Speech in the Scottish Parliament debate

Infrastructure Investment Plan

15 December 2011

I, too, welcome publication of the infrastructure investment plan.

We need a plan for long-term capital spending.

However, as many other members have said, I am disappointed that the plan appears to be just a wish list or never-never land, as Margaret McDougall said. Half the projects have no funding mechanism.

The costs are sketchy and vary between hundreds of millions of pounds for individual projects, and it is difficult to see how they can be budgeted for.

Where funding mechanisms are in place, there is very little detail about how they will work.

We do not have borrowing powers at the moment.

The non-profit-distribution model—or for-profit-but-capped-profit-distribution model, which, as Murdo Fraser said, might be more accurate—was proposed for the Borders rail link.

It was unsuccessful, so it is untested and we do not know how it will work.

Can we be sure that the projects that have been earmarked for such funding and the projects that have not been earmarked for anything and so might come under that model will be delivered?

We also have tax increment financing, which has been piloted.

However, my understanding is that we would need legislation to roll that out, so which projects are earmarked for that funding?

What will happen to them if the legislation is not rolled out and the pilot throws up problems?

Alex Neil: The pilot projects do not require legislation. If we were to roll out a longer-term programme, that would require legislation.

Rhoda Grant: Indeed; that is my point.

To roll out TIF further than the pilot projects, we need legislation.

When is that legislation coming forward and which projects will be affected by it?

We need some clarity on that.

EU funding was mentioned.

It is unclear what EU funding we will get post-2014. Jean Urquhart mentioned the impact that objective 1 funding had on the Highlands and Islands.

I agree with what she said.

I was puzzled that Mike MacKenzie implied that EU funding had nothing to do with the Government.

Will the cabinet secretary give credit to someone other than the Scottish Government if we secure some for EU funding in the future?

Mike MacKenzie: Does the member acknowledge that the Highlands and Islands lost objective 1 status, when it should not have done, because of arithmetical errors in calculating GDP per capita and that that was the responsibility of the Labour Government at the time?

Rhoda Grant: That is wholly untrue.

We lost objective 1 status because of enlargement of the EU.

The Labour Government successfully secured transitional funding, from which we are still benefiting.

Let us hope that we are so lucky in the future.

Malcolm Chisholm mentioned the 5 per cent rule.

We need some clarity on that, including how it affects all the funding mechanisms and how it will affect investment.

We wonder whether the infrastructure plan will be delivered.

Alex Neil said in his opening speech that all the projects in the current infrastructure plan will be delivered but a number of projects that were included in the 2008 infrastructure plan have since been dropped.

For example, as Margaret McDougall mentioned, GARL is not happening, and nor are the trams to Leith.

Today’s plan includes a number of repeats and delays.

The 2008 plan said that the Aberdeen western peripheral route would be completed by 2013 but there is now no completion date.

Is that another delay? A great many delayed projects, such as the A9 and the Southern general hospital, are repeated in the plan and rolled out as something new.

The plan talks about broadband, which, as Aileen McLeod said, is extremely important, especially to rural areas.

However, I do not have Aileen McLeod’s confidence that next-generation broadband will be delivered to everybody by 2020.

Other members, including Mark Griffin, asked about the speeds of next-generation broadband.

We need some clarity.

My understanding is that next-generation broadband provides high speeds.

If that is going to be rolled out everywhere, it should be available to people who do not currently have broadband as well as to those who enjoy reasonable speeds.

To do that, we must map the fibre that is available throughout Scotland and we must do it now.

I am aware of fibre being provided by state funding in pathfinder projects, and that fibre will be installed on the Beauly to Denny line.

We need to have a public map of where the fibre is to ensure that we utilise what is available and do not build fibre on top of fibre, wasting public money.

We should make the best use of public money to roll out next-generation broadband to other areas.

That is hugely important.

Many members talked about the important issue of housing.

Neil Findlay was right to say that it was the biggest budget loser.

The promise of 6,000 social rented houses a year has been scrapped and we will get affordable housing instead.

It is debatable whether mid-market rent qualifies as affordable housing—to my mind, it does not.

Malcolm Chisholm talked about retrofits.

Retrofits are extremely important not only because they create jobs and cut down our emissions, but because they tackle fuel poverty. Retrofitting could lift huge numbers of people out of fuel poverty and make a real difference.

We need to think about rural housing and how that is funded.

Housing funding is now competitive, and rural housing associations cannot compete with their urban neighbours.

That means that some of them will not build any houses next year.

We need to ensure that that does not happen, because we need new houses in rural areas as well as in urban areas.

Many members have mentioned transport.

As I said, the A9 is in the plan, albeit that it is a retread, but roads such as the A737, which Margaret McDougall mentioned, the A83 and the A95 are not even on the wish list.

Will they be improved in any way between now and 2030?

Mike MacKenzie mentioned the A82 and the work at Pulpit Rock, which the plan says will be done post-2017, if funding is available.

That is written in the document, and I would like the cabinet secretary to confirm that when he winds up, because I was certain that that funding had already been allocated.

I will conclude.

A number of issues have been missing from the debate.

For example, there has been no mention of what is to happen with the consequentials from the autumn statement.

If the letter about revenue to capital transfer was, indeed, sent to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee prior to the debate, why was it not made public and placed at the back of the chamber so that we could talk about it in the debate?

The SNP Government has no shame about dropping plans.

It dropped GARL and it dropped trams to Leith.

We are not sure whether it will maintain the infrastructure investment plan.

We hope that it will, and we hope that it will fair better this time.