Alison McInnes responds to Strategic Transport Projects Review

Speech by Alison McInnes on Wed 10th Dec 2008

I thank the minister for his statement, although it has turned out to be disappointing, given that the announcement was expected in September.

I had hoped for clarity and for a coherent, costed and timed transport investment programme. I had hoped that we would be presented with a portfolio of projects and a clear timeline for their implementation, leading to improved journey times and connections, reduced carbon emissions and improvements in quality, accessibility and affordability-a programme that was built on the foundations of the national transport strategy that the previous Administration developed.

I had hoped for real details about the protection and enhancement of key trade routes, with the development of public transport routes to encourage modal shift. I wanted better connections to and from all our main towns and cities, especially Aberdeen and Inverness, which have particular transport needs, to service our indigenous industries such as timber, whisky, food, fish processing and oil-related businesses. Everyone in Scotland should have access to high-quality public transport options. Businesses that are located further from their markets should be helped to keep their transport costs down. Many places in Scotland have been given a name check this afternoon, but detailed analysis will be needed to ascertain whether anyone is actually getting very much from the deal.

Since the Scottish National Party took power in 2007, there has been so much disappointment at the Government's unwillingness to commit to certain projects, despite the party having supported them previously. The SNP has shown a remarkable reluctance to discuss such projects, hiding behind the review process for 18 months now. The STPR process has been clouded in baffling secrecy and equivocation, and the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change has persistently refused to give even an indication of what Transport Scotland and the Government have been considering under the review. As with the ScotRail refranchise, there has been a lack of consultation and discussion. Instead of the knowledge and expertise of local councils, regional transport partnerships, transport operators and, indeed, users being used to assess projects, everyone has been kept at arm's length.

Today, after much anticipation, we got to unwrap the festive offering. Unfortunately, the Christmas present that we have all been eyeing with excitement for months turns out not to be the shiny new train set and construction kit that we were hoping for-it is only a box of fudge. No amount of ribbons and bows can hide the fact that what is hiding under the wrapping is another strategy, not an investment plan. It is a corridor-based approach that will be further worked up, costed and argued over, and communities do not know anything more today than they did yesterday. It is heavy on assertions and aspirations but light on detail and timescales.

Alex Salmond and his flock spent the 2007 election campaign promising all things to all people, adamantly insisting that their party alone would be the worthy sentinels of Scotland's transport infrastructure, who would waste not a single second in cutting the first sod for projects ranging from the new Forth crossing to the Inverness bypass; from a bullet train to the dualling of the A9. SNP ministers have since come out with a series of lukewarm and sometimes dismissive statements about some of our important transport projects. They have been poor custodians of the projects that are already in progress. I have watched in dismay as projects such as the Aberdeen crossrail have been reduced to nothing more than a few timetable improvements.

According to the strategy, the Dundee northern relief road will be either a new northern peripheral bypass or an upgrade to the existing junctions. We know nothing further than we knew before.

The Government appears to have knocked a massive £1 billion off the price of the new Forth crossing-and wants to be patted on the back for that-but the SNP inflated the price in the first place. In June 2007, Transport Scotland estimated the cost at £1.5 billion. By January 2008, it had risen to between £3.5 billion and £4.2 billion-a massive increase.

What possible confidence can we have that the Government is up to the task of delivering that vital transport link? Even with the £1 billion discount, it could still be the most expensive bridge ever built. The second Severn crossing cost £550 million at 2016 prices. The Severn bridge is twice the length of the Forth bridge, with six lanes, and it was built under public-private partnership.

Disappointingly, we know now that the Government is willing to invest £2.34 billion in a new Forth crossing that provides no multimodal options. Is a bridge that is to serve us until the end of the century to have no public transport priority? The existing crossing will need extensive and on-going maintenance-as the minister himself acknowledged today, the old bridge continues to deteriorate. Therefore, public transport has been downgraded to a second-rate solution; yet, the same Government trumpets its commitment to meeting climate change targets. In one breath the SNP urges us to unite against the United Kingdom Government; in the next breath it says that it is relying on a UK Treasury solution to meet our infrastructure needs. The bridge will come to us courtesy of UK plc.

The previous Administration was committed to effective transport infrastructure and put record levels of investment into the development of modern transport links. In Government, the Liberal Democrats shifted the balance of spending on transport, reversing the 70 per cent-30 per cent split between roads and public transport. We set the pace, but the SNP dropped the baton when it took over and is now completely out of the race. We were clear about our priorities; the SNP promised everything to everyone. The SNP overpromised in opposition but it still has not learned the lesson. The party's unwillingness to prioritise means that it continues to mislead everyone by suggesting that we can have it all. Meanwhile, the continuing delay will cost us dearly.