Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 06 Oct 2009

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Official Report 333KB pdf

---

Budget Process 2010-11

As there are some new people in the room, I remind everyone to ensure that all mobile devices are switched off—they interfere with the sound system, even if they do not ring.

I welcome to the committee our second panel of witnesses. This is an evidence session on the draft budget for 2010-11, with a particular focus on the recent cancellation of the Glasgow airport rail link project. We will hear from Charles Hoskins, who is director of projects at Strathclyde Partnership for Transport; Councillor Steven Purcell, who is the leader of Glasgow City Council; and Bob Darracott, who is the director of planning and transport at Renfrewshire Council. I invite the witnesses to make brief opening remarks on the budget as a whole, but with particular reference to the GARL project. I am not fussy about the order in which you speak.

SPT was the original promoter of the Glasgow airport rail link and our view has not changed from the day when the announcement was made: we are disappointed that the rail link has been cancelled. SPT takes the view that the transport and wider benefits that we set out in the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill remain. The rail link would have provided a transport benefit not only to Glasgow airport but to Glasgow, Renfrewshire and beyond. The works for it would also have improved services to Ayrshire and Inverclyde. In our view, the wider economic benefits of the link—the jobs that it would have supported—remain. Our presentation of those benefits to the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee was based on a great deal of analysis. They included a specific opportunity to link Paisley directly to the airport, through a fixed rail link, and for further office development in Paisley town centre.

There can be much debate about transport and rail and what it does and does not do. However, without a rail link to Glasgow airport, people have only one choice. If they want to use public transport, they can take the bus, but that is road based. There was much criticism of the patronage figures, but the rail link was a unique opportunity for Glasgow airport, Glasgow and the Strathclyde region.

The committee may have noticed that I, too, was somewhat disappointed by the decision, not least because of the way in which it was handled.

Over the past couple of years, I have worked hard to strike up a productive working relationship with the Scottish Government and, in a number of other projects in which there have been difficulties with finance, there has been an open dialogue between the city and the Government, which has resulted in our being able to find alternative ways to tackle the problems that have been presented.

Most important, the outstanding economic case for the airport rail link has been set aside. When the city and SPT were asked to consider handing the project over to Transport Scotland, one of the reasons why ministers requested that was—to use their words to me at the time—that the project was "of national importance". It would have brought 1,300 jobs to the west of Scotland and the conservative estimate in the business plan at the time was that it would have brought £300 million of investment to the west of Scotland. The link would have been vital for passengers at Glasgow airport, whose numbers are expected to increase to between 15 million and 17 million by 2030. It is now a given that any modern 21st century city in Europe has an airport rail link when it has a railway system so close by.

For those reasons, we remain disappointed by the process, by the lack of transparency and by the undermining of what ministers agreed only 18 months ago was a transport project of national significance.

On 15 May 2006, I spoke to the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee and said that Renfrewshire Council supported the GARL project in principle. We supported it only in principle simply because a legal agreement was yet to be signed regarding disruption to St James's park in Paisley. That agreement was subsequently signed by Renfrewshire Council, SPT and Transport Scotland.

The potential longer-term spin-offs of the GARL project, particularly its benefits to Paisley town centre, were noted at the time. The council considers that economic support for the Paisley town centre project is vital to our priorities at this time.

I also noted in my evidence in 2006 that there had been much debate in the council about GARL. At the time, there was not whole-hearted support for it throughout the council or in Paisley and Renfrewshire more widely. The council was of the view that GARL alone would not address the increasing problems of congestion on the M8 west of the city, and that we would continue to press, by whatever means possible, for improvements to the M8, some of which emerged through the strategic transport projects review, as you know.

There is some disappointment about the GARL decision, particularly in respect of the impact on Paisley town centre. The council will continue to argue for improved public transport services to the west of the city and, in particular, to help serve the important destination points along the south side of the river: Renfrew riverside, Braehead, the Southern general hospital and so on. We particularly feel at this time that the Government should give some consideration to the Clyde fastlink project, which would improve public access along that side of the river, and access to major public facilities, leisure facilities, commercial destinations and the new hospital.

We also understand that further investigations are under way by Transport Scotland and Network Rail into how to address the increased rail capacity that now exists between Paisley and Glasgow city centre, which we welcome. We would seek to have greater involvement as the review is undertaken. We have put much work into a major community growth initiative down at the Royal Ordnance factory at Bishopton—a 2,500 house extension to the urban area in Renfrewshire. The investigation will be critical to implementation of that project.

Before we get into questions about the merits or otherwise of the decision that the Scottish Government announced when it published the draft budget, I want to ask a couple of questions about the process. When were you last given assurances that the project was on track with no potential problems that could cause concern about its future? Were you involved, in advance of the Government's announcing its decision, in any discussions about the possible cancellation or postponement of the GARL project?

SPT in effect left the project 18 months ago. Since the project was transferred to Transport Scotland in May 2008, we have not had any involvement in it. If the question is whether we were given any prior indication of the decision, the answer is no. We were informed on the day of the announcement, slightly before the announcement was made. I am not aware that we were involved in any discussions about potential cancellation before then.

Over the summer, I heard informally that Transport Scotland was concerned about the project's future. In mid to late August, I used the opportunity of a meeting on another subject to ask the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change whether there were any concerns that we should be worried about. The answer was categorically no. When the Scottish Cabinet met in Glasgow in early September, ministers were again asked publicly about the Glasgow airport rail link. The transport minister gave a public assurance that there were no matters for concern. I personally was informed of the decision about 20 minutes before the statement was made to Parliament. Although Glasgow City Council was a major stakeholder and interested party in the project, we were not consulted on, or invited to discuss, any of the concerns that ministers apparently had about the financing of the project.

In comparison, negotiations were conducted about the M74 extension when ministers in the current Scottish Government had concerns about the financing of that project. For months, we were involved in discussions about alternative ways of funding that project. As a result, a productive alternative proposal from the city council was agreed to by ministers.

I had a similar experience to Councillor Purcell's in terms of timescale and timeframe. In August, the minister made an announcement indicating that funding remained and that there were no major issues. We did not hear officially until quite late in the process. Between August and the minister's announcement—I cannot give a specific date—I spoke to staff in Transport Scotland but was given no indication that an announcement would be made about cancellation of the project.

Was there any discussion or consultation with any of your organisations on the implications of cancellation? Was there any opportunity to put forward alternative proposals?

No.

No.

No.

Mr Hoskins said that the project was handed over to Transport Scotland in May 2008. Was it handed over in good health?

As far as SPT is concerned, yes it was. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change and Transport Scotland officials are on record as applauding SPT for the work that had gone beforehand. BAA is on record as saying something similar. The transfer process was relatively straightforward, in that the announcement was made in March and the legal document was signed off in May. The project in its entirety—it involved volumes of information—was physically trucked to Transport Scotland, so SPT no longer has all that detail. As far as we are concerned, the project was handed over in good health. The costs, risks and typical management processes that would be needed in a project of that size were all handed over.

I have a final question before I hand over to other members. If there had been an opportunity to discuss the implications of the decision or to suggest alternative proposals, what alternative approaches might have been proposed, given the Scottish Government's argument that it must save money on the capital projects that are currently in the pipeline?

Now that we can analyse the figures that have been provided to you by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, there is clearly a dispute about how much the costs of the project have increased since the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change's statement in December 2008. The starting point of our debate about alternatives would be an examination of the finance. We now have the opportunity to do that and I hope that it is something that the committee wants to do.

Of course we would have been willing to consider alternative proposals. We would have been willing to debate with ministers, our officials and civil servants any alternatives that would have helped to save money. We did that in relation to the M74, which was a complex project that involved more than one council in the west of Scotland. Ministers explained the financial pressures that they were under and Glasgow City Council stepped up to the plate and front-loaded our £50 million contribution, which allowed the project to proceed.

There was considerable debate in 2005 and 2006 about alternatives to the scheme, through the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill process. Had an approach been made to Renfrewshire Council, we would have wanted to engage with Government on the impacts and we would have tried to argue the case and talk about alternative projects that I mentioned, for which there is some support, such as the improvements to the M8, which provides access to the airport as well as being a vital link road through Renfrewshire, and the fastlink project.

I welcome Sandra White, who has joined us as an observer.

Bob Darracott talked about alternatives to the project, but the starting point for a project whose costs are beginning to overrun is an attempt to manage the costs back down or at least to find savings elsewhere in the project. At what point did Transport Scotland or the minister have discussions with any of the witnesses about that?

There was no discussion of that nature.

None.

Since the announcement of the cancellation of GARL, has the Scottish Government explained in discussions or correspondence how it reached its decision? Do you know, for example, whether the Government carried out a comprehensive analysis of transport projects, to ensure that those that were going ahead provided a greater cost to benefit ratio than GARL?

I can say from SPT's perspective that I am not aware of any discussion on that.

Prior to the announcement, I had one brief discussion with the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, in which he said that he believed that the cost had increased by around £70 million since it was last considered by ministers. I said that I found that hard to believe and asked for a detailed breakdown of the figure. I had no other discussion with ministers about the reason for, or process that led to, GARL being chosen for cancellation out of all the capital projects. It is also not clear whether GARL has been cancelled or postponed, which is a significant issue.

Now that we have had the opportunity to see the figures that have been provided to the committee by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, it is clear to me that the £70 million figure is not accurate and is misleading.

For clarity and for the record, when you said that you had a "brief discussion" with the minister, were you referring to the phone call that took place 20 minutes before the ministerial statement?

Yes.

That discussion took place prior to the announcement. Are you telling the committee that there has been no discussion with the Scottish Government since the statement about whether the decision is to postpone or to abandon the project?

As far as I am concerned there have been no detailed discussions of that nature.

I had one further discussion with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister at the Commonwealth games strategic committee, but it was not productive in terms of the detail or the question that Cathy Peattie is asking. It was simply about process.

So you had absolutely no discussion.

None.

You have referred to the figures that the ministers have provided to the committee—I think you are referring to the annex to the letter to our convener from John Swinney. That annex mentions a gross figure, in one context, of £397.5 million. That is the figure that Mr Swinney gave to me in the chamber on 17 September, when he was answering questions on his draft budget for next year. That is the parliamentary context of his cancellation decision.

Are you aware that, on 25 September, I received two written answers from the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Stewart Stevenson, which said that the money that had been spent on GARL so far was £18.84 million and the amount to be saved by the project's cancellation would be £170 million? Those two figures add up to less than half the figure that was quoted by Mr Swinney.

The figures that were quoted by the finance secretary include the work that is being undertaken by Network Rail for the Paisley signalling project—

Which is not cancelled.

It is not cancelled, and it is not funded by Scottish Government money. The investment in that is by Network Rail.

In December 2008, when ministers last made a statement about the finance of GARL, they indicated that the cost range—as is indicated in the papers that the finance secretary has provided—was £365.5 million to £395 million. At the time, that was contained in the capital budget. Figures that were also provided by the finance secretary tell us that the amount has risen since then to £397.5 million. The increase would appear to be £2.5 million, not the £70 million that was quoted in my telephone conversation with the transport minister, and which has appeared in the press.

The £70 million figure appears in table 2 in annex B of the committee's paper—annex A of the cabinet secretary's letter. That table shows a breakdown of the costs pertaining to the fuel farm and associated costs relating to that part of the airport rail link project. The breakdown of that £70 million might have changed over time, but that sum was clearly contained within SPT's budget estimate of £210 million, which was the figure that was agreed on and handed over to Transport Scotland when the city and SPT were asked to hand the project over to the Scottish Government's transport agency.

Although there might have been a debate with BAA and others about the breakdown of the £70 million, we are absolutely clear that it was contained within the £210 million maximum figure that was agreed at the time of the transfer. That, to my mind, poses some very serious questions about the rationale for taking this project out of the draft budget at this time.

There are other questions about the figure of £129 million, which has been referred to this morning in the media by a spokesperson for the Scottish Government, in terms of GARL's cancellation being to replace capital that has been removed, through Barnett consequentials, from the national health service capital fund. The finance secretary told Parliament that the £129 million could be recovered this year from the end-year flexibility money that had not been spent by the Scottish Government.

If it has already been saved, it begs the question whether, in this financial year, there is double accounting of the figure—£170 million in the current figure relating to GARL, and £129 million already agreed with the Treasury for end-year flexibility. On top of that, with my local government hat on, I know that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities agreed to take a third share of the capital reduction figure—the NHS consequential figure—this year, with the NHS taking a third and the Scottish Government taking a third. Now that those figures have been reported, it begs the question whether a saving has been taken out of local government as well, on top of that double accounting. If that is the case, what is that money being kept back for within the Scottish Government's capital projects? Is it another transport project? Is it being put into balances? That is another issue I hope the committee will be interested in pursuing.

In essence, when the cancellation of GARL was announced, the Scottish Government made two arguments. One argument was about overspends in the project and the other was about an overall cash saving. The figure that was mentioned in relation to the overall cash saving was of the order of £380 million to £400 million. I just want to be clear that we are now being told by the transport minister that the saving amounts to about £180 million. To argue that there will be a cash saving and then to get the amount that is being saved wrong by a factor of 100 per cent is a considerable error. That is one issue.

In addition to that, witnesses seem to be saying that the argument about the £70 million is erroneous as well, because when the GARL project was put in place, there was sufficient funding for what was required. You appear to be arguing that the issue here is really mismanagement of the project by Transport Scotland, rather than the project being wrong in the first place. Is that the essence of your argument?

That is a fair summary. There has either been some serious mismanagement, which should be examined, or there is a great deal of double accounting going on within the current budget process.

When Transport Scotland wanted to take the project over, a thorough risk assessment and due diligence were conducted. I think that it took three months in total—maybe Mr Hoskins can confirm that. Seven different stages of examination were carried out by a range of lawyers, technicians and other experts. Network Rail did a review, as did Audit Scotland. Many of you will know John Howison, who has 40 years' professional experience in that field. We are absolutely confident that the figures that I have quoted to you stand up to rigorous examination and should be the subject of public examination.

As I said, the breakdown of the £70 million may have changed because of negotiations, but we are clear that it was contained in the original business plan; due diligence supported that before its transfer to Transport Scotland.

Councillor Purcell mentioned end-year flexibility. In his announcement to Parliament, the cabinet secretary said that the £129 million was being put into the NHS and health budgets because it was required to deal with the Barnett consequentials. Are you suggesting that that £129 million should come out of the health budget and be put back into transport, and particularly into this project?

No, I am absolutely not suggesting that. In fact, I am making exactly the opposite point. The £129 million has been put into the health service budget, so the Barnett consequential has already been addressed by end-year flexibility. There is therefore no requirement for another £129 million to be transferred from the saving from cancellation or postponement—whichever it is—of the GARL project. It is not required.

We have a fixed budget. If the money is being spent in one place, it cannot be spent somewhere else. You are keen to see the project go ahead, but the money has to come from somewhere. We can debate later and at great length the £70 million and the airport, but the fact is that that is not in the draft budget. Where will the money come from?

It is not in this year's draft budget, but it was in the Government's capital programme. The Government asked for the project to be transferred and it accepted the proposed budget. Stewart Stevenson said:

"I thank Alistair Watson and SPT for the sterling work that they have done on the Glasgow airport rail link. Their stewardship of and preparation for that project enabled Transport Scotland, which is now the authorised undertaker, to take on board in good heart a project that is important for the 2014 Commonwealth games."—[Official Report, 17 April 2008; c 7783.]

My point about the £129 million is that it has already been restored to the health budget by end-year flexibility and it does not require to be saved from the proposed transport budget.

My point is that the money to pay for the project has to come from somewhere. You might have noticed that the economic climate has changed quite dramatically since the project was initiated. We have seen a £500 million cut in the Scottish Government's budget that means that we all have to make difficult decisions; you have made difficult decisions in Glasgow about many school closures. We are at a point at which the Government has to make a decision. Our budget is fixed, so if GARL is to go back in, what is to come out?

Of that £500 million, £129 million is capital and, as we understand it from Scottish Government officials, the remainder is the knock-on effects of the reduction in growth to meet efficiency. My point is that the £129 million of capital that is required to be found so that it does not have to be taken out of the NHS has already been found.

So apparently we can fund the GARL project without harming any other single heading in the Scottish budget.

You would have to ask the Scottish Government that question. The only consequence of proceeding with GARL under the current Scottish Government budget that I have read about is that there would have to be a reduction of £129 million in the NHS. According to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth's statement to Parliament, it appears that he has found that £129 million.

I remind members that we will have the opportunity to question the cabinet secretary at the end of our budget scrutiny and I am sure that he will make his case.

I am interested in the panel's view of the impact that the cancellation of GARL will have on job creation, access to Glasgow airport, and the attractiveness of investing in Strathclyde.

That goes back to my opening remark about the estimates that we provided as the promoter. We were clear about the economic benefits that the airport rail link would bring. It is difficult to show that such transport projects have wider, tangible economic benefits that will support jobs. We estimated that those benefits would be in the region of 1,300 jobs during the next 30 years. I am not aware that our estimates or anything else have changed from the original statement that we made as part of the private bill.

There could not have been a worse time to make the decision. The construction industry is one of the most significant parts of the west of Scotland economy and it is feeling the most pressure in that economy—it has had the most job losses during the recession. We made a case for the benefits of what is a national economic project and the decision is a long-term blow to that case and a short-term blow to our efforts to work our way through the recession.

Governments all over the world are investing as much as they can in construction and infrastructure projects because we know that it is important to do that during a recession and because they want to have the most competitive infrastructure to take advantage of the upturn when it comes, which it inevitably will. Every modern city in Europe that has a rail network close to its airport has a rail link to that airport. The city of Glasgow and the west of Scotland economy and beyond benefit from hosting big events. A huge part of our city's economic regeneration has been due to hosting big events. Attracting more tourists to the city by such an addition to the transport infrastructure to support our airport and economy would have been a huge benefit in the medium term and the long term.

I will answer the question in two ways. The airport is a major employer in Renfrewshire. It employs 5,000 to 6,000 people, and is probably our largest private sector employer. Any investment, in access or whatever, that seeks to support the airport in the longer term and create a more sustainable product will be good for the airport and consequently good for the local economy. That is one issue.

Secondly, I return to the point that one of the major selling points that we considered in Renfrewshire four or five years ago during the gestation of the project was that Paisley town centre needs every bit of support that it can get. It was failing in those days and it is failing even more now. The only stop on the Glasgow airport rail link, other than the two stops at either end of it, was going to be Paisley Gilmour Street station in Paisley town centre. That would have provided direct access from the centre of Paisley to the airport, which is the major local employer. Separate economic development studies were carried out when the bill was being considered that proved that that access would be a bit of a boost for the town centre.

Since the GARL decision was made, planning consents have been granted for a hotel and residential development in the centre of Paisley that may be related to the prospect of GARL being established. A major employer has certainly relocated into the centre of the town. Those investment decisions and applications resulted from the confidence that was given about improved accessibility to the airport.

Do you think that the Scottish Government did not consider the implications for jobs and the effects on Glasgow and Scotland more widely?

I am sure that it took local effects into account in making a wider decision. I fully accept that difficult decisions have to be made in the current economic climate and that GARL's economic development potential was spelled out in detail when the initial decision was being made.

Getting the project started again is in your interest, but it is obvious that money needs to be found from somewhere. We have had an argument about whether there is money for it. Would you support further accelerated capital expenditure as a means of getting that money?

I would support Government ministers sitting down with the council, SPT and all the other stakeholders and partners to examine all the alternatives to the design, financing or staging and phasing of the project, as happened with the M74 project, when we ended up compromising not on staging and phasing but on who paid what when. In my opening statement I talked about my disappointment about such discussions not happening, particularly given the city council's productive working relationship with the Scottish Government up until the announcement. If ministers had been willing, we could have found an alternative to the fait accompli with which we seem to be presented every time that we try to discuss the matter.

I hear what you are saying, but you did not say whether you would support accelerated capital expenditure as a means whereby the Government, the council and others could stand together to argue for the project.

I have been absolutely clear that I am happy to explore all alternatives, including that one.

Councillor Purcell, you referred earlier to the major events that the city will host. That leads me quite nicely into the issue that I want to explore, which is what role GARL was expected to play in the transport arrangements for the 2014 Commonwealth games. Was GARL understood to be an integral part of the transport system for the games? If so, will you comment on the minister's letter to the president of the Commonwealth Games Federation, in which the minister says:

"We are of the view that a similar level of service can be provided through alternative transport provision … It would be relatively straightforward to provide an enhanced shuttle between Paisley and the airport".

Frankly, I think that the minister's letter gives quite a glib reassurance.

I am absolutely clear that, both in our bid and in the more significant guarantee document that we submitted early in 2007 to the Commonwealth Games Federation, the Glasgow airport rail link was one of the guarantees that all parties signed up to in bidding to stage the 2014 Commonwealth games. Obviously, it is a matter of great relief that the Commonwealth Games Federation believes that the decision will not affect the delivery of the games per se, but I stood shoulder to shoulder with the First Minister in Sri Lanka and we looked all the voting delegates in the eye and assured them that we would deliver each and every one of the guarantees in the bid document. It is clearly debatable whether we can still look people in the eye and say that every other guarantee on the games infrastructure will be delivered on.

Given Mr Hoskins's knowledge of travel patterns in the west of Scotland, does he know whether many people who land at Glasgow airport take a bus to Paisley Gilmour Street, take a train from there to Glasgow Central high level, then go down to Glasgow Central low level and get another train to the east end of Glasgow? That seems to be what the Commonwealth Games Federation president suggests in his letter.

I might need to defer to my planning colleagues to source that data. I could not say how many people undertake such a trip at the moment.

I think that Charlie Gordon has made his point by asking the question.

Let me reassure Mr Gordon that the suggestion was made not by the Commonwealth Games Federation president but by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change in his letter to the president.

What discussions have started about alternative transport provision to ensure that there is easy access from the airport to the games?

I am cheeky enough to reply to Charlie Gordon's point first. All that I would say is that the route that he described certainly cannot be called a shuttle service by any means.

My granny would have called it a long road for a short cut.

We are ready and willing to look at any alternative transport provision if Parliament tells us that the Glasgow airport rail link has been cancelled or postponed. As I said earlier, I wish only that we could have had those discussions over the summer before the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth made his statement to Parliament. Given the city council's record on working with the Scottish Government over the past two years, I genuinely believe that, if we had had those discussions over the summer, we would not be sitting here taking up the committee's time.

Am I right in saying that a large emphasis of the transport element of the games bid was on the legacy for Glasgow's transport system as a whole? There are arguments for and against GARL's environmental merits, but it seems fairly obvious that a shuttle bus has no legacy of any kind.

No, it does not. You are right to say that all the transport infrastructure aspects of the bid were about legacy, the environment and our commitment to more sustainable transport infrastructure in the city of Glasgow. We made that case jointly when we were in Sri Lanka at the Commonwealth assembly.

Sandra White was trying to speak earlier. Do you want to come in now?

If I may, convener; thank you. I apologise for being late but I was at the Public Petitions Committee.

I might have missed this; the convener can tell me. Have Transport Scotland and BAA been asked to give evidence? I am mindful of Councillor Purcell's opening remarks that there is a clear dispute about the figures. If there is such a dispute, we should get some evidence from Transport Scotland about the £7 million and the £70 million.

I think that most people are aware that if BAA objected to any plans in relation to GARL, it would have the first say. I wonder whether the committee is aware of that in regard to the planned removal of the fuel tank and so on. All of that is to do with the GARL situation.

I have a question for SPT and Charles—Hopkins is it?

It is Hoskins.

I am sorry; I do not have my glasses on.

I was intrigued by Councillor Purcell's statement that the £70 million is included in the £210 million. Could Mr Hoskins elaborate on that as he is the SPT spokesperson?

I know Paisley quite well, having lived there. We know that the link to Paisley will still be built, so you will come in there. However, GARL would only connect to the east end of Glasgow if it connected with crossrail, otherwise people will still have to come into the city centre and get another form of transport. What are Councillor Purcell's thoughts on fastlink, which could be built without a parliamentary process? SPT's paper mentions that it is looking to make an eastern route for the Commonwealth games. Fastlink is less expensive and it does not need a parliamentary process. Councillor Purcell has £144 million in reserves, so Glasgow City Council might be able to put something towards fastlink, as the Scottish Government has.

Convener, I am sorry for going on so long, but I would like some answers to those questions.

The first issue that Sandra White raised is a question for me. We will be hearing from BAA and, as Transport Scotland is an executive agency, we expect any view that it wishes to express to come through the minister at the end of our budget scrutiny.

Other members will ask about fastlink later in the meeting, but if the witnesses wish to touch on that aspect of the questions that Sandra White asked, they should feel free.

I think that a question was asked about the £70 million, although I think that the convener has answered it. We have no further knowledge and, in some respects, we left the project 18 months ago. The first time that I saw mention of the £70 million was in the evidence provided by Transport Scotland, and it is not for SPT to comment on that.

Convener, can I come in on that?

I will allow the other witnesses to address the comments first.

I am quite clear that all the issues around the £70 million that were in the evidence were included in the budget that was transferred to Transport Scotland. As I said earlier, two questions have to be asked of Transport Scotland, and I hope that the committee will do that.

I believe that the £70 million was included in the £210 million. If it was not, there has been no explanation of where it has come from.

On the latter point, about the connection, the connection goes from the airport across St James's playing fields—which you may know if you know Paisley well—through Gilmour Street and into Central station.

If I could—

Other members have questions to address on the figure of £70 million. Please be brief.

Thank you for your patience, convener.

Councillor Purcell explained that it was an SPT project on which SPT was working with the council and various others. I am surprised that the gentleman who is speaking on behalf of SPT does not seem to be familiar with the report. Is SPT aware of the £70 million? What input did it have to the report if you are not sure about the £70 million? Do you have a report that I could download or have a look at?

Sorry, convener. The project was transferred to Transport Scotland 18 months ago. That information—I think that it is in annex B to paper TIC/S3/09/22/3—was not provided by SPT.

I will leave it there, then.

We will move on.

I would like to pursue the point that Sandra White was making. Councillor Purcell says that the £70 million was included in the SPT budget before it was handed over, but Charles Hoskins is not able to confirm that. It is an important point. If Councillor Purcell can tell us that the £70 million was there, it is reasonable to expect the person from SPT to be able to say whether it was or was not and whether he recognises that figure of £70 million.

At the point of transfer, not all of the detail of the breakdown would have been available. What we provided at the point of handover was all the costs and risks associated with the project, including all the elements at the airport—the fuel farm and the other facilities. Unfortunately, those documents have now left SPT. That is not an excuse; that is what happened during the transfer—all the documents went to Transport Scotland, along with the staff and all the knowledge. In annex A, Transport Scotland provides what it believes the breakdown was at that point. I believe that it was £7.8 million at 2004 prices; however, those prices were nine years different, so it is comparing apples with oranges.

I cannot really answer on the breakdown of the £70 million; I can simply state that all the costs and risks at the point of transfer were subject to due diligence, that all the agreements had gone through and that all of those estimates were provided to Transport Scotland.

Okay. We are still no clearer on whether Councillor Purcell's point has been confirmed, but we will—

Mr Darracott confirmed it. It will be in the Official Report.

We did not ask Mr Darracott.

Can members speak one at a time, please?

We have heard your concerns about the way in which the decision was announced to you. Some time has passed since then. What work has been going on since the announcement to secure alternatives to allow the project to proceed? You have had some time to consider the matter. Do you have some alternatives that you can bring to the committee for us to look at?

My understanding is that it is Parliament that will decide whether the Glasgow airport rail link will proceed. I am arguing for the reinstatement of the Glasgow airport rail link for all the reasons that I have presented to the committee, not the least of which is its national importance, which has been recognised by ministers. That is one of the reasons why the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change asked for our agreement for the project to be transferred to Transport Scotland. It is also a vital infrastructure and construction project that will help us—not just in Glasgow, but across the west of Scotland—during the economic recession.

I completely take your point about the need to continue capital expenditure in a time of recession. That is why my colleague Rob Gibson asked you about accelerating capital expenditure. I appreciate that you want the reinstatement of the project, but we now have the figures in front of us and you have had time to consider some of the alternatives that you said could have been proposed if people had only been consulted beforehand. Are you saying that the project should be delivered as it was first laid out, or are you looking at alternatives for the phasing or funding of the project? Do you take an all-or-nothing approach to the issue?

At the moment, I am arguing for the reinstatement of the Glasgow airport rail link. I am happy to discuss alternatives with anyone if that is not a possibility. I would have been happy to have had those discussions over the summer and I am happy to have such discussions just now. However, I do not want to undermine my main argument, which is for the reinstatement of a project that is of national economic importance. As a pragmatic person, I am of course happy to sit down with anyone to look at alternative phasing or funding arrangements or alternatives to the design of the project that is currently on the table.

Will you proactively put forward any such alternatives at this point? I appreciate that you are trying to hold on to a bargaining position, but could there be any compromise on your part about possible alternatives?

That is, I think, a tactical decision for me to take at the appropriate time.

Have you written to other political parties in the Parliament to seek their support for the project's reinstatement? As you will be aware, we are a minority Government so proposals can be agreed to without the Scottish National Party Government's approval. Have you sought any reassurance from other political parties?

I am speaking to a number of parties—some political and some not.

We look forward to seeing whether they agree with you.

I want to ask about the £70 million, which has already been discussed in some detail. You said that you disagree with the figures that are laid out in annex B of paper TIC/S3/09/22/3—

No, I never said that.

If you do not disagree with those figures, let me give you an opportunity to say how you agree with them.

I said earlier that there may be a debate about the breakdown within the £70 million, but I have never disagreed with the £70 million figure. What I disagree with—unless Transport Scotland can publicly demonstrate otherwise, which it has not done so as yet—is the idea that there has been an increase of £70 million since ministers made their statement on the overall costs of the project in December 2008. That is a very important point.

We have considered how certain project costs have increased since its inception. In particular, the fuel dump seems to have greatly increased in cost. Given that, as I tried to point out earlier, we have a fixed budget, surely those cost increases must have implications for how many projects the Government can carry out when expenditure is increasing over time. Is that not the case?

That question also needs to be asked of every other transport project that comes before the committee. That would only be fair.

You are the person who is in front of us at the moment. As someone who wants us to persuade the Government to change its decision, do you agree that it is right that we should take it into account that a number of the project's costs have increased since its inception? Do you accept that such increases must have implications for the budget?

Since the Scottish Government's December 2008 statement on its budget for the project, the costs—on the basis of the figures that the Government has provided to the committee—appear to have increased by £2.5 million. I suggest that, within the budget for a project that the Government believes will cost £397.5 million, it would be very easy indeed to find £2.5 million of savings. We do that all the time in local government.

If it is so easy, perhaps you can suggest some of the alternatives that I asked for earlier. We look forward to that.

Councillor Purcell, you have raised a question about whether the figure of £70 million represents an increase on figures that were known in late 2008, when a statement was made. We can put that question to the cabinet secretary when he discusses the issues with us, but is it in the least bit credible that there could be such an increase on figures that were known in August or even early September this year, when, as you said, you were informed that the project was safe?

If that was the case, it would be incredible. From my experience, not just as leader of Glasgow City Council for the past four years but as a senior elected member with responsibility for capital projects in the city for the past 10 years, it would be a public scandal if the figure had increased by such an amount in a matter of weeks. Therefore, I do not believe that it has, and I do not believe the figures that the finance secretary produced that suggest that it has increased by that amount since August, when we last sought assurances from the transport minister, or since ministers last published their figures from Transport Scotland.

I want to clarify that point, Councillor Purcell. You told us that the project was handed over to Transport Scotland in good order and that you had assurances as late as September that the project was on track—I had assurances, too, because I raised that question. Suddenly, according to the Government, the project is £70 million over budget, which becomes the reason to cancel it. You said that you are in charge of a capital budget. I presume that, if you said that you were not going to do something because it was £70 million over budget, you would be crucified in Glasgow by people saying that the fact that the project was £70 million over budget was your responsibility. Is it not the normal circumstance in politics that you take responsibility for your failures as well as your successes?

There is no question but that the project was in good order when it was transferred to Transport Scotland. If it was not, serious questions must be asked about the due diligence that Transport Scotland conducted and the decision that the Scottish ministers arrived at when they accepted Transport Scotland's recommendation. I am absolutely clear that, if the same thing happened in Glasgow City Council, as leader, I would have to take responsibility. If a project overran by that amount of money or if the due diligence that had been conducted and the advice that we had accepted were wrong, as elected members we would have to take responsibility for that.

I have spent a lot of time on the issue in the past few weeks, because the project is important, but the more we debate the issue, the more unanswered questions we find. When some of the questions are answered properly, I will be clearer in my head and I will be happy to come back to the committee and elsewhere to talk about the project. That is what I have been asking for, so that we can come to a conclusion on whether GARL is reinstatable. For example, when the questions are answered, we will be clearer about the alternatives that we can consider and discuss with parliamentary colleagues.

The Sunday Herald has reported that Transport Scotland tried to pass responsibility for GARL to Network Rail in spring 2009 and that, after that failed, it recommended to ministers that the project be scrapped. That is obviously not consistent with what ministers said to you as late as August and September. Do you have any comments on that report and whether it has substance? Do you have any information that relates to it?

No, I do not. However, given that many genuine questions are being raised as a result of the announcement and the lack of clarity and answers, I would not be surprised if that was the case. There are other important questions that are purely speculative at present. For example, what did Transport Scotland conclude on the issue of VAT for the project? Was that in the risk assessment? What did the due diligence say? Did ministers ask those questions of Transport Scotland?

I have also asked for information on the costs of cancelling the project to be made public, so that we can all see it. We know what has been spent on land acquisition, and many businesses have been bought out. We know what has been spent on the time of officials and consultants. All that money will now be wasted as a result of the cancellation.

What other implications are there? I want to hear about the VAT and the negotiations that are being conducted with the European Union on the European money that was involved in the project. That might be an issue of cancellation or postponement.

A long list of questions must be answered before we can even look at alternatives, because the answers to some of those questions will inform us about whether GARL can be reinstated or whether we have to find alternatives. We need those answers, and I hope that the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee will get them, whether from Transport Scotland, BAA or ministers. The sooner we get those answers, the quicker we can move on.

In his response to an earlier question, Mr Darracott said that he was sure that ministers would have looked at the overall financial and economic implications of the decision to cancel. He has the advantage of me, because I have not seen any papers that indicate that.

Mr Purcell, you said that you are in charge of a significant council budget. If you had to find a saving in that budget, I assume that the council would look at a range of capital projects, work out their advantages and disadvantages, and produce a report that gave statistical back-up to the choice that you, as politicians, would have to make. We do not seem to have any of that in this context. It is as though ministers have decided that they are going to make a particular saving, but they have not looked at any alternative options or any of the evidence associated with the choice that they have made. Is that a plausible way of proceeding in the context of the way in which you are accustomed to operating Glasgow City Council?

The way we operate is more than plausible. It is open and transparent, and in terms of our financial governance, it is the most responsible way to approach things.

We have to review our capital projects all the time. For example, when we reviewed our capital budget in order to assist the Scottish Government over the M74, I had to explain to committee in an open and transparent way the choices that we had decided to make over phasing and taking money from our balances. The figure of £144 million is misleading, because the majority of our capital balance budget, which is open for anyone on the committee to inspect, has now been allocated to assist the Scottish Government with the M74 project.

You are absolutely right, Mr McNulty; what you describe is entirely the most plausible, open and transparent way of proceeding. When I take such a report to committee, I expect members of both the administration and the opposition to examine forensically why we have chosen to postpone one project over all the other capital projects, and why we have decided to phase things differently.

Other elected members always test the due process in comparing everything within the capital programme, risk and, of course, political priorities. Most significantly, the key test for us in Glasgow is the economic benefit of the project. The decision is based primarily on the economic implications. Financial governance and risk are also considered: what is the cost and what is the effect on other projects?

Our political priority is a social priority. We ask what the social and community benefits of the project are. As some members around this table know, when you take that to a committee in local government, you have to have done your homework.

That seems to be a rational way of making decisions: you look at the options and their implications and at how much you have to save, then you make a choice that is informed by that analysis. That is precisely what Mr Swinney said should be done when he was asked the hypothetical question four weeks ago. The problem is that he adopted an entirely different approach when it came to making this particular decision.

The Paisley corridor element and GARL were deliberately put together, because that was seen to be cost-effective—both sides delivered added value. Now, one element of the project has been arbitrarily cancelled, but we are told that the other element will go ahead.

Mr Darracott and SPT might wish to answer this question. What evidence do we have on the benefits of the bit of the project that is going ahead? There does not seem to have been any discussion of that. It seems to me that, in running a capital project, before you spend millions of pounds, make commitments and take decisions, you need to analyse what the implications of those decisions might be.

We are left in a situation where the Government has decided that one chunk will be taken out of the project, but the other chunk will go ahead. Network Rail seems to be running around trying to find ways of quantifying the benefits of the bit that is left. Is that a sensible way to proceed? How could we get a sensible analysis of the bit of the project that apparently remains?

From our perspective, it is early doors, because the announcement has just been made that part of the project—in effect, the bit between Glasgow and Paisley—will still happen. If the final decision is that the airport spur will not go ahead, we would welcome an opportunity to provide our views on how the capacity should be used. I am sure that Glasgow City Council and Renfrewshire Council would take the same view. There are many iterations of capacity versus reliability versus where all the services should go to and from. That is an issue in itself. I am certainly not aware that the Paisley element was specifically analysed when we were promoting the project. GARL was trundling along and then it got combined with the Paisley resignalling project, so it became a bigger project that would deliver much more benefits. Now that the Paisley element seems to be getting split off, we would welcome the opportunity to work with Transport Scotland and Network Rail to see how we make best use of that, if that is the end product.

I echo many of those views, as you might expect. I am not aware that a specific analysis of the benefits of the partial project has been carried out. We understand that such analysis and investigation is now taking place. Our plea is for all parties here and beyond to be included in that process, because there are wider implications that do not relate simply to the boundaries of the line between Paisley and Glasgow. As I said in my opening statement, the line is critical to a major project that will have major economic development consequences for Renfrewshire in the next 10 to 15 years.

Comment was made earlier about lack of knowledge about budget provision or increases in budgets up to the recent announcement. I do not think that there has been effective communication between some of the key partners who were involved closely with SPT during the early stages of the GARL project and Transport Scotland as it worked through the project. I am concerned that, as further assessment of the partial project is undertaken, we might be left out of the loop again in the discussions between Transport Scotland, Network Rail and others.

Thank you. Before we move on, I want to come back to the reports in the media that Transport Scotland tried unsuccessfully to pass the project to Network Rail before recommending that it be scrapped. Councillor Purcell commented on the reports but Mr Hoskins and Mr Darracott did not have an opportunity to say whether they can shed light on them, either because they received information formally or because they picked up the mood through the grapevine.

As I said, for 18 months we have not been involved in GARL at all, so what we read in the papers—

Gossip travels sometimes, though.

We first heard about the issue when we read about it in the papers.

I have no knowledge of the issue.

Thank you for being clear about that.

My question is for SPT, but other witnesses are free to join in. Can you provide an update on the Clyde fastlink project and set out preferred routes, estimated costs and likely completion dates?

I will do my best from memory, but I might have to follow up my answer with more information. We gave members of the SPT board an update earlier this year. We set out a vision for fastlink that involved a number of corridors across the conurbation.

I should take a wee step back and say that it is worth remembering that fastlink is one of a number of initiatives that we envisage for the conurbation of Strathclyde. Bus rapid transit would be complemented by improved bus services, modernisation of the subway and GARL, which all do different things.

Fastlink does a certain job in certain corridors. The two corridors that have been developed in most detail, with officers from Glasgow City Council, West Dunbartonshire Council and Renfrewshire Council, are along the north and south banks of the Clyde. Work has also just been done to consider a corridor to the east, in the Commonwealth games and Clyde gateway area.

If we are to change the modal split in relation to bus rapid transit, there must be high-quality infrastructure and vehicles, reliability and a saving on journey time. Members of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee will be familiar with theories of transport, but it is worth holding on to those points. That is the sort of bus rapid transit product that we are talking about when we talk about fastlink.

As part of the development, we have been in pretty close discussions with Transport Scotland and, in particular, Glasgow City Council officers about how to crack the issue—again, it is about funding. During the past few weeks, the discussions stalled a bit as people's efforts were directed into considering what the announcement on GARL meant.

Fastlink is being developed, and some corridors are better developed than others. I cannot off the top of my head give you a breakdown of the costs of all the corridors, but I will be happy to follow up on that if the committee needs me to do so. On the timing of the programme, I think that there will probably be one or two years' development from the design and applications and approvals phases to construction. Again, I am happy to follow that up if you need more detailed programme information.

Can you give us more detail on the corridors on the north and south banks of the Clyde? Your answer was a wee bit vague. Will you drop in some place names? I know that some people here are from other parts of Scotland, but we will keep them right.

Sorry. I can do that—

It does not go to Cathcart.

The corridor runs along the north bank of the Clyde, down the Broomielaw to the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre, which is one of the key nodes of demand on that corridor. Then it goes west into West Dunbartonshire, as far as the Golden Jubilee hospital. We have been discussing how we phase that and what we can afford. There is a balance of costs and benefits.

Are you looking for an off-road, dedicated right of way, as far as possible?

There will be segregation where that is possible—that is the difficulty in trying to retrofit. That takes me back to my point about modal shift and the need to attract people with journey-time savings and high-quality vehicles and infrastructure.

On the south bank, the corridor runs over the squinty bridge—as it is now known—to the new Southern general hospital and on to Braehead and potentially Renfrew. We have been considering how we can penetrate Renfrew town centre, but that is difficult technically. I am sure that Mr Darracott can give more information on that.

I have described the northern and southern corridors. Work in the east is at an earlier stage, but we have looked initially at some corridors with Glasgow City Council colleagues.

You mentioned that discussions have taken place. I think that you indicated that Transport Scotland has been involved, but have you had any discussions with the Scottish Government about fastlink? What support, financial or otherwise, has it offered?

I may have to defer to my colleagues on the issue. We will have put the case for fastlink in the course of the normal dialogue that takes place with Scottish Government colleagues in the transport directorate, which sponsors the regional transport partnerships. I am pretty sure that a few years ago, before I was involved with fastlink, SPT submitted a document to the Scottish Government setting out the initial business case for the project. Like most projects, fastlink has moved on since then, so we need to provide the best information. A number of discussions have taken place, but I am happy to supply the committee with further information.

You may not be aware of the fact that last week, in answer to a written parliamentary question from me about whether he would offer financial support for what I called the "Fastlink project in Glasgow", Stewart Stevenson, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, said that he would send his officials to speak to Glasgow City Council. Have they arrived yet?

Not as far as I am aware. As I said, we are always ready and willing to talk to anyone who wants to travel along the M8 or, preferably, by rail to Glasgow.

If agencies in the west of Scotland are invited to bid for the joined-up route option—the gold-plated option—do they have stuff that they made earlier ready to submit?

As I explained, each corridor is at a different stage, but two corridors are well developed. There is a level of detail that could easily be updated. That is part of the work that we are sponsoring, with Glasgow City Council colleagues. We have a steering group that also includes members from West Dunbartonshire Council and Renfrewshire Council. We fully appreciate that there are key demand areas in Glasgow, but we must get the regional picture for fastlink. We accept that there are questions of phasing and affordability and that, in the short term, fastlink may serve only some areas, but many of the benefits will come from joining up with areas beyond those. A bid could easily be prepared.

I echo those comments. A steering group has been working on the project for two or three years. Earlier this year, an outline business case was discussed and presented to Transport Scotland, with a detailed breakdown of costs on a stage-by-stage basis. There is on-going dialogue between the partners that are involved in the project and Transport Scotland. The partners would be prepared to submit a strong, robust case in support of fastlink, if they were requested to do so.

The kind of fastlink that you would like to see would involve the two well-developed corridors plus, potentially, the Dalmarnock extension. You are not really in the market for a few bus lanes; it is important that fastlink is considered as a sensible transport project.

We describe fastlink as bus rapid transit, because we look at it as a regional network. We must remember that different modes do different things. We would support improvements to normal bus services, but fastlink is a step beyond that. Fastlink is only one element of a whole package of improvements to existing bus services, the provision of a bus and rapid transit system and the modernisation of the subway system. Our study and indeed the strategic transport projects review confirmed potential in the longer term to convert some of the existing heavy rail network to light rail, which performs better on a suburban network. At the top of that tree is the existing heavy rail network. I am sorry if I am confusing the question about fastlink, but it is a bus and rapid transit system that has to have that quality to take the step up from regular bus services.

This question is for SPT initially: do you consider that the Clyde fastlink project is a reasonable alternative to GARL for access to Glasgow airport?

I recall that a scheme was looked at to connect through Renfrew to the airport, although I would have to get back to you on the detail. My recollection from that time is that it would do a different job from the Glasgow airport rail link. It would go through so many suburbs that it would be following a different route for a different purpose. If demand grew to a high level and it went to the airport, it would be doing something different from what the Glasgow airport rail link might do.

In a spirit of openness and given everything else that we have spoken about, if a decision were made that Glasgow airport rail link will simply not happen, of course we would look at all the alternatives, as we said, but we are in limbo at the moment. I hope that that answers your question.

You said that your officials had been speaking about fastlink to Government officials. I have heard that Councillor Purcell's officials have not been speaking to the Government about fastlink. Is that so?

Glasgow City Council officials have been in discussion with the Government since its election, as have I, about a number of transport projects, including Clyde fastlink. However, at the moment, it is clear to me that Clyde fastlink is not an appropriate alternative to the Glasgow airport rail link. It is a regional transport project that stands in its own right, so it is correct to say that at this stage we are not discussing it as an alternative. That will be the case unless our SPT colleagues can advise us that a form of fastlink would deliver the same advantages and economic benefits that the Glasgow airport rail link would deliver. I have to say that I doubt that. I do not see how even a proper bus rapid transit system could connect Glasgow city centre and the airport within 15 minutes.

You also have to remember that a rail connection between Glasgow airport and the city centre would provide a rail connection to other places. The convener mentioned crossrail. Linking the airport to the city centre and then to crossrail would be of huge economic benefit to the whole of Scotland and would put us in an extremely competitive position against other parts of the United Kingdom and Europe as regards inward investment, for example.

Mr Hoskins made an important point earlier about our seeing transport infrastructure not solely as a debate on how we link the airport with the city centre; it is also about ensuring that we have a balance. We believed that we had that balance through an agreement with the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland about what was seen as a national project and other projects that were our responsibility, either in the Clyde valley working with surrounding local authorities, or in Glasgow, where we would create a network of different modes of transport that would contribute to economic growth as well as to a much more sustainable transport infrastructure. We do not want the point to be lost. We feel that we have had the debate about the Government's clear view of which projects are national projects and which are our responsibilities, either in the city or with our partners in the city region.

However, as I said in response to an earlier question, if the conclusion is that the Glasgow airport rail link is to be cancelled or postponed, and there is an offer to consider all the other projects as some form of alternative—either an airport link or another transport project that can be funded and delivered—we are pragmatic people and of course we will want to sit down and discuss such alternatives with colleagues in Parliament and elsewhere.

Have you or your officials had any recent meetings with the Government about the Clyde fastlink, in any shape or form?

I can speak only for myself, and the answer is no. I cannot tell the committee when our officials last met representatives of the Government, although I can provide that information after the meeting.

We meet regularly. We meet Transport Scotland and city council transport officers all the time. That is our day-to-day business. There will have been recent meetings on fastlink. We can provide information on meetings between ourselves, Glasgow City Council officers and Transport Scotland officials to discuss the details of fastlink as well as other issues.

In case I was not clear in my earlier answer, I should add that we had accepted that Clyde fastlink was not included among the national projects that were identified by the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland. At least until now, it has been a responsibility for us, as a local and regional project. I would not expect there to have been many recent meetings with either the Government or Transport Scotland, except to discuss the wider issue of how the different transport modes and pieces of transport infrastructure that we are all attempting to fund and create will complement one another. We would welcome any meeting to discuss financial support for the fastlink project.

We are talking a lot about the costs of GARL, but what role does the Clyde fastlink have in transport plans for the Commonwealth games?

It was not included as a guarantee for the Commonwealth games.

What is SPT's view about that?

I echo what Councillor Purcell has said. It is not just about the games; there is also a huge regeneration in the Clyde gateway. We have a member of staff who is seconded to that for a day a week, specifically to help with transport. Fastlink is included among a basket of other things such as the redevelopment of Dalmarnock station. Dalmarnock station has been discussed in connection with the games but, in fact, it is very important for the future of that area. I go back to the point about the legacy of the games. We absolutely see the games as being important, but there are wider issues to do with the Clyde gateway and the regeneration of the area. We are in the mix, looking at all the transport options including fastlink.

To reiterate my earlier point about corridors, we have been supporting the work that has been led by Glasgow City Council officers to consider how to develop some initial corridors. However, it is very difficult to retrofit.

If I could perhaps correct Charlie Gordon, the cabinet secretary did announce extra moneys for fastlink in the budget, and Dalmarnock station is being upgraded, as per the budget.

I was relying on the transport minister's written answer.

Well, you were in the chamber for the budget statement.

Order. This is not a debate between members. We will have the opportunity to put questions to ministers later.

Thank you. I wanted to correct what has been said. The details are on record, in the budget statement.

I have the SPT's fastlink document in front of me, and no doubt the witnesses will be familiar with what it says. It mentions the "Eastern route and Commonwealth Games". It says that the route will help to

"leave behind a real, positive and lasting legacy for the people of the East End of Glasgow."

I presume that you would agree with that. How many passengers do you expect to use fastlink when and if it comes about?

I would like you to confirm something else for me. Your paper mentions the benefits of fastlink and says:

"Using a diesel-electric hybrid vehicle, Fastlink will reduce environmental impacts and reduce contributions to pollution from transport helping to drive forward a greener and cleaner public transport network".

I think that that is wonderful, and that fastlink is perhaps the project for the future. Is that what you envisage fastlink will be? According to your report, it will not just be a bus but will go on the eastern route during the Commonwealth games and will leave behind a lasting legacy. Is that still SPT's vision for fastlink?

It is helpful that you have pointed to the report that we gave to members, which is entitled "Vision for Fastlink". Our vision has not changed since then. Again, convener, I am happy to come back with the patronage estimates that have been done for the various corridors because there will be various ranges depending on where they go. I am flicking through the report, but I do not think that that detail is in there.

Our vision sets out what we want to achieve in terms of vehicles, but the reality is the technology that is available at the moment. We are one of the lead agencies sponsoring and funding hybrid vehicles at the moment, and we are trying to learn a lot of lessons from that to see whether we could use them or whether we need more traditional vehicles of a higher quality that might eventually move on to something like hybrid technology. Our vision is clear about where we want to go. There will be a more detailed plan showing what the vehicles will look like and what technology they use as we work through the project.

The routes are costed in your report. You mention that the overall cost will be £150 million to £160 million.

I am asking the question because I want to see a transport link to Glasgow airport; I want to see crossrail. However, GARL without crossrail is unworkable, but fastlink could be much more workable. The figures quoted said that only seven people were going to use GARL to go to the airport as opposed to using the shuttle bus system that is in place at the moment. Those are the official figures given at the committee meeting.

If your own cost estimate for fastlink is £150 million to £160 million, you must have done some work. You mention the benefits of fastlink. How many people going to the airport do you think could benefit? You could have a fast fastlink. How many people would benefit from the fastlink going to the east end of Glasgow and delivering for the Commonwealth games? People do not produce a report and then say that it is just something that they have been thinking about but they do not know whether it is going to work.

There are a number of questions there and I will try my best to answer them.

Our paper does not actually state that the route to the airport is one of the corridors, so there is no patronage estimate for fastlink if it goes to the airport. I must apologise; I did not realise that we were going to go into the issue of patronage, but I would be happy to come back to the committee with those patronage estimates. We do have them and I would be happy to provide them.

We can clarify the assumptions behind the overall estimates of £150 million to £160 million. We are talking about early-stage work on feasibility, so it is important that those assumptions are understood. We have assumed that the project will be delivered in a certain time, but we have also been looking at how we might phase it. It is clear that there ain't £150 million around for us to build fastlink tomorrow—that is the message that we are getting—so we have been looking at how we can phase it and make it affordable. That work is under way, and I am happy to come back to the committee with the patronage estimates.

We have been struggling to find a figure in the draft budget to set against Clyde fastlink. What the cabinet secretary said about that in his statement was welcome, but we cannot find a figure in the draft budget that would enable us to say to the committee today, "That will help us to do phase 1, or a part of phase 1, or to develop an alternative."

I promise that I will provide the factual information on this, but the last time that I was aware of a Scottish Government official contacting our officials to discuss Clyde fastlink was shortly before the budget announcement, and we were asked what we could do with fastlink for a figure of £6 million to £12 million. The answer that our official gave was, "Well, phase 1 is £40 million," so we can get around 25 per cent done from the city centre towards the SECC.

Before we finish, Councillor Purcell mentioned the crossrail—[Interruption.] Order.

Councillor Purcell mentioned the crossrail project in passing. It would bring benefits across the region to rail capacity that would not be limited to Glasgow airport. Part of the rationale for not including it as a priority in the strategic transport projects review was an alternative, more expensive piece of infrastructure for Glasgow public transport that began at about £1.5 billion. That is clearly not going to happen now, so would you say that the wider case for crossrail is at least as strong as—if not stronger than—it was before the GARL announcement was made?

That is certainly the conclusion that Transport Scotland must have come to now that it has recommended the cancellation of Glasgow airport rail link.

Does SPT want to add anything on that?

We have been working with Transport Scotland and Glasgow City Council to look at project 24, which is the term that is being used for the west of Scotland rail enhancements. I am not aware that those discussions have reached a conclusion on the best fit of crossrail, light rail and bus rapid transit. That whole pot is still being mixed, I guess. The proposed crossrail infrastructure was intended to do a couple of things, such as increase capacity at Central station, and not just enhance cross-city journeys, so that has been part of the discussions, and it will continue to be so.

Do any of our three witnesses have any other comments to make on the wider transport aspects of the draft budget beyond the issues that have been raised already?

SPT cuts across all modes of transport and I have already touched on some of the work that we have been doing and which will be coming forward. We have spoken internally about plans for the modernisation of the subway and plans to glue Glasgow transport together through integrated ticketing. We are working on those plans at the moment and I am sure that we will be coming to officials and members with them in the future.

I thank all three of you for your time in answering questions today. On a couple of occasions, we identified information that you could provide in writing to the committee. If you keep in touch with the clerks, they will make sure that it is circulated to members.

Before I close the meeting, Des McNulty wants to raise a separate issue for discussion.

I think that it would be appropriate to reflect briefly on the tragic collision at the Halkirk level crossing on 29 September. Issues might well emerge from that accident that the committee should look at once the investigation into the specific causes has been established. There are 23 ungated level crossings in Scotland. Bearing in mind the circumstances of the tragedy and the fact that there have been previous incidents at such crossings, it might be appropriate for the committee to identify a way of looking into the issue.

I am conscious that the accident happened in Rob Gibson's part of the world, but I am just raising the general issue. Perhaps it would be appropriate for him to say something about this as well.

I attended the Caithness transport forum on Friday, at which people were very careful about their remarks. They were not making over-the-top claims about solutions, and they want to wait for the results of the investigation.

We know that a number of ungated crossings are in the far north and north-east of Scotland. They tend to be on railways that have lower levels of usage, which is why that level of expenditure was undertaken.

It would be a good idea for the committee to wait until we get a proper report on accidents that have happened and a clear picture from Network Rail and the Office of Rail Regulation of the experience of passengers and drivers of the crossings that exist.

Of course, we all feel very sad for the family of the people who were killed and for the driver of the train, who will have to live with what happened for the rest of his life even though it was not necessarily his fault—who knows? We should await the results of the investigation and then discuss the issue as part of our future business.

Yes, it is important to recognise Rob Gibson's comments. Is there a willingness in the committee to consider taking evidence once the appropriate information is in the public domain?

I am prepared to consider a scoping paper, perhaps done by the clerk. There are all sorts of issues. They might not be constitutional, but the institutional relationships are complex when Network Rail is involved. I do not think that we could just say that we are going to start taking evidence on the subject; I would like the clerks to do a wee scoping or issues paper for us first.

We will look at the opportunities to pursue the issue in future and report back to members.

Meeting closed at 17:16.