After writing to seek assurances about Labour’s commitment to the project, I received a response from the Minister of State for Rail, Lord Peter Hendy, who said that Labour will “review” the previous transport commitments and “assess” this proposal. He was not able to comment on the next steps for the scheme. I find that response very poor, considering the importance to our economy and our public transport network of the extension of the Borders railway to the wider area. Better rail services would be a fantastic boost to people across the Scottish Borders.
The Borders railway extension could unlock economic potential, create thousands of jobs, improve social mobility and transform the local rail network, yet despite the previous Conservative Government’s commitment to provide funding for a feasibility study, the new UK Labour Government have refused to give the same commitment. Many local people have told me that they now feel that the Labour Government are betraying the people of the Borders by putting the feasibility study on hold.
At the very least, it is worth progressing the feasibility study so that we can establish the most effective and efficient way to proceed. It is crucial that the feasibility study goes ahead so that a proper assessment of the railway can be undertaken. I will continue to work with the Campaign for Borders Rail to further that project.
I will also talk about other train services from Berwick-upon-Tweed, and the importance of that station to the Scottish Borders and south-east Scotland. There are proposals by the rail industry and Network Rail to change the frequency and journey times from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London. Although some routes from Berwick going north are set to be improved, the number of trains going south to London will fall substantially. The proposed changes to the timetable will mean that there will be just 11 trains on weekdays, down from 15, and only eight on weekends, down from 12. That means that at least 25% fewer trains will go from Berwick to London, which will not help people travelling south for work and will not allow people to get around the country easily.
I raised my concerns with the rail industry, and particularly with London North Eastern Railway, as recently as this morning, but I am afraid the response has been extremely disappointing. The industry believes that the changes will be positive because there will be faster and more frequent services from Newcastle and Edinburgh. That will undoubtedly improve connectivity for passengers in those cities, but I fear that rail travellers from small town UK and the rural communities that such stations serve will yet again be left behind.
Moving on from the railways, I also want to raise the importance of roads to rural areas and the wider economy.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Before the hon. Member moves on, when it comes to Scotland and northern England transport links, does he have a view on the practice of Avanti, which runs the west coast route from London Euston to Glasgow? Whenever there is any kind of problem on the line north of Preston, whether it be in north Lancashire, Cumbria or the south of Scotland, Avanti’s habit is to stop all trains at Preston, so everywhere between Preston and Glasgow, be it Oxenholme or Motherwell, has no service. Does he think that Avanti is in breach of at least the principle of its contract in failing to serve north Lancashire, Cumbria and Scotland?
John Lamont
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. I will not comment on the legality of whether Avanti has breached its contract, but I think he is making the point that there is an issue, or at least a perception, that train companies do not think that customers and passengers north of Manchester or north of Birmingham are as important as those in the south. We need to remember, however, that the communities in the northern part of the UK and in Scotland, and the passengers travelling on those services, are in many cases much more dependent on those services because there are so few alternative services and options if there is disruption on the trains, so he makes a very important point.
As I said, I will move on from the railways and talk a bit about the importance of roads to rural areas and the wider economy. More than 60% of visitors to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom arrived by car in 2023, showing how vital our roads are to tourism and the Scottish economy. Fixing the roads should be high on the agenda of both this Labour Government and the SNP Government in Holyrood.
For many years, however, the SNP has failed to invest in local roads. The state of the roads in the Scottish Borders, sadly, has declined substantially on the nationalists’ watch. The dire state of our roads is putting public safety at risk and increasing the cost of driving as more cars need to be repaired after hitting potholes. Although it always tries to deflect blame, it is on the SNP to step up and give councils the cash they need to fix our roads. Councils across Scotland cannot fix their roads because the SNP Government keep cutting their funding.
Unfortunately it looks as though Labour is following a very similar approach to the SNP. Last year, we heard the devastating news that Labour has decided to scrap plans to dual the A1 in Northumberland, after many years of campaigning by me, other MPs and many local people and businesses who rely on that vital road and are desperate to see it improved. This road connects the Scottish Borders to England. It is vital for our economy, and it supports jobs and helps to promote trade. That is yet another terrible decision in Labour’s Budget that will have damaging consequences for workers, families and businesses across the Borders.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is doing a fantastic job of representing his constituents. How would he fund that project—the Labour Government have said that the money is not there just now—or the feasibility study of extending the Borders railway to Carlisle? Where will the funding come from for those projects?
John Lamont
The funding for the Borders railways feasibility study is part of a legally binding agreement: the Borderlands growth deal between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government. That money was allocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is sitting behind me, when he was the Secretary of State for Scotland. The money has been allocated within UK Government budgets for that feasibility study. The Scottish Government committed to that money on the back of the UK Government’s commitment, and similarly the UK Government committed to it on the back of the Scottish Government’s commitment. The money is undoubtedly there; it just needs to be unlocked. That is my frustration, and the frustration of my local authority, the Scottish Borders council.
In relation to the A1 dualling, there is a cross-party campaign to get that road improved. That is why, in response to the Labour Government’s decision to scrap that dualling, the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), described it as deeply disappointing, I think—he shares my concern and we have the same view on this.
We need to see investment in infrastructure so that our constituents in rural areas, such as the Borders or North Northumberland, can benefit from the same type of investment in transport as the constituents of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) enjoy in Edinburgh. Labour Members have a metropolitan outlook in terms of ensuring that only cities get good transport, but they should not forget the rural communities, such as those in the Borders. I suspect, looking at the representation on the Labour Benches, that we will get a very skewed central-belt view of transport and connectivity.
I fear that the Labour Government’s previous decisions give us no hope that other essential roads will see the improvements that they need, such as the A68, which runs from Darlington up to near Edinburgh, or the A7, which stretches from Carlisle to Edinburgh. Those roads barely seem to register on either Labour’s or the SNP’s list of priorities. I will keep campaigning for better roads across the Borders, despite Labour and the SNP refusing to make the improvements that motorists need. We need to see much more ambition from the Government here at Westminster, and at Holyrood, to advance Scotland’s infrastructure.
Railways, roads and other transport routes between Scotland and England are vital, not just for people to get around, but to maintain and enhance the connections between our people; to allow families to visit each other and go on holidays across the UK; to help aspirational business owners to engage with customers and clients in other parts of the country; and to allow people to easily work and socialise wherever they live in Scotland or the rest of the UK. Beyond the direct and immediate impact on people, better transport routes will improve our economy, raise productivity, and help to contribute more to tax revenues and improve public services.
At a time when we desperately need to raise levels of economic growth, investing in infrastructure is an ideal way to do that. Better transport routes would also help to protect our environment by helping us to reach net zero faster by encouraging more people to use public transport and by reducing emissions. There are a whole host of benefits that could be achieved by improving transport links across our United Kingdom. That is what we should aspire to: a more connected country where people can travel freely between Scotland and the rest of the UK for work, to visit family, or to spend time with friends, wherever they are on these islands.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck, as you are from South Shields—I have some family there too and it is a wonderful place. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing today’s important debate; he spoke eloquently about transport in his constituency. I gently remind him, as he mentioned net zero, that it was the Conservative Government who had an offshore wind allocation round that secured no bids when we desperately need clean, cheap and fixed-price electricity. I also gently remind him that, last time I checked, many of these transport links were under the supervision of the Conservative Government from 2010 to 2019, with some art and part assistance from another party in the early years.
Improving connectivity between Glasgow and the rest of the UK is a topic that is deeply important to my constituents and one that I have been working hard on since I was elected in July. Glasgow is Scotland’s largest city, and as we head into its 850th anniversary celebrations this year, we have much to celebrate: a vibrant city with so much economic and cultural potential. Improving connectivity in Glasgow and England is crucial to realising that potential; a high-quality inter-city service attracts investment and talent. It is critical for people in our vibrant creative, scientific, cultural and energy sectors; for people coming to Glasgow to work; for people coming to enjoy our city’s brilliant cultural, sporting and night-time economy; and for people visiting friends and family.
I will first deal with links to cities in the east served by the east coast main line. Previously, Glasgow had an excellent direct train service heading to the east of England, connecting it with cities such as Newcastle, Durham and York. In 2010, there were 10 direct trains running on the service, run by both LNER and CrossCountry; now there is only one service per day. Under the Tory regime, nine out of 10 services have been cut—yet another blow to getting economic growth into Glasgow.
I got in touch with CrossCountry to ask about the severe reductions to its service and to have a chat about increasing the frequency of that service. I am disappointed and a little surprised that I have yet to receive a reply, and I trust I will receive one soon. I did, however, meet the chief executive of LNER to discuss the decision made back in April to scrap the last remaining service connecting Glasgow and the north-east that it operates. I was clear that I was in full favour of any attempt to revive this service, and I would be keen to engage with the Minister on this matter.
I am aware that Lumo has made an application to run a service, extending from Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street. I am keen to hear more about that proposal, as it fundamentally demonstrates that there is untapped demand for direct travel from Glasgow to the north-east of England and Yorkshire. I am interested in anything that increases connectivity between the north and north-east of England, and Glasgow.
With nine out of 10 direct train services cut over the last few years, we need improvements. The Conservatives’ record of connectivity for Glasgow is, I am afraid, nothing short of abysmal. May I say to hon. Members from Scotland that it is not just a question for Glasgow? It affects people across the west coast of Scotland, including those in the countryside, who rely on those services.
Let us talk briefly about connectivity to the north-west, the midlands and London, which is also very important for Glasgow. For many years, Avanti West Coast has operated that service, and it has—to be charitable—left a lot to be desired. Even the last Conservative Government accepted that the performance was appalling. Their response to that appalling service has always puzzled me somewhat; in autumn 2023, they awarded Avanti West Coast a nine-year extension. Avanti’s response was to cut the services in the run up to Christmas—I thought it was only good children who got presents at Christmas, but there we are.
Problems persist. Between July and September 2024, only 41% of Avanti services were deemed to be on time. Reliability is crucial for such an important service, and currently it is not acceptable. Our Labour Government have inherited an absolute mess of a transport system, after years of neglect and poor policymaking. The Government are absolutely committed to boosting economic growth in all areas of the UK, including Glasgow and Scotland, and that is something I am 100% proud to support. In order to achieve this, we must be ambitious in our plans to improve transport.
It is essential that Glasgow is not left behind due to poor transport links with the major cities in England. It will take time; 14 years of Tory failure have left our transport system in a mess. I am reassured that the Government are committed to working hard to get our railways back on track. I fully support those efforts, which will take time to yield results, but we must stick with them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (in the Chair)
Order. As hon. Members can see, lots of Members want to speak in this debate. Could you please stick to an informal four-minute time limit, so that everybody gets in?
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing this important debate.
I was a teenage newspaper reporter when I was first confronted with the horrific reality of a collision between a car and an articulated lorry. A senior policeman told me that there had been four fatalities when a lorry and car crashed on the A75, just outside my home town of Stranraer in what is now my Dumfries and Galloway constituency. The policeman added, “I know there’s four dead only because I can see four right feet.” Forty years later, that same A75 continues to exact an awful toll, for the total traffic volumes it carries are much bigger and the artics larger too. Tragically, there have been two more fatalities recently, when cars and lorries collided on the A75 in September and November.
The A75 is gloriously titled “the Euro route”, but we must set aside any notions of a multi-laned ribbon of shining asphalt. It is largely two lanes and filled with dangerous bends, blind dips and adverse camber, and grinds through villages that should have been bypassed decades ago. The A75 even has a light-controlled cattle crossing, despite the fact that it services the key port of Cairnryan and carries perhaps—estimates vary—as much as 60% of goods into and out of Northern Ireland.
Transport is devolved to the Scottish Government, so why on earth are we here, in this place, discussing this road? It will be news to the Minister, but the previous Conservative Administration undertook a review of UK connectivity and identified the A75 as being of national significance. Yes, it is the key traffic artery running through Dumfries and Galloway but it is also the critical link between Northern Ireland, Scotland and England. It is screaming out for improvements, yet the road is treated with supreme indifference by the Scottish Government. They complained that the UK Government even looking at the A75 was a “power grab”, and alleged that we were trampling on devolution by launching a connectivity review. Officials were ordered not to co-operate with that review, which was led by Sir Peter Hendy, now Lord Hendy. That meant that he had to “drive” the full length of the A75, inch by painful inch, using only Google Street View.
Since my election I have been trying to find out what is happening with money that the last Conservative Government earmarked for improvements to the A75. I have established that the money has not been swallowed up by the questionable fiscal black hole that the Chancellor blames for all ills, but with the Department for Transport here convinced that the issue sits in Edinburgh and Edinburgh inscrutable at best, we have an impasse.
The First Minister of Scotland, no doubt motivated by looming Holyrood parliamentary elections, has deigned to visit the A75 to see for himself how overwhelmed it truly is. Labour boasts about a reset of relations with the Scottish Government yet, sadly, the Secretary of State for Scotland was unable to take up my suggestion that, given the supposed love-in between Dover House and Bute House, he should share a car with First Minister John Swinney on that visit. Mr Swinney has said that he now understands the depth of feeling about the A75—empty words that leave those on both sides of the North channel frustrated by the state of this vital cross-border road.
Will the Minister give my constituents an update on where the UK taxpayers’ money for the A75 has gone? Will she press the UK Department for Transport to accept that it has a stake in seeing a rolling programme of improvements on the A75, on both safety and economic grounds? The current mode of this Government is to devolve and forget, to throw a block grant up north to Edinburgh and then wash their hands of the matter. That is not what devolution is about. The A75 is a classic example of where the UK Government ought to act in the best interests of the people of Britain and not allow devolution to be an excuse for inaction—livelihoods, and indeed lives, are truly at risk.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing this important debate, not least because it provides an opportunity for me to talk about the challenges facing my constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow. Although this debate is focused on transport links between Scotland and the rest of the UK, it would be remiss to ignore the challenges facing smaller rural communities—and, yes, we do have them in the central belt—that rely on local transport links for people to make their way to Edinburgh or Glasgow for onward travel to elsewhere in the UK.
A prime example of the challenges is Winchburgh, one of the fastest growing villages in Scotland, which will soon be a town. However, the residents cannot even get a train to Edinburgh, never mind across the border to England. Many families moved there in the full expectation of regular and reliable transport, but there has been no such ambition from the Scottish Government. Since 2012, there has been a question over how a station will be funded, after Transport Scotland prevented West Lothian council from making delivery of the station a condition of planning consent. Changes have already been made on the main line Glasgow-Edinburgh timetable for a stop in Winchburgh, so the train could stop there—but there is no station to stop at. That means people have to take almost an hour on the bus or they jump into their cars to get there.
Although there has been recent progress, it has been far too slow. Scottish Government Ministers must prioritise that station and ensure its delivery. I take my hat off to the villagers who have campaigned tirelessly for years to keep this issue in the public spotlight. It must be a thorn in their sides to watch the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop—their constituency MSP—open stations and train lines across the country while they continue to fight for a station in Winchburgh.
Now we hear of another challenge facing railway users: ScotRail’s plans to reduce ticket office hours at 54 stations, including Linlithgow. The proposals raise serious concerns, particularly around safety and accessibility for passengers. Many women have expressed a preference for well-staffed stations, where they feel safer. The reduction in hours, particularly in the evening, risks exacerbating safety concerns. In addition, the proposed cuts undermine efforts to ensure accessibility for disabled passengers, many of whom rely on assistance provided by station staff.
On top of that, there are rising rail fares, with a recent hike of 8.7%. That continues to make public transport less accessible and affordable for many. While railways face all those challenges, local communities are further impacted by significant reductions in bus services—of 44% since the SNP took over in 2007. Buses are often treated as the poor relation to trains when it comes to investment from the Scottish Government, but they are a vital way to keep local communities connected, linking people to train services and airports. This lack of joined-up, strategic thinking by the Scottish Government is having a significant impact.
This is all set against the backdrop of the climate crisis, where we aim for people to make a shift from their cars to public transport. That cannot happen if the infrastructure and services are not there for them to make that choice in the first place. We must look at other parts of the UK where things are working well, like the Bee Network in Manchester. Let us work together and use best practice to ensure that the whole UK can remain connected in an affordable and flexible way.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on obtaining time for this timely and important debate. I was particularly impressed by the way he brought together so many people across the party divides with his comments on Edinburgh.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about road and rail services; he will forgive me if I take a different focus. Anybody leaving Orkney on the 6.30 am ferry would be lucky to get to London much before quarter to 10 at night. Anybody driving along the still un-dualled A9 from Inverness to Perth would be lucky to arrive much before 8.30 pm. For us, the most important links between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and indeed the rest of the world, are airlinks. The codeshare operated between Loganair and British Airways is enormously important for business travel and the visitor economy.
Tourists come to Orkney and Shetland from across the world. Curiously, few of them seem to have heard of Loganair, but they have all heard of British Airways, so when they go on the British Airways website to book a ticket that will take them from anywhere in the world to Heathrow and on through Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen or Inverness into Orkney and Shetland, that is enormously important for us. That code share works better sometimes than others, but it is always a very important service.
The reliance on Heathrow, however, can be something of a mixed blessing for air passengers going from anywhere in Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom and onward. Heathrow is a massively busy airport—a plane lands there every 45 seconds—so it does not take an awful lot, whether that be weather, some technological breakdown or whatever unforeseen event, for disruption to happen. When it happens, the consequences are always felt most acutely by the short-haul domestic services—in Britain, that is now in effect Scotland, because few short-haul services go through Heathrow to anywhere else in the world.
That situation causes constant anxiety and irritation among passengers going from Scotland to elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The feeling is always that we are harder done by than everyone else. I can understand how that happens, but my recent discussions with British Airways have given me some insight into it. Arrangements in place between the airlines using Heathrow should spread the pain, so to speak, but in essence, because British Airways is such a dominant performer in Heathrow, the other airlines are frankly able to ignore the agreements that are in place. As a consequence, British Airways services—those coming from Scotland, in particular—are left to bear the brunt.
British Airways is therefore the one that gets the criticism, but is not necessarily the one at fault. It tells me that this is something that the Civil Aviation Authority, Heathrow airport, the airlines operating at Heathrow and the Department for Transport could fix between them. My ask of the Minister when she sums up is to make it clear whether she will act as the interlocutor, the spokesperson for Scotland’s air passengers in dealing with those bodies—in particular the Department for Transport—to ensure that we are not always the ones who are left behind.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing this important debate.
Connectivity across these islands is vital for our economic growth and prosperity. We are an island nation, and our economy is export and service-led. Those facts reinforce the vital economic importance of excellent connectivity within Scotland, with the wider UK, and beyond. Of course technology and the covid pandemic have changed some working patterns and made online and virtual business interaction commonplace, but a recent WPI Economics report made it clear that businesses continue to rely on good physical connectivity to cement relationships, to enter new markets, to conduct supply chain due diligence and to share knowledge. That is why it is so disappointing that the record of the SNP Scottish Government on transport—both intra-Scotland connectivity and connectivity with the rest of the UK and beyond—is so poor.
To take rail to begin with, the latest Network Rail report shows that 70 million passenger journeys are made annually on Scotland’s railways. Of those trips, a total of 9.2 million were made to and from England and Wales. However, what waits for travellers from the rest of the UK when they arrive in Scotland? Unfortunately, they are frequently greeted with a shambolic and declining transport system. Nationalising ScotRail should have been the opportunity to put passengers first. Many of my Livingston constituents use the train every day to get to and from Edinburgh for work, and they require a reliable and affordable service. However, in August, the SNP scrapped a pilot that had removed peak rail fares, despite the scheme increasing rail journeys by 6.8%. It was an SNP Scottish Government policy that had worked, but then they scrapped it.
At last month’s Budget in Holyrood, the SNP committed to reducing spending on rail services by £80 million, a profoundly regressive move. Also last month, it confirmed that it is delaying the target date to decarbonise rail from 2035 to 2045, confirming that Scotland’s long-suffering rail passengers will have to wait an extra decade for the modern rail services that they were promised. An affordable, reliable rail service can unlock huge environmental and economic benefits, but Scots are again paying the price for the SNP’s financial and transport mismanagement.
Another area I want to turn to is aviation. As our island is an export and service-based economy, aviation links are vital. The UK has huge built-in advantages as a services exporter on a global scale and a location where key economic sectors benefit from international connections. However, the record of the Scottish Government here is very unsatisfactory. Our airports continue to struggle against the indifference, and perhaps even hostility, of this SNP Government. Glasgow airport, which once connected Scotland with North America, has no link, and apparently there is no desire, drive or ideas from the Scottish Government to assist in bringing that back.
Of course, there are understandable and justifiable concerns about the impact of aviation on climate change. The answer, however, is not to neglect our aviation sector but to engage enthusiastically with it to improve technology, to invest in sustainable aviation and to help the modernisation of airspace. Sustainable aviation has huge possible economic and environmental benefits, not least to Grangemouth and the wider economy of Scotland. I am delighted to see that the UK Labour Government have at least recognised the potential of sustainable aviation fuel as a source of clean energy and green jobs in Scotland, as well as across the UK, and have pledged to promote it—if only the Scottish Government had the same foresight, energy and ambition. As we have heard today, on rail, on buses, on roads and in the air, the SNP Scottish Government continue to let down the Livingston constituency and Scotland as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (in the Chair)
Order. To ensure that all hon. Members get in and we have the Front-Bench contributions, we are going to need to impose a three-minute time limit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I wish you all the best in your new role as Chair in your first Westminster Hall debate—I am sure there will be plenty more of them. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for setting the scene. I wish the new Minister well in her role. Equally, I wish the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), well in the role that he plays, just to keep the record okay—he always reminds me of these things.
First, I want to give a bit of history. Scotland and Northern Ireland were once joined by a path hewn by giants, or so the legend says, and giants we remain—giants of industry and giants of culture, and we have the ability and the facility to do even better and to be more. I have always said that this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is always better together, and today we will prove that to be the case. I fully support the efforts for the A75 and the A77, but I want to focus on the ferry links, because they are vital. The ferry links are an issue: from the beginning of December, the operators have highlighted difficulties during these winter storms, beginning with Storm Bert, and the effect they have had upon the business, trade and tourism links between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Those links are an intricate part of the UK that are ferry dependent and we need to secure them.
Stena Line was in contact with me regarding issues that must be addressed to continue an operational and effective transport route within the UK. A mechanical issue with the Superfast VII ferry on the Belfast-Cairnryan route during Storm Bert emphasised the critical need for flexibility in managing workforce and operational changes within the ferry sector. Had that happened in the Black Friday or pre-Christmas period, there would have been absolute chaos.
That underscores the necessity of solutions such as the ferry worker concession, and I ask the Minister specifically to ensure that operators such as Stena Line can swiftly deploy vessels and staff to maintain resilience and continuity in the face of inevitable future disruptions. For example, during previous staffing challenges faced by P&O, Stena Line was able to deploy the Nordica on the Belfast-Cairnryan route. Formalising a process between the Government and the ferry operators to enable similar measures in future emergencies would be highly beneficial.
The ferry routes across the Irish sea are a natural, vital national infrastructure that ensure trade, tourism and essential services flow. If the routes were not able to operate in the future because we did not have some of the necessary qualified seafarers, it would mean empty shelves and would affect the economy, including the delivery of medical supplies, and I believe that my Scottish brethren and sisters would not wish to see that happen.
Scotland is a vital cog in the operation of the UK machine and we must ensure that it is affordably and reliably accessible. That can be done only with infrastructure and investment in the ports by land and sea, and I encourage the Government to foster that connectivity and to put the funding in place. We are stronger together and achieve more together, and the Northern Ireland-Scotland link is a vital part of that strength.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing this important debate on an issue that goes to the heart of the economic and environmental goals of the Government.
I represent Edinburgh city centre and have Waverley station at the heart of my constituency, so I will focus on the railway links between Edinburgh and the rest of the UK, because Waverley is our gateway to the rest of the UK. Are hon. Members aware that Waverley is the only railway station in the world named after a novel? I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk will find that very metropolitan, but we like it.
Edinburgh is the economic powerhouse of Scotland and I would argue that it is central to our economic development. We have world-class universities, globally significant biotech and informatics, the energy transition on our doorstep, a legal and financial sector, and of course the cultural sector—all brilliant and economically critical, but none incubated in Edinburgh alone; all dependent on our transport and infrastructure links with the rest of Scotland and the rest of the UK, especially London.
We do all those things through Waverley. It has 21 million entries and exits a year, and there are 60 trains a day to London. We receive 1.9 million overnight visits to Edinburgh from outside Scotland. Yes, that includes tourism, but—critically—it also includes business visits. The transport infrastructure is critical to our city’s labour market.
I will give two more data points. Since the pandemic, for the first time, more journeys between Edinburgh and London were made by rail than by anything else—57% of the total. Similarly, the percentage of people working from home has increased from 12% before the pandemic to 30% now.
May I ask whether the House is familiar with the concept of WILLIEs? That is not unparliamentary language, but a new acronym in Edinburgh for “Work in London, live in Edinburgh”. We are seeing that with new capacities to work from home, with new rail travel, and it is of benefit to both cities. It contributes to economic dynamism; for couples with two professional careers, it allows both to thrive; it gives employers access to a bigger labour market and it relies on effective national infrastructure. I ask the Minister to recognise the importance of that change.
Finally, I want to draw attention to the development of the new Lumo service. Lumo has expanded capacity as an open access operator, accessing tracks through the regulator. However, I note that the Transport Secretary is reviewing the role of the regulator in managing open access. Will the Minister commit to the Scotland Office’s liaising with the Department for Transport to ensure that we take account of the developments on the London-Edinburgh line?
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing this important debate.
As the SNP’s transport spokesperson in Westminster, cross-border connectivity issues are high on my agenda. A lot has been said about the strategic trunk roads—the A74(M), the A1, the various border routes, the A68, the A7 and suchlike—and about the vital investment that our road network requires. Colleagues in the Scottish Government are very much aware of the pressures on the core roads network, and of the work required to maintain and upgrade it.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk referred to the Scottish Government’s alleged failure to invest in trunk roads. It is a statement of fact that the capital provided to the Scottish Government was among the worst settlements ever made under the previous Government, which was of course a Government of his party.
Dr Arthur
The hon. Gentleman speaks with some knowledge on this subject, but he will know that the Scottish Government have wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on ferries, about which there are major questions. Would he rather that money had been spent on the trunk roads he referred to?
Graham Leadbitter
I accept the point about ferries, and I would rather they had arrived on time and that the overspend did not exist, but we can compare that with High Speed 2, which is billions of pounds overspent, and the benefit to Scotland has diminished to near zero. There are other examples, including the Scottish Parliament building in Edinburgh, which was signed off by a Labour Government and was massively overspent. It was not the MSPs who supervised or had oversight of that, so there are examples from across all parties of issues with infrastructure projects. The important thing is obviously to learn from them and stop them happening again, which I fully support.
Looking to the south-west of Scotland, I stayed in Galloway for a couple of years and I know very well what the A75 is like. It is a vital link to Northern Ireland, through the port of Cairnryan, and there is ongoing work there. I welcome the cross-party work on that and hope it can continue, with design improvements to the road. I very much support that, and I know that colleagues in the Scottish Government do as well.
There has been a lot of work and discussion between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on rail issues. I very much welcome the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, which we fully support. Rail was already in public ownership in Scotland but, in fairness, that legislation has enabled us to ensure that that will continue—public ownership was the operator of last resort, so there was no surety about that, but now there is. There is a lot of mutual interest in getting this right, so will the Minister give an assurance that there will be strong engagement with the Scottish Government as the legislation develops? I hope that much of that can be addressed prior to publication.
Finally, it is vital that we retain the protected slots at the key hub airports, which are critical to our onward connections to the rest of the world. Also, to pre-empt a question of mine that has been selected for tomorrow, and to use this opportunity to give a bit more context, EGNOS, the European geostationary navigation overlay system, is very technical—
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Congratulations on your appointment, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I am sure you will do the job with elegance for many years to come.
It has already been said, has it not? My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) made the point that some of us have to use roads to get to airports to fly here. He mentioned the disgrace of the A9. I was in Holyrood when Alex Salmond promised the dualling of the A9, and when he promised the dualling of the A96. The response to that one is hollow laughter—there are still traffic lights at the railway bridge at Oyne. These people are simply not competent to run the transport of Scotland.
But here is the point: just like my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland does, we need flights to make up for the lack of proper transport on the ground. Right now, we have one flight in and out of Wick airport, run by Eastern Airways—which is better than none, I admit, but we had to fight to get the public service obligation for that. If we are to ensure the economic regeneration of the far north of Caithness, as Dounreay, which was the dynamo of the economy of the farms, runs down and is decommissioned, we will have to encourage other industries to come in. I am sure the Government will do laudable work on that front, but if we do not have the flights in and out of Wick airport, it will not help very much.
Although the Aberdeen flight to Wick is welcome, we need flights to Edinburgh and Bristol and to wherever we can get them. That will make all the difference, so I conclude with a simple plea: please can we get more flights in and out of Wick airport? We need them desperately.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mrs Lewell-Buck.
I want to focus my remarks on the A75. As has already been alluded to, it is a vital artery for Northern Ireland, because through it and from it pass most of our incoming and outgoing goods. It is a road on which the HGV traffic is so heavy that, for many, it is a torture to drive its 95 miles. The last figures I saw indicated that, surprisingly, 20% of all vehicles on the A75 are HGVs. Considering that only 1.3% of all registered vehicles are HGVs, that demonstrates just how oversubscribed the A75 is and therefore how inadequate its infrastructure is for that sort of traffic. We have had promises of upgrades for years, and some upgrades have happened, but there are key pinch points at Crocketford and Springholm that are in desperate need of improvement.
Things have even got worse in the last month because, with the closure of the Holyhead ferry terminal, the increase in traffic volume on the A75 is phenomenal. It is costing business by reason of the delays. It is also costing lives, as the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) said, which is a more important issue. It is many years since I heard promises from Alex Salmond and others about the dualling of the A75. It needs to be delivered.
I support the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway in pressing the Government on the answer on the Union connectivity review promise of money—I think the initial tranche was £8 million—to pursue some of these issues. Is that £8 million still available? Has it been reduced? Has it been increased because of the cancellation of HS2? Where is it? The fundamental question is not what will be promised, but what will be delivered. We have waited far too long. I ask this new Government to show that they are a United Kingdom Government by addressing this road, which is a key link: it links one part of this United Kingdom to the rest, and onwards. Let us get the A75 sorted out at last, please.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a real privilege to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I will keep it brief because we are constrained by time.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) because he made so many of the points that are relevant to the A75. The A75 is a complete and utter failure by the SNP. In 2001, the SNP declared that it was the most important strategic road in Scotland. In the more than 20 years since then, virtually nothing other than essential improvements for road safety have taken place. In 2016, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney came to Dumfries for a transport summit to tell us how much they were going to do and what was going to happen. A few weeks ago, John Swinney came back after eight years of nothing happening to tell us that he was now hearing that people were concerned about it.
Let us, on a united basis, I hope, including even our SNP colleagues, send a clear message to John Swinney that we must get on with upgrading the A75 for the people of Dumfries and Galloway, for my constituents and for people who have to drive between, for example, Collin and Carrutherstown on what is virtually a cart track—people would not recognise it as a trunk road or an A road. The UK Government have a key role because the A75 is a strategic route, as has been identified, and we need to hear what they intend to do about the UK connectivity fund.
On rail, I was a strong advocate in the previous Parliament of TransPennine being stripped of its franchise, because the service it provided through Lockerbie from Glasgow and from Edinburgh was totally and utterly inadequate. If I had been the UK Transport Secretary, I would have taken off Avanti as well, because the service it has provided is not good enough. But the problem at the heart of that issue, which I hope the Minister will address, is the issue between the Department for Transport and the Scottish Government and who is ultimately responsible for issues that affect cross-border services. That needs to be sorted.
Finally, my constituent Denis Male, an 80-year-old councillor for Langholm, would not forgive me if I did not say to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who has been such a strong advocate for the Borders rail link—I congratulate him on securing this debate—that the link should go through Langholm. Denis has argued that case for many years and would not want me to miss this opportunity to make that point.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
If only we had a road with the quality of the A75—I dream of such a road.
The A82 going up Loch Lomond has to be one of the worst roads in Britain. Lorries and buses cannot pass each other, and that is the main trunk road up to the west. CalMac ferries are a complete disaster story, as we all know. I bet nobody can guess how long it takes to travel the 145 miles from Mallaig to Glasgow. Five hours and 20 minutes, with an average speed of less than 30 miles an hour. High Speed 2? We dream of some of that money. The main road from Inverness to Skye is single-track with lay-bys. It is an absolute scandal in every possible way.
I would like to put forward a motion that Transport Scotland is closed down and that the Scottish Government are not fit to run Transport Scotland.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak on your first occasion as Chair, Mrs Lewell-Buck; I hope you have enjoyed it.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing this debate. The variation of complaints we have heard shows how serious the issue is, and I sympathise. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), because I sympathise: I have spent much of my life travelling up and down the A82, and it has not got better in the five decades that I have been doing it. In fact, it has got worse in so many ways.
I will say it quietly: I represent Edinburgh, and we are lucky because the airport in my constituency of Edinburgh West is the busiest in Scotland. Our railway station, Haymarket, is one of Scotland’s busiest, and next door we have Waverley. We have the ability to travel west, north and south in Scotland, and down both coasts—east and west—to London. If only it were so for the rest of Scotland. Elsewhere does not share our easy access, and we desperately need investment.
One of the frustrating things about investment is that the benefits are usually long term and not immediate, but we have only to look at the Borders rail link to see how important and invaluable it can be. Just last month, figures showed that the number of people using the Borders railway increased by more than 30% at some stations between 2023 and 2024. Many of them were coming north, but ultimately they were heading south. It would be much better for them to be able to go directly south to Carlisle, but unfortunately the Government have put on hold the £10 million feasibility study into extending that route because of their capital investment review.
The Borders are not alone. The Government believe that putting a halt on infrastructure projects is part of the answer to dealing with the black hole that they never tire of telling us they inherited, and that they use as an excuse for all manner of things. I think they are being short-sighted. It is clear that our infrastructure needs investment. Our trunk roads are lamentable and our railways are little better. Of all the routes, Avanti’s London-Scotland west coast direct route has the highest percentage of trains arriving at their destination between 30 minutes and two hours late. LNER’s Scottish routes are also its worst performing, and the TransPennine Express routes between Manchester and Glasgow and Edinburgh had the worst punctuality and most cancellations in the most recent performance period.
The Liberal Democrats want to see a new railway agency—a public body that would help to join up the industry from track to train, put commuters first, hold train companies to account and bring in wholesale reform of the broken fare system for all of the United Kingdom. We should invest in research and development to make the UK the world leader in zero-carbon flights, and ensure that more domestic flights use alternative fuels. That is particularly important for communities across the highlands and islands, where, as pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), air travel is a lifeline for people and businesses—although generally only as far as Edinburgh or Glasgow, and that is not good enough.
Edinburgh airport is a major employer in my constituency and supports millions of pounds of investment into Edinburgh and the rest of Scotland through business, tourism and hospitality. It has made substantial progress in reducing its carbon emissions. It is continuing to work on increasing the use of sustainable aviation fuel, which benefits passengers flying across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is part of the reason I believe that this is a timely debate.
The Union connectivity review showed that there is a desire to travel more within the United Kingdom. Good transport links are a vital part of people’s ability to maintain connections with family and friends and to get to work without being incredibly frustrated. By delivering infrastructure that works, we can deliver for so many the opportunity of a better quality of life. Infrastructure underpins almost everything about our day-to-day lives, but when talking about investing in cross-border infrastructure specifically, we need to remember that while it benefits the economy and contributes to reducing the impact of climate change, it also represents something more for all of us: the development and the cementing of our Union.
Every UK Government, particularly this one, have a responsibility to every corner of the United Kingdom. People’s worlds might be getting smaller, but it is our job in this place to mitigate that. We know that more is achieved when we work together. Would it not help if we had better and more accessible transport links for all of Scotland to all of the rest of the United Kingdom?
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I join hon. and right hon. colleagues in congratulating you on your appointment. I hope you have enjoyed your first foray into Scottish politics this afternoon, and I look forward to seeing you back in this Chamber on many an occasion as we continue the various debates. Indeed, this is the second time in two days I have found myself here debating issues pertaining to Scotland, although in my view that is still not enough.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing this important debate. Cross-border connectivity is an issue he has championed as an MSP, as a Back-Bench MP and indeed as a Minister in the previous Government, and he continues that laudable work now. I am pleased that so many colleagues from across Scotland and Northern Ireland have come to the Chamber this afternoon to discuss this important issue.
As I said, I and others here, including the Minister, found ourselves in this Chamber yesterday afternoon discussing the impact of the UK Government’s Budget on Scotland. To save Members from looking the debate up in Hansard or watching it on Parliament Live—I do recommend it; some stellar speeches were delivered—I will give a brief synopsis. For farmers, family firms, oil and gas workers, the Scotch whisky industry and the Scottish economy in general, the Budget was not good, but despite the best efforts of the Labour party and the SNP to undermine confidence, deter investment, stymie ambition and entrepreneurship and punish success, the fact is that across the UK and especially in Scotland, we need growth, investment and new jobs.
For all those things, good connectivity to our biggest market by far—the rest of the UK—is key. It is integral to economic growth and business, but also to leisure, education and even health. Fundamentally, good transport links unlock opportunity across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is precisely why the Conservative Government launched the Union connectivity review. Despite the lack of co-operation from the Scottish Government, we made several critical commitments, including, as some have mentioned already, to supporting enhancements to the A75 between Gretna and Stranraer to improve the main artery linking south-west Scotland and Northern Ireland, recognising the vital importance of east-west connectivity within the United Kingdom; to funding for dualling the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham, a vital road route between England and Scotland; and to funding for Network Rail to look at options for boosting capacity and improving services more broadly between England and Scotland.
In other important areas, we delivered improved transport connectivity, with major projects taking big strides forward. We were delivering long-awaited upgrades to the A1 coastal route between Newcastle and Berwick-upon-Tweed and Edinburgh, reducing congestion for the communities of Ashington, Felton, Alnwick and Amble. However, as has been said time and again today, away from cross-border routes, responsibility for our roads lies with the Scottish Government. Companies and individuals seeking to export fish landed at Peterhead, for example, or on Orkney and Shetland, are reliant on increasingly dangerous roads to get it to the border and then into Europe, as a result of the SNP’s failure to deliver on its promises.
It has been almost two decades since we first heard the SNP make promises to improve some of Scotland’s most dangerous roads, yet those promises remain undelivered and, frankly, broken. The SNP promised to fully dual the A96—a road close to my heart, connecting Aberdeen and Inverness—the A90 and the A9 between the central belt and Inverness, but not one of them has been. Of course, we now know that the SNP’s promise to dual the A96 to Inverness by 2030 has been shelved completely, letting down people across the north-east of Scotland once again—and let us not even begin discussing the Laurencekirk junction in my constituency or, just further north, improvements at Toll of Birness on the road between Aberdeen, Fraserburgh and Peterhead.
While we are rightly talking today about cross-border connectivity, let us not forget those who are reliant on the SNP to ensure they can get their goods and themselves to the border. Air travel, which Members have raised this afternoon, is similarly critical for not just business but remote settlements. We protected socially and economically vital domestic routes through public service obligations, and indeed we reformed how the PSOs operated to include routes that operate to and from different regions of the UK, rather than just into London. However, one route into London we did back was from Dundee: in 2021, we provided up to £2.5 million to fund direct flights between Dundee and London for a further two years, keeping a critical route running and ensuring that people at both ends of the UK could keep connected.
We cut the reduced rate of air passenger duty for domestic flights to just £6.50 and consulted on reform to airport landing slot allocations, including proposals to ringfence some slots for domestic flights, which, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, is so important. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the Government’s position on that and whether they intend to issue a response to the consultation on ringfencing those slots for domestic flights.
When it comes to rail, we committed over £1 billion for east coast main line upgrades, including a programme to replace Victorian infrastructure with digital signalling, which provides drivers with continuous real-time information. That was designed to boost train performance and cut delays. It is hard to overstate the importance of the east coast main line. A third of the nation’s population, who together produce more than 40% of the UK’s GDP, live within 20 minutes of an east coast main line station.
The dreadful decision of this Government to hike air passenger duty will mean that people who do not live within a few hours of London on a main rail line such as the east coast main line—for example, those living and working in and around Aberdeen—will face higher fares and fewer options for travel. It punishes those who live outside the central belt and flies in the face of better connectivity around the United Kingdom, which brings us back to the woeful record of the SNP Government in Holyrood.
I have taken the long train journey from Aberdeen to London on many occasions, and the time it takes to reach Edinburgh is striking. Almost a third of the travel time to London from Aberdeen is taken up just reaching Scotland’s capital. The SNP promised yet again in 2016 £200 million to cut journey times between Aberdeen and the central belt by 2026. Almost 10 years on, not even 10% of that money has been spent. As with roads, people who rely on infrastructure for which the SNP is responsible to get to the border are failed by the Scottish Government.
Jim Shannon
I am sure the hon. Gentleman plans to mention ferries, but if not, perhaps he could.
Andrew Bowie
Of course, ferries are increasingly important. I did not want to embarrass the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) by dwelling too much on ferries, because that is something on which the Scottish Government have such an embarrassing record. The ferry links between our islands and the mainland—be they the links with Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles or across to Northern Ireland—are vital to the economic success of our country, linking communities and providing essential routes for health, leisure and tourism and to export the goods that are produced in those communities.
The way that those communities, especially in the Western Isles, have been let down by SNP ineptitude to deliver new ferries on those routes has been embarrassing. The sight of windows being painted on the side of a ferry just so that it can be launched in a PR stunt by the former First Minister will go down in history as one of the most embarrassing moments for the Scottish Government in recent times. Frankly, they owe an apology to those communities who have been so let down by their failure to invest properly in the future. It is not only the Western Isles; other communities rely on ferry connectivity, and it is essential that they get the funding they deserve.
We do not only have questions to ask of the Scottish Government, whose record on transport is dismal. We also have questions for the UK Labour Government about their own record, the decisions that have been taken and their future plans.
Graham Leadbitter
I just wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman to put on the record that he was part of the Government for a significant period of the past 14 years of austerity, during which there were significant reductions in overall capital expenditure. Does he think that helped or hindered investment in strategic capital transport projects?
Andrew Bowie
I think what most hindered investment in strategic transport projects was the ineptitude of the Scottish Government. Colleagues and I have already gone through the SNP’s litany of broken promises to communities across Scotland, be that on the A96, the A9, the A90, the work on the A75, the new ferries to the Western Isles or the protection of air routes across Scotland. It is quite rich for a Scottish National party Member to talk about under-investment in transport when his party’s own record is so woeful in that regard; it might be one of the reasons that he and his colleagues number only nine Members of Parliament, compared with the large number that the SNP had in the previous Parliament.
Let me move on from talking about the SNP and focus on the UK Labour Government, because we also have plans for them.
John Grady
As my dear friends tussle, I want to make a minor point. The Conservative Government were in power for 14 years until July, and the SNP Government have been in power in Holyrood for about 18 years. It is quite remarkable for the hon. Member to criticise a Government who have been in power for just six months and have been clearing up a mess left by the Tories. Might I gently ask him to bear in mind those different periods as he proceeds?
Andrew Bowie
I had not got around to criticising the Labour Government—if hon. Members give me time, I will get there—but I gently point out that this concocted mess that the Labour party likes to trot out is as nothing compared with the economic situation that we had to deal with when we came into government, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, in 2010, which led to so many of the tough decisions that we took between 2010 and 2015. It is as a direct result of decisions taken in the recent Budget that we have seen growth falling, confidence slipping, investment drying up and, today, gilt yields rising to their highest level in more than 20 years. That is on the Labour party’s watch and has nothing to do with the Conservatives. We left it with the highest growth in the G7, inflation down to 2% and investment at record levels. I am proud of our record in government. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to stand there at the end of his time on the governing party’s Benches and say just the same.
As I said, we have questions for the UK Labour Government. We are yet to see a convincing reason for the cancellation of the last Government’s plans to dual the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham, so will the Minister lay out the reasons? There are also questions about what rail nationalisation will mean for the upgrade projects currently under way, which would benefit Union-wide connectivity. Should we expect fare rises, like we have seen with ScotRail, for services to England after rail is nationalised by Labour? On the Borders railway, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk asked, could the Minister update us on where we are with the Tweedbank to Carlisle corridor? Why was the feasibility study abandoned? On air passenger duty, what do the Government say to those people living in Scotland, further away from the border, who rely on air links to get to cities south of the border for business and leisure?
On transport more broadly, the Government’s record so far gives us cause for concern, and makes us sceptical that Union connectivity is a priority for Ministers or is likely to improve over this Parliament. The Prime Minister himself said that Labour-run Wales should be “a blueprint” for what a UK Labour Government could achieve. That is terrifying. We all know what that really means; we have seen the imposition of blanket 20 mph speed limits and the cancellation of major road building projects, and Labour has cast doubt on its plans to electrify the north Wales main line. So what does Labour-run Wales mean for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Andrew Bowie
Of course we would welcome a reduction in accidents, but I have yet to see any evidence that that is a direct result of blanket 20 mph limits. Actually, by the way, I do not think the Labour party in Wales is still in favour of those; I believe that the new First Minister abandoned the blanket 20 mph policy. It is certainly something that would be greatly worrying were it rolled out across Scotland.
Good connectivity and good transport connections are essential. The responsibility for connecting communities and creating opportunities within Scotland lies with the SNP. Our internal market is vital to the economic success of Scotland and the wider United Kingdom. Connections from Scotland to England, and indeed across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, are integral to making the economic progress that we need, and that is the responsibility of the British Labour Government. Now is the time for action, not words. Scotland’s economy and communities desperately need that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck, and I welcome you to your place. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), my predecessor as Scotland Office Minister, on securing the debate.
I begin where the hon. Gentleman began, and commend him for his tireless commitment to his constituents, including his work on the Borderlands inclusive growth deal. I am sure he will have been pleased that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed at the Budget that funding will be provided to continue all city and growth deals in Scotland, including the Borderlands inclusive growth deal. We have also approved the final two growth deals, including one that has expanded to ensure that all 12 areas of Scotland can benefit. Indeed, I am delighted to say that it is because of the decisions this Government have taken that we have been able to confirm our commitment to invest nearly £1.4 billion in important local projects across Scotland over the next 10 years. That is positive news for all Borderlands partners and for the wide range of projects in the growth deal, including £65 million for initiatives in Scotland.
None the less, I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious about another matter. Despite these ambitious commitments, I am cognisant of the uncertainty that remains around the future of the Borders railway feasibility study. We have been clear about the challenging financial circumstances we have inherited and the need to plan differently for infrastructure. Although the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) may be tired of hearing this, that is the unfortunate reality that we have to continue to address by taking difficult decisions to fix the foundations of our economy. My ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport are continuing to consider the proposals developed as part of the deal and hope to be able to communicate their decision on the UK Government’s commitment to the project shortly.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk and other Members asked about the dualling of the A1, and I was asked to explain the Government’s decision. The answer behind that decision is very simple: the previous UK Administration made an unfunded and unaffordable commitment to dual the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham, and as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear, if we cannot afford it, we cannot do it. The decision is simple: it is because of the unfunded nature of the commitment.
My hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) and for Glasgow East (John Grady) have all made eloquent advocacy on behalf of rail passengers who are subject to poor rail performance. I want to reassure them that the Department for Transport will continue to hold all operators to account for their performance through a range of measures, including key performance indicators. The Government simply will not tolerate poor performance and will continue to hold operators to account, regardless of ownership.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) asked whether I will champion Scotland’s air passengers, and I will do so. The Scotland Office stands ready to advance the interests of all Scotland’s communities.
Chris Murray
I absolutely recognise the importance of air travel to more rural parts of the country, but it is a fact that a journey between Edinburgh and London by electric train, such as those operated by Lumo, produces 95% less carbon emissions than the equivalent flight. Other countries take decisions to disincentivise domestic air travel where rail routes are available. Does the Minister recognise the imperative of the climate emergency, which we must bring to bear when we are talking about whether the Government should incentivise rail travel over flights?
Kirsty McNeill
Very much so, and the integrated transport strategy, which I will come to shortly, is indeed designed to ensure that we are delivering growth, delivering on our climate ambitions and delivering for communities facing a cost of living emergency.
The hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) took the inexplicable decision to put himself up as the spokesperson for the Scottish Government on transport. His account of the ferries amounted to, “Yes, it would have been better, were it not a complete shambles”—I am sure we can all agree on that. Indeed, it would have been, but the facts are these: the Ferguson ferry saga has continued, with repeated delays to the Glen Sannox and warnings that the Glen Rosa may not be delivered now until late 2025. Let us never tire of saying that the total cost of the two ferries is expected to be nearly £400 million. They will be delivered seven years late and at four times the original budget. Of course, that is not the only place where the SNP is failing so badly. Under the SNP’s Government, Scotland’s bus network has been dismantled route by route, day by day. Fares have risen, passenger numbers have plummeted and the number of bus routes went down by 44% between 2006-07 and 2023-24—a loss of nearly 1,400 routes for our communities.
We should be clear that wider questions of transport are devolved, and responsibility for transport matters sits largely with that Scottish Government. Despite the Scottish Government’s failures, the UK Government are committed to resetting our relationship with them when we are able to do so, to deliver for the people of Scotland. We have already made significant progress to that end, and in that context I recognise the role Transport Scotland plays in keeping Scotland connected with the rest of the United Kingdom. As an Executive agency of the Scottish Government, the UK Government naturally recognise its independence, but we none the less stand ready to support its delivery for the people of Scotland, where appropriate. The UK Government respect the devolution settlement and are firmly committed to working with the Scottish Government to deliver shared transport priorities and ensure that the economic benefits of improved connectivity are shared across the UK.
The UK Government are also committed to our growth mission to improve the prosperity of the country and the living standards of working people. That is why the Chancellor has pledged to drive sustainable economic growth, and a strong transport network serving communities across the UK will be key to that.
David Mundell
I welcome much of what the Minister has said—that of a non-political nature, anyway—but can she tell us the Government’s approach to the Union connectivity review, which was focused on ensuring that we have a network across the United Kingdom and on bringing it together?
Kirsty McNeill
I am delighted to do so, and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), asked me about that too. We are delivering on the recommendations made by the Union connectivity review, which was conducted by my noble Friend Lord Hendy. The review highlighted the need for strategic transport connectivity improvements across the UK and made recommendations to support improved connectivity to, from and via Scotland.
I have been asked by a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), who spoke very movingly about accidents on the A75, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), for an update on our plans on the A75 and connectivity to Northern Ireland, and I am delighted to provide it. The Hendy review recommended upgrading the key A75 link to improve freight and passenger connectivity with Northern Ireland, so I am pleased to say that the Chancellor has confirmed funding for this financial year and for next for Transport Scotland to continue development work on upgrading the A75. Transport Scotland has completed initial work to scope out possible options for the realignment of the A75 around the settlements of Springholm and Crocketford.
Jim Shannon
I asked some specific questions, so apologies for reiterating this—it is to do with Stena Line, ferries, food, medicine, deliveries, continuity and connection. We do not have roads, and we cannot drive across the Irish sea—unless we find a new James Bond car—so we depend on ferries to get our goods across. I am sorry to ask again, but if the Minister does not mind, I really need that answer. If she cannot give it to me now, I am happy for it to be sent by letter.
Kirsty McNeill
My understanding is that those ferries are operated commercially, but I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and colleagues from the Department for Transport.
Kirsty McNeill
As I said, I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and colleagues from the Department for Transport to follow up on that. Furthermore, I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government have confirmed their commitment to the feasibility study on the A75 changes to progress that work. That is our reset in action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) helpfully anchored this debate to what it is all about. Of course, it is about growth and the maintenance of the Union, but transport is also fundamentally about people. It is about women, disabled people, and families living with the cost of living emergency. That is why, when families are so up against it, it remains inexplicable that it is cheaper under the SNP Government to fly from Edinburgh to London than it is to go from Edinburgh to Glasgow on a ScotRail peak fare.
That is why this Government have already fulfilled one of our key manifesto commitments and passed the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 to bring railways back into public ownership—we are committed to functioning railways. The Act will stop the taxpayer footing the bill for more than £100 million each year in fees to private operators, which provides no benefit whatsoever to passengers or to the taxpayer. It will also ensure that ScotRail is kept in public hands permanently, pave the way for the creation of Great British Railways and end the fragmentation of the franchising system, which will improve our railway network and strengthen connectivity to and from Scotland, including via the vital west coast and east coast main lines.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine asked a number of questions on air passenger duty, which I am delighted to answer. As he will know, we are trying to support a fairer and sustainable tax system, and taxation on the aviation sector must be put on a sustainable footing. That is why we are consulting on a proposal to extend the scope of the higher rate of air passenger duty to all private jets, including business jets. That is driven primarily by the Government’s commitment to ensuring that operators of and passengers on such jets contribute fairly to the public finances. As he will well know, air passenger duty rates have fallen behind inflation, and private jets are relatively undertaxed, so in 2026-27 the Government will adjust all air passenger duty rates to help to correct for below-inflation uprating in recent years.
Because this Government are committed to supporting working people, we have frozen fuel duty and extended the temporary 5p cut for one year. That will benefit an estimated 3.2 million people in Scotland, supporting hard-working families and businesses and saving the average car driver £59 in 2025-26. I am sure I do not need to remind colleagues that the cost of living remains high, so these measures are vital to support working people across the UK.
As I mentioned earlier, none of these decisions can be taken piecemeal: they must form part of a coherent and ambitious plan. That is why this UK Government is mission-led, with long-term objectives that will deliver our plan for change and spread prosperity across the UK.
I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk on securing the debate and thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I am sure colleagues across the House will agree that it is essential that we continue to do all we can to strengthen our transport network, ensuring that communities in Scotland and across the UK remain connected and play their rightful role at the heart of this Government’s ambitious agenda.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (in the Chair)
Before I call the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) to wind up, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their kind words. It is indeed a pleasure to be in the Chair.
John Lamont
If I may say so on behalf of all Members, you have done a spectacular job as Chair, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members for contributing to the debate. We have Members here from across Scotland and also from Ulster, and I am grateful for the important points they made about the connections between their part of the world, Scotland and the rest of the UK. I am also grateful to the Minister for her response, and I look forward to hearing from her further on the Borders railway. On the feasibility study, we have heard about the importance of transport links not just to our respective constituencies, but in linking to all parts of the United Kingdom. They have a strategic and symbolic importance in preserving our Union.
There is a shared frustration among hon. Members across the House—perhaps with the exception of one hon. Member—about the failures of the Scottish Government and the SNP in terms of their responsibility to deliver good transport links for our constituents. There is certainly a shared frustration on the Opposition Benches with some of the decisions that the new UK Labour Government have made in funding projects into Scotland. As we heard earlier, the A1 improvements have been a bit of a disappointment for my constituents and those in North Northumberland, so we hope the UK Government will continue with the commitments made by the previous Government on investment in our transport network in Scotland, despite the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Government.
I conclude by responding to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) and his helpful description of the name of Waverley station. I fully admit to being a daft laddie from the Borders countryside, but I was fully aware of the origins of the name of Waverley station. It was named after the Waverley route, which was the railway line that went from Edinburgh down through the Borders to Carlisle, so I am very familiar with that. Of course, that was named after the novels written by Sir Walter Scott, who is a fine son of the Borders. I think that is a good place to conclude the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered transport links between Scotland and the rest of the UK.