Official Report 386KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the fifth meeting of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee. This is the third meeting at which we will take oral evidence on the general principles of the bill. Michael Matheson MSP has submitted his apologies. I remind members and others who are attending the meeting to ensure that mobile phones and pagers have been switched off.
I would like to deal with some of the objections from Renfrewshire Council, the first of which concerns the controversial issue of the impact on St James park. Do you now accept that the rail link has to go through the park?
The council agreed to the principle of the proposal back in December, but we have always had a concern about the impact that the rail link would have on the 22 football pitches at St James park. As far as we are concerned, the principle is absolutely sound, and we are trying to achieve a formal legal agreement with the promoter, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, to ensure that we can maintain the level of provision that is currently provided by the 22 football pitches continuously throughout the construction process and thereafter.
St James park busy at the weekend is really a most impressive sight. It seems as if you are brokering a deal, and you have not mentioned the improved changing facilities that you hope to get out of that deal. There is councillor representation on the SPT and I am sure that the legal agreement that you have spoken about is coming along. Will that lead to your withdrawing your objection?
Absolutely. As I say, the council agreed formally on 15 December to accept the principle of the rail link. Later, in March, the council agreed to continue that support but to make it subject to the reaching of a legal agreement on the provision of football pitches and the upgrading of changing facilities, as you say, and parking facilities. If such an agreement can be reached, the council will withdraw its objection.
You have commented on the present state of Paisley Gilmour Street station. Unless money is invested in upgrading it, could the condition of the station dissuade people from using GARL?
I am sure that our colleagues in SPT will be able to give you chapter and verse on this, but the station is one of the busiest in the country and is much in demand. Our practical concern is that the station is the only stop along the rail link. An attraction for the council, because of the wider social and economic benefits of the rail link, is that Paisley Gilmour Street station would become more of a hub. There would be additional trains into Glasgow every hour, and there would be a direct link to the airport, which is a big local employer.
You have moved us on to the consideration of finances. In your reports to Renfrewshire Council in December and March, you say that the project will have no financial implications for the council. Glasgow City Council has indicated that it will consider an approach from SPT to help with GARL revenue costs. Given that Renfrewshire Council will benefit if the project goes ahead, do you not think that you, too, should contribute to it?
To be honest, no. We were never asked to make such a contribution and have never considered the prospect of doing so. Speaking on the council's behalf, I have to say that the council has no intention of making a formal contribution to the project.
If the council has not been asked to make a contribution, it cannot debate the question whether it would do so. If it were so asked, would its support in principle change?
No. I just do not think that the council is able to provide financial support to the project.
Renfrewshire Council is one of the mandatory consultees on the bill. We have already identified what I consider to be a gap in the process, which is that you have not been asked to make a financial contribution to the project. Are you happy with the overall consultation? Do you have any specific concerns about the promoter's environmental statement?
The council has been happy with the consultation. We feel that we were consulted regularly and that sufficient information flowed regularly between the two parties. Over the past 12 months or so, I have sat in on a number of consultations, particularly with groups that had an interest in the playing fields, user groups and so on, and I—and the council—feel that there was a considerable amount of public consultation.
Do you agree with the promoter that
We stand advised by the promoter's technical evidence, which suggests that there will be a longer-term modal shift and a corresponding reduction in road traffic volume. I am not avoiding your question but, on a more general point, the council has been concerned for some time that, to the west of Glasgow, the M8 between junctions 26 and 29 from Hillington to the St James interchange is running at capacity. We do not feel that GARL alone would substantially reduce the continuing congestion problems along that stretch of the motorway. The council wants to work with SPT and the Scottish Executive, which is currently looking at congestion through the Glasgow corridor along the M8. Despite the investment in GARL, we will continue to argue for improvements to the motorway in order to accommodate the expected continued traffic growth.
Do you support the promoter's claim that GARL will lead to the creation of at least 65 jobs a year for 20 years in Glasgow and Renfrewshire?
Yes. We participated in the Roger Tym and Partners study and David Keddie, the lead consultant, spoke to us on a few occasions. Much of what he detailed in that study was information that we held already. The figures in the study are reasonably conservative and we agree with them.
I was coming to that very point. Like the promoter, I will be specific. The promoter says that GARL will enable
If we were in Paisley, I could show you the two sites in question—they are both town-centre car parks in council ownership to the north of Gilmour Street station.
I have parked in them.
A neighbouring owner to one of those sites has shown an interest in a joint development. In fact, we are currently in discussions with him.
The promoter also claims that GARL would generate
On the basis that the consultancy studies are professionally done, we would probably support the notion that GARL is bound to attract wider investment. Consultancy studies often come up with precise figures because of the way in which their analysis is done. I work on the economic development side of things in and around the centre of Paisley on a daily basis. Over and above the specific schemes on the two sites that I have identified, the council is working through a regeneration programme—a joint venture with the Royal Bank of Scotland—to improve the Cart corridor, which runs north from the centre of Paisley direct to the airport. We are working with Communities Scotland and other bodies on a whole range of urban renewal initiatives. We are talking about a mixed-use environment with housing, industry and the like. If we can achieve a sizeable investment through the project and if we can also improve Paisley Gilmour Street station to make it a hub on this important line, wider investment will be made across the economy. I will not put my hat on the figure being £2.1 million per annum, but I cannot help but think that we will see wider economic improvements.
In that case—please tell me if I am wrong—is it not fair to say that your council finds favour with the scheme? In general, the improvement in access to Paisley from Glasgow, Ayrshire and Glasgow airport will benefit the initiatives that you are supporting at the moment or that you would like to see happen. Although that is the case, the council has commissioned no studies; it has done nothing other than to contribute—essentially free of cost—to the studies that have been undertaken. The council has not done anything to come in behind the scheme other than to say that the airport link goes with the grain of what it wants to do.
By and large, I agree with the statement. The scheme goes with the grain of what the council is trying to achieve in terms of accessibility. To be honest, the information that the Roger Tym and Partners study provided on investment in the centre of Paisley comes directly from information that we had commissioned previously as part of our work to attract partner and investor interest in two sites.
Do you have any other comments on the bill?
No. The council's view was expressed clearly in what we said in March. We appreciate that the airport is one of the key economic drivers for Renfrewshire. It has a master plan, which is being worked on at the moment and which shows considerable year-on-year growth. About 5,000 or 6,000 people are employed at the airport, many of whom are local people. The scheme will improve their access to work.
I will ask about an issue that has been raised with us—the graves of cholera victims. Are those graves marked somewhere? Some people say that they are on one site and other people say that they are on another. Some even say that they are under the M8. Does the council have records that identify where the graves are?
I am not entirely sure about the detail of that, but I can respond to the question in due course.
That would be good.
I understand that the council does not have much information on the subject, but I recollect that the general belief is that graves were disturbed in the construction of the motorway a good number of years ago and that the project would not directly affect the graves to which people refer. I can say in due course whether we have precise mapping of the graves.
If the graves were disturbed in the construction of the M8, a record would have been made of that.
I expect so. However, as I said, I have not seen any records and I am not sure whether we hold details.
You can provide us with further information.
Will do.
I apologise to Michael Matheson. I said that he would be absent for the whole meeting, but it is nice to see that he is here.
The traffic got the better of me; I do not know where the suggestion came from that I would not be here today.
My questions are on a similar theme but are for the other two panel members. Do you agree with the promoter's claimed economic benefits for Ayrshire and Inverclyde? In Ayrshire and Inverclyde, the promoter suggests that five jobs will be created per annum, which is 100 jobs over 20 years, and that additional gross added value of £160,000 per annum will be generated.
Inverclyde Council broadly supports an assessment that improved opportunities for economic development and regeneration in Inverclyde will be created. The council has not commissioned independent data on or an economic appraisal of GARL, but it has of course noted the documentation that the promoter has provided and to which Mr Darracott referred—the economic appraisal by Roger Tym and Partners.
I support that statement. The Ayrshire authorities have long thought that improving capacity between Paisley and Glasgow Central station is a key component of developing a broader look at how the west of Scotland's economy functions. We are experiencing something of a rundown in jobs in Ayrshire and an increase in people travelling further to access the labour market.
Can you be specific about the lines that you are talking about? We are dealing with the line between Glasgow and Paisley.
Clearly, the Glasgow airport rail link is one of the key building blocks for the improvement of services to the whole of the south-west corridor. We believe that the capacity between Glasgow and Paisley is currently constraining the operation of broader services in the area. An increase in capacity would allow a good deal more flexibility to travel in the south-west corridor.
So you think that increased capacity on the line would make a difference in South Ayrshire as well as North Ayrshire.
It would certainly make a difference, particularly as we are about to submit the next joint structure plan, which looks at a range of regeneration and urban expansion areas that are specifically linked to the rail lines throughout North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire. A good deal of capacity is needed for freight movement as well as passenger movement. There are potential capacity constraints on the movement of coal from Hunterston. There are longer-term options for a deepwater transhipment hub at Hunterston, which would almost certainly require additional capacity on the rail lines in the area. With Prestwick airport located in the area, there will be a need for increased capacity. The Glasgow airport rail link is one of the key components in getting additional capacity in the corridor.
You specifically mentioned Hunterston. I asked about the wider economic benefits to the area and the jobs that will be created. Do you have a specific idea of where extra jobs may be created?
The initial analysis that we have done suggests that it is likely that additional job capacity will be created within the central Glasgow area, as people orientate towards the leisure, business or service sectors. The conclusion of the studies that have been done seems to be that people in Ayrshire will be drawn increasingly to that labour market, in which there is currently a shortage of staff. We see that as a natural draw for people in the area.
I have three brief points to add. First, Inverclyde can be associated with the positive comments that have been made on the potential for developing rail capacity through GARL and the track extensions that will be provided. We often hear that peak services from Inverclyde to the important city region to which Mr Johnson referred are under pressure, so there is potential—I emphasise the word "potential"—for additional services in the future.
One objective of GARL is to provide the extra services that you mentioned, but it is also envisaged that it will integrate with the existing transport network. How will the bill enable GARL to do that? You said that the link will reduce the volume of traffic on the Ayrshire and Paisley to Glasgow corridors, but it is interesting that we are getting contradictory answers on that point. Do you have any evidence to support your view?
We do not have any independent evidence other than that which has been provided by the promoter. We are considering the instruction of further economic appraisals, but at present we do not have any quantifiable evidence that I can lead in front of the committee on either the economic benefits or the potential impediments.
We are in the same position. We have not commissioned a further study of the economic aspects. There is a general perception that there are considerable capacity problems on the M8. That is supported by the work that has been done on the joint transport strategy, of which we are a part. Anything that can be done to alleviate those problems will benefit travel within the area. That is why we are saying that the improved capacity that GARL will create for services to both Ayrshire and Inverclyde will considerably improve the current position on the A737 and the M77 through Glasgow, where there are substantial delays.
Do you agree that GARL will
The answer is that we hope so. At the moment, between 400,000 and 500,000 people a year travel by rail from Prestwick airport to the centre of town. Anyone who travels on that line regularly will know that there are often capacity issues at certain times of day, particularly in the peak hours.
I ask you to put this on the record. You have spoken about the benefits for Ayrshire, but those are predominantly for the residents of North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire.
They are predominantly so, but if there were capacity upgrades on the line, there would hopefully be improvement to the line between Kilmarnock and Glasgow, which is currently partly hampered by capacity constraints on the other lines.
But GARL, as proposed, would have no direct benefit for the residents of East Ayrshire.
It would have no direct benefit.
Do you believe, Mr Malone, that GARL can provide extra trains for the Inverclyde area? Do you think that that would be at the expense of delivering more trains for North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire?
I would not seek to make that statement. In future, it might be possible to deal with the pressure point on peak-hours services from Gourock and Greenock and from Wemyss Bay into Glasgow Central. The potential for complementing or adding to the rail capacity through track extension, thus relieving the pressure between Glasgow and Paisley Glimour Street, could be of some assistance for peak-hours travel in Inverclyde in the future. I say that bearing in mind the proposals for about 2,700 new homes in Inverclyde over the next five years. Proximity to the Glasgow city region and to Glasgow airport would be a major selling point for Inverclyde.
Would GARL also aid the regeneration of Gourock station?
I believe that it would. Gourock station is a proposed transport interchange. Inverclyde Council is extremely supportive of the integration of transport modes there. It is a bit of a dream ticket, given all the transport modes that operate in the area and the potential new link to Glasgow airport in particular. There are the ferry links, the bus links and the taxis, and there is even a proposed cycleway and walkway for the area, with an extension of the N75 cycleway. Those links, together with the potential link through a hub to Glasgow airport with GARL, make a very strong argument for supporting the Gourock transport interchange. That would serve the existing rail-travelling public as well as enhancing the links with Argyll and Bute and the Cowal peninsula in particular, and could perhaps connect with any future proposals for the marine national park. There are good and strong links that could be developed through the proposal.
Do you think that GARL could reduce the number of car journeys through Inverclyde?
I think that there is a strong possibility that that will occur. The volume of traffic might reduce, lowering the pressures on the M8 in the area. That could reduce travel times, and it could well reduce pollution levels. However, the council has not made any direct independent economic appraisal to support my statement.
Is the belief that traffic might be reduced really a belief that the increase in traffic on the M8 might be delayed for a number of years? Are you able to comment on that?
I believe that a whole range of measures could be involved. A number of factors could in future reduce the effect of the growing number of car journeys or of increased travel times caused by congestion. There is a potential package in the form of M77 completion and the local M8 solutions that can be offered in the congested area between junctions 26 and 29, together with any other transport initiatives that might be proposed to reduce traffic volumes. However, as I said, I do not have any direct evidence to support that.
Do you have anything else to add that you think we might have missed and which should be on the record?
No.
Thank you very much for your evidence. I now suspend the meeting for approximately 15 minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
In the absence of Margaret Jamieson, who will rejoin us soon, I reconvene the meeting and welcome our second panel of witnesses: Stewart Whitehill, transport manager for Fairline Coaches Ltd; Ron McAulay and Bill Lynas, respectively director and commercial schemes sponsor for Network Rail in Scotland; and John McGlynn, chairman of the Scottish Independent Airport Park and Ride Association.
Hi. My questions are primarily directed at Network Rail. The promoter has highlighted the fact that the proposed service will operate during a limited number of hours rather than on a 24-hour basis because
I am happy to answer that in so far as I can. I do not have with me details of what the additional costs might be, but I can take the question away and find the answer if that would help.
I point out to all present that mobile phones interfere with our sound system. Please ensure that any mobile phones are switched off.
Does that mean that, if GARL was to go ahead, the service could never run on a 24-hour basis because of the problems that Network Rail would encounter in carrying out maintenance?
I would never rule it out completely, but accommodating 24-hour running would cause us a lot of difficulty. We would need to consider how we could include within the timetable periods in which we could do maintenance work.
Would 24-hour running be feasible, then?
It depends what one means by feasible. We would need to consider the implications. We might find that the costs outweighed the benefits.
If expansion at Glasgow airport meant that flights started to run throughout the night, as happens at the likes of Manchester airport, the operators of Glasgow airport might suggest that it would be beneficial to have rail services running throughout the night. Would Network Rail say that that would not be possible because it would be too costly for Network Rail?
Frankly, if we are to maintain the railway so that trains can run over it, we need time in which we can carry out maintenance. If the trains run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in theory we have no time in which to carry out such work. In that situation, we would need to find a pattern that would allow us periods of time in which we could carry out maintenance work.
Does Network Rail operate lines to other airports in the United Kingdom that are open on a 24-hour basis?
I think that the Gatwick link has 24-hour frequency, albeit that the service is reduced during the night. The issue is partly related to the availability of alternative routes between the airport and the city centre—there are alternative routes to Gatwick. It might be possible partly to reroute the GARL services, which would give us opportunities for maintenance, but we would have to assess the costs and benefits of doing that, taking account of the additional cost of operating such services and the number of passengers who would use them.
The bill's promoter intends there to be a reliable, punctual, 15-minute service from Glasgow Central station to the airport. Are you confident that such a service can be delivered?
The modelling that has been carried out so far suggests that such a service is possible and that performance on the line should improve. The modelling is based on performance in 2004, but the rail link would not be in place until—I think—2010 at the earliest. As you would expect, we expect improvements in the overall running of the railway between 2004 and 2010. At this stage and given the current position, we do not think that there would be a detrimental effect on performance.
There will be no detrimental effect.
Modelling that has been carried out and the baseline that has been used suggest that there will be an improvement in performance.
Michael Matheson asked about 24-hour operation. Leaving aside the engineering implications, what would be the implications for you if Glasgow Central station were to close between 1 am and 5 am, rather than 12 am and 6 am, which would give an extra hour on either side? Such a marginal change might not be sufficient to enable you to improve the service for people who needed to use GARL, but are there costs involved in keeping the station open that mean that it would not be worth while to do so?
I would not say that it would not be worth while, but the costs would have to be assessed. There would be security and staffing costs, given the additional hours of work that would be involved, and there would be a cost in relation to the reduction in hours in which maintenance crews could work. Imagine that crews have a seven-hour window in which to work: if the window is reduced to five hours, the amount of work that can be carried out is limited.
Are you saying that there would be not only engineering costs but costs in the station itself, which have not yet been assessed?
The costs have not yet been assessed. Another matter to take into consideration is that the other services that operate out of Glasgow Central station run between about 6 am and midnight. If GARL operated on a 24-hour basis, people could get to Glasgow Central during the night, but there would be no services to take them to other parts of the city, which might have an effect on the number of people who would be interested in using GARL at night.
If services were to run until 1 am, who would pick up the additional costs?
The costs would come back to Network Rail, but we would seek some kind of recompense.
Who from?
In effect from the train operators, who would be benefiting from the additional train journeys.
That is helpful, thank you.
Sorry, but are you asking about improvements to the infrastructure or improvements to train services?
I am asking what scope there would be for additional services to the three areas I mentioned through infrastructure improvements.
The GARL infrastructure will be provided primarily to meet GARL's needs. Performance modelling has focused on the balance of GARL's needs and the relevant infrastructure. There has been no performance modelling to ascertain whether additional services to Ayrshire or Inverclyde could be accommodated. We would need to undertake work on that, but we believe that GARL would provide only a limited amount of additional capacity and that that capacity would relate—sensibly—just to GARL's needs.
That is helpful. You might be aware that the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland has stated that if the GARL proposal goes ahead, there will be an urgent need for an access audit of Glasgow Central station. Can you inform the committee whether that audit has been undertaken?
I am not aware of the project undertaking an access audit, although one could have taken place—I cannot say for sure.
Right. I presume that if the GARL proposal gets consent, Network Rail would undertake such an audit as a matter of urgency.
Yes, we would think it appropriate to do that. Glasgow Central generally complies with the access requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Currently, there are issues around the removal of car parking facilities, but the promoter is actively working on replicating such facilities in other ways. However, it would probably be appropriate to undertake a full access audit to ensure that all reasonable steps have been taken.
You will know that the promoter plans an extension to platform 11a at Glasgow Central to accommodate the airport train. Prior to the GARL plans, did Network Rail have plans to extend that platform?
No, we had no specific plans to do so, although we undertook a study with SPT back in 1999—I think—to assess the engineering feasibility of such an extension. However, that was not taken further.
Before Brian Monteith asks his questions, I invite one of the witnesses to say a few words, because I understand that Network Rail's objection has been withdrawn. Can one of you give us a quick update?
Yes. I am pleased to say that we have now withdrawn our objection, which was submitted mainly to protect Network Rail's position as a statutory undertaker. Obviously, in a heavily regulated industry, we have legal obligations to maintain ownership of and access to all our operational railways and adjoining land. Some of the bill's conditions or terms put that position in jeopardy. However, we have negotiated protective provisions with SPT that have allowed us to withdraw our objection. The letter of withdrawal should be with the committee.
Yes, it certainly is. I understand that there was a generic problem with which the promoter has now dealt.
Does Network Rail agree with Renfrewshire Council that an upgrade of Paisley Gilmour Street station is required?
Renfrewshire Council has raised certain issues about that station and it probably has a point in some respects. As most people will know, Gilmour Street station is a relatively old building that has constraints on it, largely because of its age and the fact that it is a listed building. I believe that part of the GARL project is to consider making improvements to Gilmour Street, which would do no harm.
Are you convinced that the promoter will take all appropriate precautions on station and line safety and security?
We have been working with the promoter on all aspects of the project, including safety and security. The agreement that we have reached with the promoter is that the project will be developed in accordance with our safety and engineering standards, so we have no issues with what the promoter has done to date on that.
Has Network Rail provided estimates for items such as signalling or overhead line electrification, or for works on existing structures? If not, have you endorsed the estimates prepared by the promoter?
We have reviewed the costs provided by the promoter and we are of the view that they are in the right ball park, if you like.
The term "ball park" is wide, and rail investment has a history—both in Scotland and in the United Kingdom—of price inflation. Can you be more specific than "ball park"?
Our review is not complete; it is an interim review. I am loth to put a number on things at this stage, because the review has yet to be completed, but the interim review suggests that the figures quoted by the promoter give quite a good degree of comfort.
When might your review be complete?
Probably in a couple of months.
Would you like to make any other comments on the bill?
Now that we have reached agreement with the promoter on protective provisions, we are reasonably comfortable. Generally, we support the bill. We welcome investment in the railway; we welcome bringing people on to the railway; and we welcome the better integration of transport.
I want to go back to the questions we were asking about disabled passengers. What is the approximate distance between platform 11a and the entrance to Glasgow Central station? I am thinking about elderly passengers, disabled passengers and passengers with heavy luggage.
I am guessing, but it must be about 100m, or perhaps more.
Will you come back to us on that?
Yes, we can certainly find out.
I address my next questions to John McGlynn. Will you give us more detail on your proposed park-and-ride scheme and how it would integrate with GARL?
Yes—but first I must declare an interest to the committee, to avoid any doubt. I am here today as the chairman of the Scottish Independent Airport Park and Ride Association. As a private individual, I have a significant interest in one of the pieces of land that may be affected if this bill is passed, but my comments today are based exclusively on my role as the chairman of SIAPRA.
You have partly answered my second question, so I will roll it into my third. Has the promoter fully considered your proposals and has it properly assessed GARL's impact on car park operators?
No. I have no firm evidence to support that view but, given that I have not been spoken to or even had the courtesy of a reply to my request in 2004 for a meeting, I think that it is fair to assume that the promoter is not interested in considering such matters.
You state that GARL's operating times are "inadequate" because in future many flights from Glasgow airport will use off-peak time slots. What evidence do you have of that? Could such passengers be transported from the airport by bus?
I know from 12 years' experience of the parking industry that with the best of intentions people book to fly out at 8 in the morning and to return at 6 at night but, as anyone who has ever travelled abroad will tell you, some matters are simply outwith people's control—or, indeed, the airline's control—and delays can happen. As many MSPs from different parties have pointed out, we still do not have a joined-up public transport system in this country. This morning, I took the train to Edinburgh, because the service from Glasgow to Edinburgh is great and so convenient. However, until there is similar connectivity in the rest of Scotland, the project will not work.
One of the promoter's policy objectives is
I do not believe that the bill will do that at all. People park near Glasgow airport either because they are going on holiday or because they want to park and ride. A desire to park and ride accounts for a significant element of the parking in that area. One of our members has a car park that is located right beside Paisley St James station and it gets considerable park-and-ride traffic because it provides a secure facility that costs circa £3 a day to use, which is a third of the price of parking in Glasgow city centre. The car park is highly convenient and people know that their cars are safe there. I would contrast that with the situation at the Johnstone car park, where the promoter operates a park-and-ride scheme. I do not wish to talk that facility down, but it is simply not big enough or secure enough. According to the police, a great deal of vandalism and damage are caused at the cark park at Johnstone station because it is not permanently manned and has not been built as a proper, secure park and ride.
You make an interesting comment about the provision of park-and-ride facilities, but why do you need to wait until GARL comes on stream before you deliver them? Could you not deliver such a service just now?
We deliver such a service at one of our sites, which is right beside Paisley St James railway station. A great number of people park there and walk round to the station. That site shares a boundary fence with the station. In 2004, we proposed to SPT the idea of making provision at that facility more joined up by installing a turnstile and a tunnel through to the station. We would have been more than happy to have it branded as an official park-and-ride station so that the travelling public knew that it was there.
I will move on to another form of transport. I have some questions for Stewart Whitehill about the service that his company provides. In your submission, you say that there is "ample provision" for additional patronage of buses. Would a better bus service remove the need for GARL?
What do you mean by a better bus service?
A more frequent service.
At the moment, the frequency is every 10 minutes, which is probably adequate. If the number of passengers increased, we might be able to provide a more frequent service, but it would probably be better to provide duplicate buses at peak times, when the service is at its busiest.
In your submission, you admit that there is a congestion problem on the M8. Would not more buses add to the congestion?
At the moment, we run six buses an hour. I hardly think that an extra bus or two an hour would greatly increase congestion on the M8.
You make the point that you do not receive any subsidy for running your service, whereas the GARL project will require a lot of public money. Are you concerned about the legality of that?
No, not at all.
Your concern is a moral one.
No. It is just that we can offer a subsidy-free service, whereas the railways patently cannot.
In your submission, you state that bus use will recover after the introduction of GARL only
I think we will find that, at the airport, SPT will promote the rail service and not the bus service. Because a large sum of money will be spent, all SPT's advertising will be geared towards the railway.
Do you think that the existing bus services are well advertised at the airport? If there was an interchange at the airport, would bus services be well advertised there?
They are not advertised enough at the moment. There is certainly room for improvement.
Is that up to you or is it the airport's responsibility?
Hopefully, it will be up to the airport. It takes money from us in stance charges and part of that money is to provide information to passengers.
If the GARL project goes ahead, how could interchange opportunities be created that would benefit bus operators?
We only run from Glasgow city centre to Glasgow airport and it would certainly not help us in any way.
In your submission, you state that you offer concessions to Glasgow airport staff. Are they a major part of your business? Is there a considerable concession?
On individual tickets, I think that it works out at about 20 per cent, but there are frequent-user tickets that offer a considerable concession. However, concession tickets for staff do not represent a huge input of money into the bus service.
My next question perhaps links to one of the issues that John McGlynn raised. Do you think that your bus option was given sufficient attention by the promoter?
Certainly not. The promoter dismissed it far too readily. MVA did the original report for the promoter but it was never in contact with any bus operator. Nevertheless, SPT seems to have gone along with what MVA said, which was:
Are there any other comments that you want to make on the bill?
Everyone seems to be saying that congestion on the M8 is the biggest constraint, but neither Glasgow City Council nor the Scottish Executive has done enough to relieve that congestion.
Would that be through a dedicated bus lane or something like that?
Well, if it was in Glasgow, it would end up with parked cars on it. No, I do not think that that is a practical suggestion at all.
What would be, may I ask?
Getting people out of their cars and on to public transport, and being more proactive. Glasgow City Council is good at banging its own drum, but the practicalities of what it does do not help bus services greatly.
Brian, do you have a question?
I did, but Andrew Arbuckle covered it.
I have a question for Network Rail, given its expertise on the railways. Given what the promoter proposes to do, what scope will there be for direct connectivity for trains from other destinations, so that people are not always required to change at Glasgow Central? For example, will it be possible for a train to come from somewhere on the south side of Glasgow, go into Glasgow Central and then go out to the airport?
There is certainly technical scope for that to happen. There are examples elsewhere around Scotland of trains going into a major terminal station and then going back out. We would need to assess whether there would be material benefit in our doing that. However, most of the suburban services that operate into Glasgow Central would be technically capable of going out to the airport, as the infrastructure would be compatible with that.
Although it would be technically possible, much careful study of the impact that it would have on timetabling and diagramming of different trains would be needed. We would need to examine the issue very carefully.
Will there be scope for trains that come from other areas in the south-west of Scotland and do not go to Glasgow Central to get on to the line, through Gilmour Street, so that they can go to the airport?
It is probably technically feasible, but at this stage I question whether it would be practical in timetabling and train diagramming. The issue would need to be looked at very carefully.
Recently we visited Manchester airport. We were encouraged by the level of interest among the general public in the wider area that the airport serves in having connectivity from their home town to the airport. We spoke to officials from Network Rail, who indicated that although at the beginning it was difficult to establish the basics of how that would work, the number of people using the line rose significantly as a result. Would Network Rail consider such an approach in Glasgow?
That would be a matter for the train operator rather than Network Rail. The issue would be available capacity on the infrastructure in the area. Some of the corridor will be heavily utilised. Changing the train pattern and having trains come up from Ayrshire, into Glasgow Central and back out to the airport would involve a lot of careful planning. To be honest, I am not sure that it would be practical or feasible. It could be looked at, but I would not want to give false hope.
I accept that it would be a matter for the train operator, but we need to know that there is capacity and a willingness for it to happen. Initially, only particular lines could access Manchester airport. Now it can be accessed from as far away as Barrow-in-Furness. I would want to be sure that Scotland was able to match or exceed what is being done elsewhere.
It may be helpful for you to know that the individual from Network Rail advised that people can access Manchester airport from more than 20 different stations without changing trains. A large part of the infrastructure has been designed to accommodate that to some extent. I am wondering whether the scheme that the promoter is proposing has been designed with scope for something similar in mind for the future.
The current proposal is for a four-trains-per-hour service in each direction to and from Glasgow Central station. The infrastructure capacity that is being provided will serve that. If we want to start to play lots of different tunes and to have many additional stopping patterns, which would increase journey times, we may need to consider providing additional infrastructure.
Were the same sort of service that is provided at Manchester airport to be provided at Glasgow airport, would not the difficulty with capacity—irrespective of track—be at Glasgow Central station? The dedicated GARL service that we are discussing would have a dedicated platform, but there would be difficulties with platform capacity at Glasgow Central station if additional services from hither and yon to the station and out to the airport were provided.
I imagine that there are a number of areas that could be bottlenecks for that additional capacity. The one that springs to mind is the main corridor between Wallneuk junction and Shields junction. Problems with such bottlenecks would have to be addressed to accommodate different stopping patterns and trains coming from different locations and going in different ways to the airport. It is not as simple as sitting here and saying, "Yes, it can be done." I imagine that, technically, it could be done, but it might require a different solution.
I would like to ask John McGlynn about the capacity of the park-and-ride facilities. Any park-and-ride facility that I see near an airport is normally chock-a-block. Is there spare capacity or can additional capacity be provided?
Yes, there is actually lots of spare capacity. Our members have been planning for growth for quite some time, particularly in Glasgow. Because of the shortage of land, Renfrewshire Council took a pretty proactive approach to the matter a number of years ago, recognising that, in an ideal world, there would be park-and-ride facilities at specific points but that there were historical ones. The council wanted to focus on those existing sites, where the traffic flow and the infrastructure could cope with growth, and it did not want to see a non-planned, sporadic popping up of park-and-ride facilities on every spare bit of land that happened to be available around the airport. There is current capacity of some magnitude and there are also plans for growth at two or three of the major sites. I cannot speak for Renfrewshire Council, but I understand that it is the council's policy to encourage growth. Multistorey facilities could be provided with six to nine months' lead time, and even one level would double the capacity of those sites.
I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will take a short break to allow the witnesses on panel 3 to set up their equipment.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Panel 3 consists of Simon Wallwork, Jim Harkins, who is managing director of Light Rail (UK) Ltd, and David Reid, who is director of Reid Rail Ltd.
Thank you for inviting me to the meeting.
You have one minute remaining.
Thank you.
Your five minutes are up. Does Mr Harkins want to get his technology ready?
I will start as soon as the man has set it up for me.
Once we are up and running, I will start the clock.
Do not start it yet.
I will wait until things are ready. Okay, Mr Harkins, on you go.
Thank you, ma'am. We were asked to consider GARL by a client from the car park fraternity, but the client withdrew at the last minute. However, we decided to carry on, because the more we looked at the GARL proposal the more sense our proposal made and the less sense GARL made.
You are in your final minute.
Okay. The costs of street running are less than those of a guided busway. Cascaded vehicles would be used; high-quality, low-cost vehicles are available. The system would use known technology. We would need to be robust in dealing with the utilities. The initial capital cost of my scheme is less than that of the promoter's scheme and my scheme would require no on-going operating subsidy. We should consider the political costs of the Edinburgh tram scheme, because poor appreciation of it and poor preparation for the bill process have made the scheme expensive.
Thanks. You had three seconds to spare. Please bear with us as we ask questions. Simon Wallwork, what discussions did you have with the owners of Glasgow airport to ensure that your proposal would meet the airport's future expansion needs? Would your proposed scheme impinge on future expansion?
I have not had such discussions, but I will meet BAA soon to discuss the matter.
Why are you only now starting a conversation with Glasgow Airport Ltd?
I have been talking to the company for a while, but I will have another meeting this month. You will have to ask the company's representatives why they chose not to meet me earlier. They might not have been aware of the study of my proposals that the Executive commissioned in 2002. Were you aware of the study?
Yes. We received information about it in written evidence.
When the Executive agreed to study my scheme, it expressly excluded any study of the park-and-ride and congestion relief elements; it considered only the light rail/heavy rail interchange elements. The rail strategy and investment branch of the Executive, which commissioned the study, said that it was unable to commission work into congestion relief because it was restricted to consideration of rail operations. The officials did not say that they did not want to consider congestion relief; they said that they could not consider it.
We cannot answer those questions, but we will hear from the minister next week. If you provide the clerks with the reference at the end of the meeting, we will ensure that we ask him and the promoter questions on the matter.
It was a landfill site.
Where does that sit in Renfrewshire Council's structure plan?
I do not think that the council has a plan for it, because councils are not allowed to do much with landfill sites, even when they are old. The site has been covered for 20-odd years. Not much can be done with landfill sites—for example, they cannot be built on—and their use is restricted. However, an old landfill site could be used as a car park, which is all that I plan for the site.
Did you build anything into your costing for compulsory purchase or for the council giving up its option on the land?
It is the council's landfill site, so I guess that the council would still own it. The rest of the site is just low-value waste ground. The huge benefit of the proposal is that it would avoid building on playing fields. If you want to talk about the use of land, a proposal could hardly be more controversial than building a double-track rail line across the St James park playing fields.
I am trying to go underneath your bland statement that your proposal could save money. I am asking you to show what costs you built into the proposal, because the council ain't going to give you the land free. How much did you build in for the land?
I did not plan to build the car park myself; I hoped that you guys would do that. I do not know the value of the land.
If you do not have that detail, how can you say that the proposal is costed?
The proposal is not as thoroughly costed as it should be, because the full study has not been done. I would like the committee to complete the study. After all, £150 million of public money could be saved, so it is worth spending a little money on an evaluation before the scheme is ruled out.
I see some potential attractions of and difficulties with the scheme. I will ask first about where your scheme comes into the airport. You said that you have not had the opportunity to discuss the proposal with BAA. We understand from our discussions that the location of GARL has been under negotiation with BAA, because it is concerned about how the approach of the rail line will affect the western side of the airport. Your diagram shows that your line would cut across any possible development on the western side of the airport.
That is toffee. Light rail can be run anywhere that heavy rail can be.
Let me decide whether it is toffee. Could the line that you propose be relocated to run closer to the M8 rather than further into the airport?
Yes, but running the line closer to the terminal would be more useful. If I had had a chance to discuss the scheme with BAA, perhaps we could have finalised a route. The line is almost totally flexible. It would be elevated and would run on little concrete supports. My proposed line could take the route of GARL but, to be frank, it would be much better off going right into the terminal. Unlike heavy rail, a light rail service can terminate adjacent to or within a terminal building with ease.
How would you intend the line to link up with your park-and-ride facility? Would it tunnel under the M8?
It would link up with the interchange station and go across the motorway, but at a nice, narrow part of the motorway, unlike GARL, which would cross the widest part of the M8.
So it would go under the M8.
Negative. It would go above the M8.
So it would rise up.
It would rise to about the height of one of the overhead signposts that cross the M8. In fact, there is one near the point at which it would cross.
Would there be overhead power or a third rail?
It would be light rail, so there would be a flat platform with driverless trains without any overhead wires—just an ordinary flat bed with a train running on it.
Would it be diesel powered?
It would be electric powered.
So would there be a third rail or battery?
You could use either method, or it could be hauled, as happens in Birmingham, where the system is driven by some sort of rubber band mechanism. There is a variety of ways of providing a light rail link. We could discuss the technology. We could even borrow a system from Disney. There are loads of light rail systems.
I appreciate that, but the point is that this committee has to go beyond concepts and look at detailed proposals, because it is in the detail that we often find obstacles. We have heard people talking about the graves of cholera victims, and we have to consider how any alternatives can deal with obstacles such as junction 29 of the M8. Are you confident that such obstacles could be overcome?
Absolutely, and I welcome any investigation into the proposals. The paper that we have been discussing is only a brief paper—not a thorough study, although it is 40 or 50 pages long—on only half the scheme. Why cannot we complete the study of park-and-ride provision? Frankly, that would be much more useful to people who live in this part of the world than the Glasgow airport rail link would be. If you could drive into Glasgow without spending the morning sitting for an hour in traffic and then being unable to leave the city until 6 o'clock in the evening, that would be a benefit and it would offer people a chance to get out of their cars.
One of the key issues that has arisen in the course of our evidence taking is connectivity—being able to go from one point to another without having to change trains. You are proposing that people go to a field to the west of the airport, get on to the light railway system and go into the airport. There is an issue—
I must stop you there. That is expressly not what I am advocating.
The field is to the west of the airport, is it not?
Are we talking about the park-and-ride bit now?
Yes, where the station is going to be.
Yes, but let me make it clear that I am not planning for people to use that car park to go to the airport. That car park is for a completely separate group of people—those who are forced to clog up the M8 twice a day and to park in Glasgow all day. They have nothing to do with the airport. Under my proposal, people who go to the airport to catch a plane would travel on the existing trains, which run to Greenock anyway, thus connecting 30-odd stations and all the ferries with the airport. They would use the light rail interchange station to get off the heavy rail train for the waiting light rail service to the airport.
It would clearly be difficult to guard against that.
Well, yes, but that detail can be worked out.
That clarification is helpful. You mentioned several times the need for a proportionate response to the issue of a rail line to the airport. I see from your written evidence that you have experience in the air industry. Have you drawn on experience in other airports that are similar to Glasgow airport in forming your view that the GARL proposal is out of proportion?
I am a captain with BA Connect. I fly all round Europe and I have seen a lot of airports. As far as I can tell, although people want to use an airport rail link, most people travel round by car. Right now, 100 per cent of people who use Glasgow airport get there by road. SKM identified that not more than 5 or 6 per cent of air travellers would use GARL—it did not say "not less than". I do not suppose that there would be any more users of my scheme than of GARL, and there might even be slightly fewer.
We now move to questions to Jim Harkins and David Reid.
My question might be for Simon Wallwork eventually. He said that the light rail would go over the motorway. One of the areas on which the GARL project has attracted comments is the gradient on rail lines. Are gradients important in the projects in your presentation?
That is a technical question, which I will ask my colleague Mr David Reid to answer, as he supplies technical support.
The short answer is that light rail and tram schemes can negotiate far steeper gradients than heavy rail trains can. Heavy rail trains can generally negotiate fairly steep gradients of 1 in 40, whereas light rail trains can probably negotiate gradients of down to 1 in 10.
Have you checked the gradients in your scheme?
There is no concern about gradients affecting the scheme proposed by Light Rail (UK) Ltd, which would be compatible with the scheme as proposed.
I refer Jim Harkins to one of the slides on costs that he showed us. I looked at the bottom corner of the slide to see what the bottom line on cost was, but there was no figure. Is there a figure?
Not at this stage, because we were called in rather late. Suffice it to say that, in our experience, light rail schemes outside the UK—I stress that I am referring to schemes outside the UK—tend to be far cheaper than heavy rail schemes, hence the reason why the continentals go for light rail.
You explained how your light rail scheme would pass under the M8 on leaving the airport. I have a copy of the map from your presentation. Will you explain how the route would navigate past the on-off ramp from the M8, which is coloured in yellow on your map? It seems to go over the ramp. The route then continues along the side of the football fields, as you explained. After that, it has to cross Greenock Road. How would it navigate that crossing?
We start off at the terminal. You will see the wee triangle on the map where I have indicated that there could be a car park. There are two route options there, where we would hope to put a multistorey car park. There is sufficient grass verge at that point. One of the benefits of light rail—which we can call a tram, or a tramcar in old money—is that it can run on the street, just like the trams do in Manchester, Croydon and Sheffield. It is technically perfectly feasible to bring the line along at street level. It would go underneath the motorway, which is marked in blue on the map. There are one or two places where the tram would have to be given priority on the street, meaning that public transport would be favoured over the motor car.
The line crosses the roundabout that you described—I follow that. Where the line crosses the road, the trams would have to be given priority.
That is correct.
The line might cross over at lights, for example.
A decision would have to be taken whether to give priority to passenger vehicles carrying a lot of people or to people in their cars. The answer is fairly obvious.
I see that. The thought that immediately occurs to me is that, while any lights there are at red, there is a possibility of traffic backing up on to the M8.
There is flexibility in that part of the proposal, in that the line could come round either side of the roundabout. It would not need to have priority over traffic exiting from the motorway. I agree that there might otherwise be a block-back on to the motorway during the minute or two when the lights were at red. The line could be brought across the road that comes on to the roundabout from the other side, too. The details of that would need to be assessed.
Given that trams can take corners more sharply than heavy rail trains can, there is no reason why they could not go round the roundabout and come off it without crossing the line of the traffic.
The trams could go round that roundabout, yes.
Could we move on to how the line would navigate Greenock Road?
Certainly. It would come along the outside of the fence by the football fields. We would seek to tunnel the line through at the green bit on the diagram. That would not take much engineering. The line would swing south, as you can see from the diagram, and would come up a ramp, which would be similar to the ramp that is in service on the Manchester metrolink, by the side of the G-Mex centre, or to one where the tramlink leaves Croydon. The line would then go up at grade to the railway. We have identified that there is sufficient room to put a single track alongside the railway, so we would not be interfering with the heavy rail at all.
I wish to clarify something about the gradient that the tram would come up to track share with the heavy rail line. If there was to be track sharing, it would be on the west side of St James station, as the gradient would allow that. Is that correct?
That is correct. [Interruption.]
Someone has a mobile on. I ask them to switch it off, as it is interfering with the sound system.
Two years ago, in conjunction with Mr Reid, I approached Nicol Stephen, when he was the Minister for Transport. At the time, we also sounded out the issue with the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive. In Scotland—and south of Hadrian's wall, too—if someone is not an established consultant, they do not get in the door. I wrote to the minister to ask why no expertise in light rail was part of the establishment of Transport Scotland—it did not have that name at the time; the Executive was not sure what it was going to call it. For a small country such as Scotland, light rail is often more appropriate than other, more expensive schemes.
So the short answer to the question is that your proposal has not had a STAG appraisal.
No, it has not.
What about Simon Wallwork's proposal?
No, but I would like it done. I would like the road part of it to be done, too. The reason why it has not been done is that the Scottish Executive would not do it. There is no point in asking me whether it has been done, convener. It should have been done.
I am required to ask the question. If the committee is to raise the issue with the minister, we need to ensure that that is on the record.
Please do so.
I bring this part of our evidence-taking session to a close.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Welcome back. We will now take evidence from panel 4, which comprises Andrew Shuttleworth, assistant chief officer at Strathclyde fire and rescue; David McCall, assistant chief constable at the British transport police; Neil Amner, who is a partner at Biggart Baillie and is representing the British transport police; and Chief Superintendent Johnny Gwynne and Chief Inspector Calum Murray of Strathclyde police.
At this stage, it is unclear exactly what the impact would be. Clearly, a rail link would change the pattern of passenger arrival and departure. For example, it would change the volume of cars that leave the M8 slip roads to go to Glasgow airport. However, in the absence of more detailed information and environmental scoping, it would be ill advised of me to say that it would have a good or a bad impact. Suffice it to say that it would change the pattern of passenger behaviour and that, as you would expect, some passengers would come by rail and not by road.
Should Strathclyde police's road policing unit have been involved in discussions with the promoter? As a taxpayer in that part of Scotland, I would be interested if police could be diverted from the road policing unit to working in our communities. Would it have been of benefit to committee members if that had been discussed up front?
It would be useful if we could have more discussion from here on in. The road policing department would be one part of that discussion. The British transport police would also have a role. There are a number of issues that concern both the British transport police and Strathclyde police. We need to consider what crime prevention measures will be incorporated into the design of the project when it goes ahead. We may want to consider architectural liaison to build out crime and the risk from terrorism, which is an issue that we must think about in this century. The road policing and traffic management plans are only one part of the discussion.
You have led us on nicely to the issue of terrorism. Strathclyde police is responsible for policing at Glasgow airport, but your colleagues in the British transport police are responsible for rail. How does that arrangement work? Do you have good relationships? Do you work well together? Are you involved in their planning, or do the two organisations just meet at some point in the middle?
Are you asking about our general response to the risk of terrorism?
Yes.
There is a very good relationship between Strathclyde police and the BTP, both at strategic level and at operational level. I do not say that just for the purposes of the committee; I am sure that Mr McCall will speak on the issue. Mr McCall represents the interests of his organisation on the chief officers group of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. There is an integrated response strategically and in operational service delivery. To my knowledge, there has never been an issue at either level.
Mr McCall, would you like to add anything?
I reinforce what Chief Superintendent Gwynne said. I am a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and of the ACPOS counter-terrorist sub-group. I regularly meet my colleagues—not just in Strathclyde police but in the rest of the Scottish police service—at the strategic level. I have officers below me who operate at the tactical and operational levels with colleagues in the service.
If GARL goes ahead, chief superintendent, will it have an impact on your manpower and on the cost of operating your division?
It is difficult to be specific about that. It might have an impact on manpower, but not because of the new rail link. The impact might occur as the airport's business grows and there are more passengers. Whether they come by road or by rail is not an issue for us. As business grows, the airport will become a more favourable place to be. You know the figures better than I do, but at the moment there are some 8.6 million passenger movements per year and that is projected to increase to about 15 million by 2030. As the airport grows, there will be extra policing considerations, but it is difficult to nail down exactly what those will be.
I am concerned about the cost of policing. I represent part of Ayrshire and I am aware of the difficulties that the previous divisional commander in Ayrshire faced with ensuring that the public purse was recompensed for the policing of Prestwick airport. Do you have similar difficulties or is Glasgow Airport Ltd a good payer?
There is a slightly different relationship and charging regime. We have an excellent relationship with BAA at Glasgow airport. In fact, the MD would say the same about the relationship. We get good support from the operator in terms of having the resilience that we need in the police numbers to police appropriately. If the airport grows exponentially we will need to review and revise staffing levels, but that is a separate issue. At present there is an excellent working relationship between BAA—and the MD in particular—and police staff throughout the division.
I have a question about the safety aspects for Strathclyde fire and rescue. The GARL proposal involves resiting the fuel farm at the airport. Given the pictures of the Buncefield disaster that we all saw on our televisions, what aspects does Strathclyde fire and rescue wish to discuss with the promoter at the current stage, before we get into the detail?
The principle of moving the fuel farm is not the problem. Indeed, we welcome that because the existing fuel farm is fairly old. Naturally, we expect any new fuel farm that is developed to have fixed installations and the appropriate detection and safety systems. It is not possible to retrofit those. We regard it as a new-for-old proposal.
So there is an opportunity to provide a more modern and suitable fuel farm and the knock-on effect will be a safer environment for those in the proximity?
Yes. The one concern that we have, along with the Health and Safety Executive, is the decommissioning of the existing fuel farm. Decommissioning is always fraught with problems when there are flammable, explosive atmospheres building up in tanks and so on.
I want to ask the witness from the British transport police a number of questions. I understand that an issue arises to do with facilities at the station in Glasgow airport and that you would like to have a unit there.
You are quite right, sir. We hope to have a presence at the station in Glasgow airport—just as we have a presence at some other airports around the country, such as Heathrow and Manchester.
In your written evidence, you make a point about the protection of your current operational capacity. Surely this particular project will not add a great deal to the overall rail network or to the number of stations that you, as the transport police, have to cover. How significant a project is it, from your point of view?
I do not envisage the project having huge resource implications for British transport police, but it is one of a number of projects in the growing rail system in Scotland. There will come a point at which we cannot adequately fulfil our duties to police the entire rail network in Scotland if some form of additional resourcing is not available to cover particular lines.
You hope that the promoter will pick up all legal and professional fees and expenses arising from the project. What sort of sums would be involved?
Would you mind if I referred that question to Mr Amner?
Not at all—I was looking in Mr Amner's direction anyway.
The level of fees and the level of time commitment—not only for external professional support but for internal staff time in the force and in the police authority—will depend on how far through the bill process we are forced to go. I can contrast the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill with the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill. In Edinburgh, even before the expiry of the objection period, we reached agreement in principle on an approach to resolve a number of concerns. That obviously avoids the time and expense of giving evidence before a committee, and it avoids taking up the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill committee's time as well. I hope that, here, we can meet the promoter in fairly short order and agree an approach. That would obviously contain the costs.
Do you envisage that the promoter will have to pay capital costs for the new facility in Glasgow airport and revenue costs arising from the additional workload of the British transport police?
There will be capital costs. Our view is that it would be appropriate to provide for the effective and efficient policing of the scheme. The scheme will include a number of features—not just a police station at the airport, or any other facilities at Paisley Gilmour Street station or Glasgow Central station. For example, it will also include the provision of a communications system known as Airwave, which David McCall can explain more fully if need be—it is the radio communications system that the transport police use. It will have to be built in with the scheme. An operational issue that has arisen elsewhere in the country is the problem of trying to retrofit new systems into existing infrastructure. Most of the infrastructure is Victorian and the new systems are expensive to put in.
Did you say that there should be a station for the British transport police at the airport?
There should be a police office at the airport railway station.
I wondered whether you wanted to extend your jurisdiction into the airport.
Our jurisdiction would be within the railway station, not the airport. We would like to have a police post at the station. We use the phrase "police post" because the phrase "police station" conjures up ideas of cells and the whole criminal investigation department infrastructure. I am merely talking about somewhere for officers to refresh and a private room into which we can take members of the public who have been witnesses or victims of a crime.
Can you not share space with Strathclyde police?
Its facility is some way off the airport.
The force has a room to refresh in the airport. It might not be the kind of mess room that you are talking about, but it has facilities. That could be negotiated with the airport rather than with SPT.
I was not aware of the facility.
I am not saying it is anything great, but it exists.
The point that you raise shows that it would be useful to sit down with the promoters and go through some of these issues with them.
Strathclyde police has Airwave. Does the Strathclyde fire and rescue service have it yet?
Apparently, it is about to.
And the British transport police?
The British transport police is Airwave compliant across the UK. We operate exactly the same Airwave radio system as every other force in the country. However, the Government-funded Airwave project is for core services—in other words, it is a basic system. If a particular police force requires special consideration for a particular site—a special coverage solution, as it is called—it has to pick up the cost. For example, if Strathclyde wanted an Airwave system in Hampden park or Braehead, it would have to fund a special coverage solution.
I have a question about the jurisdiction of the British transport police. In your written submission, you mention "the specialist nature of" BTP's
On the first question, we would normally police a light rail system. For example, we police the Docklands light railway, which was built as an extension to the London underground, and the Croydon tramlink. We also have expertise of policing other tram systems throughout the UK. If the scheme became a light rail proposal—similar to that proposed in the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill and the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill—we would expect to police it. The British transport police's expertise is writ large throughout the UK. We hope that we can bring that experience to bear in any rail system, whether it is heavy rail, light rail or a mixture of the two.
Convener, may I ask a supplementary question on the light rail proposal?
Yes.
The Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Act 2006 and the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Act 2006 allow the BTP to police the two schemes. There is a slight difference between those acts and this bill, which relates to the split between reserved and non-reserved matters. Although the BTP has the capacity to police tram schemes in England, it lacks the authority to do so in Scotland. At the BTP's request, both Edinburgh tram bills were amended to that effect.
I would not call it an office.
It is on the airway and not on the landward side of airport security—obviously, this scheme comes in on the landward side.
I have a further question for David McCall; it has only just occurred to me. It concerns the interface between rail and airport with regard to the threat from terrorism. Earlier this morning, we heard about a light rail proposal under which a link would be made more or less directly into the airport. Does the degree of separation between air and rail in the bill give more security benefits to your policing operation than those that are set out in the light rail option?
I am sorry, but until today I was unaware of the proposal for a light rail system. I have not had time to get my head around it; I have been concentrating on the bill proposal.
That was helpful; it answers my point.
The issue is of concern, given the Home Office proposal to screen individuals at railway stations, particularly those who use airport rail links. Obviously, the two authorities will be required to work together. Other important areas of the scheme also require the authorities to work together. How will the BTP and Strathclyde police work together to police the viaduct? You will police the viaduct and Strathclyde police will police the surrounding area. I imagine that the viaduct will be attractive to young people. Have you given any thought to that?
There are a number of railway viaducts throughout the UK. We are used to working with our partners in the rail industry in particular to cut down the opportunity for young people or others to make incursions on to the railway network. Again, we would like the promoter to engage fully with us on designing out the opportunity for that sort of thing to happen. We are experienced at looking at the design of rail infrastructure and anticipating where the pinchpoints—the real danger points—are likely to be. If we have to improve security somewhere, we are well placed to advise the promoter of the steps that it would need to take to minimise the opportunities for incursions.
Has Strathclyde fire and rescue service had discussions with the promoter at the design stage on how proper design would be a benefit if there were an incident that the service had to attend?
We have had no detailed discussions at all with the promoter, but we are keen to ensure that few opportunities exist for difficulties to arise or for people to get injured when the system is up and running. There will also be significant risks for workers on the site, surrounding communities and young people during the construction phase. We would like to engage closely with the promoter to ensure that those risks are designed out.
I would like to clarify something Mr McCall said. British transport police is currently having discussions with the promoter on various aspects of the scheme that it would like to be designed with greater safety in mind.
Actually, we are not.
You are not. Why not?
We hope that we will enter into negotiations or consultations with the promoter, but we have not so far had any meaningful consultation on the system with it. Members have in front of them a letter from SPT dated 18 April that outlines the consultation that it has had with British transport police. I would like to elaborate on the consultation that has occurred, if I may.
I clarify for Michael Matheson that the promoter provided the letter to which Assistant Chief Constable McCall is referring to us on Thursday last week. It arrived too late to be circulated to members for today's meeting—it has only just arrived in our hands.
So despite British transport police's detailed objection—it has talked about the heightened risk of terrorism when airports and train stations are interfaced—the promoter has not been in touch with it to discuss at a high level its serious concerns.
No, not to date, but we hope that we will be able to engage with it. I am confident that we can resolve all the issues, but we had no option but to lodge the objection so that the committee could hear our concerns about the situation.
There is an issue for the committee. Obviously, you have had to engage the services of an external agency for which the public purse has had to bear the cost. The public purse would have gained if consultation had commenced prior to the bill.
It was limited. We were notified in January that the bill was coming out and there was a meeting between our local officers, the local area manager, the senior fire officer at Glasgow airport and his colleague from Heathrow. However, that meeting was specifically about the fuel farm. There was no detailed consultation at a high level on the proposals for the airport or the work at Glasgow Central station and none of our area headquarters in Glasgow was consulted.
Chief Superintendent Gwynne, has Strathclyde police been involved in detailed discussions?
No. We find ourselves in a similar position. For the avoidance of doubt, I point out that we were consulted in our role as a tenant. I do not have enough detail on that to give you an account of it, but that was the extent of the consultation. There was no consultation on the operational and business impacts of the proposal.
Is there anything else that you want to put on the record today?
We would expect detailed consultation with the promoter on all the issues. Chief Superintendent Gwynne outlined all the issues. I suggest that the best forum in which to discuss those is an organisation that you might be aware of—the Strathclyde emergencies co-ordination group, on which we are all represented. In that way, there will be no confusion about the roles of the British transport police, Strathclyde police, the fire service, the ambulance service and local authorities. We urge the promoter to get in touch with us through the Strathclyde emergencies co-ordination group to work through the difficulties, which are not insurmountable by any stretch of the imagination.
What would be the impact on Strathclyde police of Glasgow Central station being kept open until 1 o'clock or even 2 o'clock in the morning? Would it affect existing policing arrangements in the city centre, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights?
It is fair to say that it would have an impact, but I cannot say exactly what that impact would be because I am not the divisional commander for that area. I have a colleague who deals with that.
I might be able to help, as my last uniformed role in Strathclyde police was as deputy divisional commander in Glasgow city centre. I can assure you that, wearing that hat, I would have been more than grateful for a rail service that operated much later. However, wearing my current hat, I can see that there will be implications for us. Once again, the matter requires discussion between the promoter, us and our colleagues in Strathclyde.
Thank you for your evidence.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome panel 5, which comprises witnesses for the promoter. From Strathclyde Partnership for Transport we have Douglas Ferguson, who is the director of operations; John Halliday, who is the head of transport, planning and integration; and Charles Hoskins, who is the manager for projects. We also have Simon Temple, who is a director at Faber Maunsell, and David Keddie, who is a partner in Roger Tym and Partners. Good afternoon, gentlemen.
First, the promoter has been conscious from the early stages that security and terrorism were important issues that we had to consider as part of producing the bill. We have had contact of some form with all the people who appeared before the committee. In addition, we have had contact with the transport security and contingencies directorate of the Department for Transport—the national security agency—and we have tried to develop the higher-level policy issues through that organisation.
It is fair to say that members of the committee were all extremely concerned to find out from BTP that SPT's consultation consisted of a walk-through with a BTP constable. I have nothing against police constables, who provide a valuable service, but I would not expect a BTP constable to be aware of the strategic implications of the scheme. Can you explain why that happened?
It might be better if we explained the totality of the consultation that we have had with the various services and with TRANSEC, which has allowed us to get to where we are now. Charles Hoskins can put that part of the process into context.
The process began with consultation with the Department for Transport, which has a specialist division called TRANSEC, which is responsible for transport security. There is an interface between its responsibility for rail and its responsibility for aviation, so we brought those two areas together. We followed that up by speaking to BAA's security manager, which was crucial to how we approached the airport elements, and Network Rail's security manager. That was the high-level consultation that we undertook.
The project design meant that it was important to understand and deal with the strategic issues. Our impression was that once we had talked matters through with TRANSEC, we would have dialogue on all the detailed issues as we progressed through the detailed design process. I guess that that is the position that we feel we were in. Perhaps we have failed in not embarking on that work early enough. As Douglas Ferguson said, our next step should be to talk to the Strathclyde emergencies co-ordination group.
You have provided costs for the design of the project, but we have heard that Strathclyde police, British transport police and Strathclyde fire and rescue may well have issues to do with the construction and subsequent operation of the scheme. What will happen if those organisations tell you that what you propose does not meet their needs? Have you built anything into your costings to deal with that eventuality?
At a global level, a detailed assessment was made of all the risks, which included those that relate to safety and security. For example, BTP has mentioned to us that a facility could be incorporated in the station at Glasgow airport. Interestingly, not all airport rail stations are manned; although the stations at Manchester and Heathrow are manned, stations at other airports are not. We have ensured that the design can accommodate such a facility. There will be a number of rooms at the airport rail station, but we have not got into the detail of how they will be fitted out. Allowance has been made for that in the capital element of the figures.
We identified that radio communication and CCTV would be important elements of the design of the project and our discussions with TRANSEC confirmed that. SPT is familiar with the provision of CCTV and other security measures at stations. Those costs are built into the estimate.
I want to go back to basics. We have been given presentations today on other transport options. Did SPT seriously consider options such as light rail or tram?
The whole process that has led up to where we are today has involved considering a wide range of options. I do not believe that any of the options that we have heard about today has not been included in our considerations. I am not saying that we have considered the very specific issues relating to some of those options, but we have considered those types of options and concluded that the proposal in the bill is the best.
It may be that, because of your background in heavy rail, the present proposal is the easiest option for you. You do not have to think outside the box and consider a new type of transport such as those that we heard about this morning.
Our background should not lead to an assumption that we are looking for a rail solution. As an organisation, SPT promotes every mode of transport, including bus and rail. I was involved in promoting a tram scheme for SPT several years ago, via Westminster legislation that ultimately fell. At that point, SPT was promoting specific tram schemes—not to serve the airport, but to serve the Strathclyde area.
One of the representatives from the Scottish Independent Airport Park and Ride Association said that the proposals have not taken into account sufficiently the personal habits of people who travel. He argues that it is easier for people to park the car and then get public transport such as a bus or taxi right to the airport.
The evaluation process is about taking account of people's personal habits and trying to quantify their preferences. I understand the point that if someone owns a car, their preference tends to be to use it to get to where they want to go. That has been built into the analysis and I suppose that that is why our modelling still assumes that the majority of people will come to the airport by car.
Thank you.
I will pick you up on that point. The representatives of the car parks seemed to argue that they could provide a useful, if not crucial, source of income that would be separate from that which would be provided by those who would be using the airport. Has that been given any specific consideration?
We have developed the project around the people who use the airport as well as those who use the Paisley to Glasgow corridor. Understanding all that is the core issue.
Given the anticipated large increase in air passenger numbers at Glasgow airport, and the estimate that GARL will result in what is described as a 0.5 per cent reduction in traffic from the M8, would not the money be better spent on improving the road access to Glasgow and Prestwick airports?
That is the policy conundrum that we face. We are at an ideal place in Scotland because although congestion is a real problem, it is not a breaker at the moment—I stress the words "at the moment"—and we have opportunities.
There may also be the opportunity to invest in roads that would allow, for instance, a dedicated bus lane. SPT might be interested in liaising on that. Has that opportunity been given consideration?
Yes, it was considered in the early work that we undertook. The issue about having additional lanes on the M8—perhaps that is what is in your mind—is that that would bring intrinsic problems. At the source end or the central city end, there would be the problem of multiple slip-roads and traffic convergences as well as the cost of building a lane. It may be possible to get cars along a certain route, but they would come to a slip-road or bridges. Within the city centre, there would also be a problem with demand being built up. The answer is that, yes, we have considered that idea. However, it was rejected on some of those grounds in favour of the airport rail link, which was seen as the solution to the problem.
Prestwick airport has said that it is
We believe that we have made clear where the benefits to Prestwick airport will come from. They will come from two main outcomes of the scheme. First, the additional track capacity between Paisley and Glasgow will improve the reliability of every service that uses that corridor. The rail services to Prestwick airport will benefit from that reliability. Secondly, the increased capacity means that there will be more trains and less overcrowding on the trains that serve Prestwick airport. Those are the immediate benefits that Prestwick airport would get as soon as the scheme opened.
You heard the evidence from the witnesses from Network Rail. I asked them specifically what scope there would be for extra services to Inverclyde, Ayrshire and Prestwick airport following the upgrading of the line between Glasgow central station and Paisley. Their response was that it would be marginal. You appear to be claiming that there could be more scope than that.
During the development of the scheme, we drew up a draft timetable for all services in the corridor, including the airport services. We found that, with the infrastructure solution that is proposed in the bill, we could accommodate the airport services on top of all the existing services. We did some performance modelling on that, which demonstrated that one would get improved reliability. We also considered the option of providing two additional services to Ayrshire—they need not have been to Ayrshire, but those were the specific services that we considered—and found that it was possible to include them in the timetable. Of course, as more trains are added, some of the performance benefits may be lost but there is clearly the capacity to timetable those trains.
Nevertheless, do you accept Network Rail's position that the scope for increasing the number of trains will be marginal? You have talked about modelling. Have you discussed the matter with Network Rail? Its interpretation is that the scope for extra services would be marginal, not substantial.
That depends on your definition of marginal.
Two is marginal.
Okay. If two is marginal and all that we have ever said is that there could be two extra trains to Ayrshire, that would still double the frequency of the service to Ayr and represent a 50 per cent increase in the total number of trains to the Ayrshire coast line. That is marginal in the context of the capacity of the rail network in Scotland, but for people in Ayr it may be a bit more than marginal. I guess we could debate that.
I suspect that we could.
On the timetabling issue, the critical thing is to get a train on the track: that must be done before anything else is started. However, capacity is not about just that; it is also about the length of trains. A service can be timetabled for which longer trains are used. Indeed, Transport Scotland is considering extending the length of trains to four cars and, probably, eight cars. I would therefore take issue with the comment about the scope being marginal. Increasing the frequency of a journey from half-hourly to every 15 minutes would have a significant impact. A service that runs at 15-minute intervals is very attractive to people.
With respect, increased capacity is different from extra services. I asked specifically about extra services.
Yes. I accept that.
I have a couple of other questions, one of which arises out of the evidence that we heard this morning. The criticism has been made that the SKM study has been dismissed too lightly. Why have you dismissed the findings of the SKM study?
We have not dismissed the findings of the study. As we have said previously, we were party to the project steering group for the SKM study and we accepted the findings of that study. However, we argued successfully that the remit was too narrow in considering only the airport and connections to airports as part of a wider study that was looking at connections to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. We do not feel that we dismissed the study at all; we feel that we accepted it fully and took forward the outcome of the SKM work.
Thanks for that clarification. That is useful.
The straight answer to your question is yes. We could do all that, but it would come at a cost. For example, one of the alignments that we considered involved tunnelling under St James's park, but that would have added about £130 million to the project cost. That is possible. The route could, theoretically, go through the businesses and then dive down, but because of the gradient constraints of the heavy rail network, the track would have to remain at a low level, going under the motorway and staying underground until it reached the airport. That would be one solution, but it would add £130-odd million to the project cost.
The point is relevant to the question that was asked about STAG. The options were tested against the Scottish transport appraisal guidance—John Halliday mentioned the features of a couple of options. STAG involves a wide set of criteria that must be applied that covers the Government's objectives; planning criteria are also set. Emanating from that was the SKM work, with which we concurred in principle on the choice of route.
Is overhead line electrification the most appropriate technology for the branch line or would other forms of power supply be more suitable?
When the decision has been made to run heavy rail, the two basic options are running electric trains or running diesel trains. Overhead line equipment must be compatible with the existing equipment. Overhead line equipment is visible, but it has a noise benefit. It does not preclude the running of diesel trains—the option of running both types of train is available. If the choice were made not to have overhead lines and to run diesel trains, electric trains could not be run.
That covers it.
I will clarify one point. You might have been thinking about what a previous witness said about a third rail, which is an electrified rail that is usually pretty close to the ground and from which a train picks up power. A third rail cannot be used with the heavy rail option—it is restricted to metros and trams.
The committee might be aware that the old southern region of British Rail has third-rail electrification, but the Health and Safety Executive has said that it would not consider a third rail for new heavy rail schemes, unless they are extensions of the existing third-rail network. A third rail might be considered for a new metro, but not for a new main line railway, because it has safety implications at level-crossings and the like. The proposed branch line has no level-crossings, but a third rail would not be compatible without very expensive dual-voltage rolling stock that can run on both systems.
You anticipated my next question, but that is fine.
The committee is interested in the use of Manchester airport's rail link as a comparator for GARL. Do you accept that there is evidence from Manchester that a direct shuttle service between the airport and the city centre does not work in itself?
I do not believe that that is the case. Manchester's scheme uses similar infrastructure to that for Glasgow—it is a short spur from an existing railway line to a terminal station. It is correct to say that more services that are provided from Manchester airport station go beyond Manchester city centre than terminate there. I understand that when the Manchester project was originally proposed, the focus was much more on services to the city centre, although services that went beyond there were proposed even in the early days. Services to other places have subsequently been further developed.
It is important to note that the patronage forecasts and the scheme's benefits are based solely on the shuttle service to the city centre. If the additional services to which Douglas Ferguson has referred are introduced, there may well be additional benefits, but those benefits have not been included in the benefits that we claim the scheme will produce.
We are keen to test the robustness of the scheme and learn lessons from Manchester's experience. We seem to be comparing the scheme with Manchester's scheme at the beginning instead of its scheme now. We do not want to say "if only", which is what people in Manchester have said—if only they knew what they know now, they would not have started with only a direct shuttle.
We accept that we should learn to develop the services that will operate on the line. If there are opportunities to develop a different service pattern from the beginning or from an early stage, we should consider them. However, as Simon Temple has said, the infrastructure that we have proposed will provide a service to Glasgow Central station. All the costs and benefits of that proposal have been put together in submitting the bill.
I accept what you say about Manchester having a much larger airport and a much greater catchment area. However, there is concern about the patronage of GARL. Indeed, there is concern not only about the number of passengers who will use it, but about the cost of tickets. The cost that has been suggested for a GARL ticket is £5 return, whereas a return ticket from Manchester city centre to the airport is £2.75.
We used our models to estimate the patronage level and reached what we think is a conservative estimate of the number of people who will use the line. We think that it is better to err on the conservative side than to be overoptimistic.
Obviously, we are concerned about social inclusion. The committee has received written evidence from a Mr George Baillie, who says that the likely cost of a rail ticket from Paisley to the airport will be 48p per mile travelled, which is expensive.
Some explanation might be needed about how we arrived at the figure. The fare from Glasgow Central station to Paisley is £1.80. GARL trains will run alongside other trains, and clearly the fare on that section of the route must be the same as the normal existing fare. Therefore, to get to a fare of £3.30 to match the bus fare from Glasgow to the airport, the fare from Paisley to the airport has to be £1.50. That £1.50 added to the £1.80 gets us to £3.30. That is how we arrived at the figure and, on that basis, the fare is reasonable, although it looks expensive for such a short shuttle. However, I would not expect that many of the people who use the link between Paisley and the airport will come from Paisley. It will be more of an interchange for people travelling from Ayrshire, for example, and the £3.30 will be diluted in the overall fare.
There are many instances on the network where the fare between two adjacent stations is very high on a per mile basis. The fare from Glasgow Queen Street station to Charing Cross is around £1 and it is a journey of less than 2 miles, perhaps less than a mile. The nature of rail fares is that they are higher per mile for short distances than they are for longer distances.
Thank you.
I want to go back to the possible additional routes that might build up the use of the Glasgow airport rail link. In the business case that you have proposed for the shuttle service, a significant operating subsidy is required for the service as is. Forgetting all the complications about platforms that you described to show why the scheme needs a dedicated platform, if additional services are to be run from Ayrshire or Lanarkshire would you expect them to be run on a commercial basis? If such additional services are possible, should they attract a subsidy? If they can be run on a commercial basis and thereby strengthen your business plan by bringing in additional passengers, why are they not already in the business case? That rather suggests that they would require to be subsidised.
I believe that such additional services would require a subsidy. If they did not, First ScotRail would probably be best placed to make that judgment. If it wished to operate those additional services without a subsidy, it could easily come to Transport Scotland and say, "We think that we can do this clever thing that would provide more services and you would not have to pay any more money in subsidy." I think that Transport Scotland would listen to that proposal carefully. However, the starting point is that those additional services would probably require some subsidy to cover their costs.
Without naming particular points of departure, people would be getting trains from, say, Ayrshire to Glasgow Central station or indeed, to Paisley Gilmour Street, and then going on to the airport, but they would not be using your rolling stock; they would be using only your track. Would SPT charge for that once trains started travelling on your track? That would give the scheme a commercial aspect, even if you wanted to encourage it by keeping the charges low.
It will not be our track. It will be part of the infrastructure that is maintained by Network Rail. Network Rail will set the charges, which will then be transferred back to the train operating companies. In a sense, we would not make those decisions. The premise that you start from—that the costs would be marginal because the trains would be running in any case—would help the business case for running such services either through to the airport or by reversing to the airport. Although that would assist, it would be wrong to assume that no costs will be associated with doing that. The additional number of passengers that will be generated is likely to be low against what may be relatively low costs.
I am just trying to identify whether we can find an income stream that would strengthen your business case.
Theoretically, there is no reason why track cannot be used on a completely commercial basis—for example, freight is carried in that way. In this case, it is Transport Scotland that will have to assess the commercial opportunities. At the moment, we are going through some detailed work on our financial business case. I am sure that, in setting the new fare structure for the new franchise, Transport Scotland will look at the issue.
That usefully brings me on to my next question. One of the promoter's policy objectives is
If I may, I will come in, both to answer the question and to add to the evidence that my colleagues have given.
I want to develop these points a little further, and I want to consider the economic benefits for the neighbouring local authorities. Those authorities have generally supported the claims made on the potential economic benefits. Has there been a study—either by you or by an independent body—into greater investment in the lines, in signalling, and possibly in platform provision? Without the proposed new branch line, could such investment still provide benefits for Ayrshire and Renfrewshire? Could there be a business case comparison between the cost of GARL and the cost of simply increasing investment to relieve the existing capacity problems?
You highlight an interesting strategic issue. Since the formation of Transport Scotland, the development of the Scottish rail network as a single entity has been at the forefront of its work. The Scottish planning assessment for rail has been considering all the requirements of the Scottish rail network. That work was a legacy to Transport Scotland from the days of the Strategic Rail Authority; Transport Scotland has been completing the work and has taken evidence from numerous stakeholders including Network Rail.
Mr Monteith asked about comparisons. The short answer is that we are not aware of a detailed business case having been prepared for a plan simply to increase capacity between Glasgow, Paisley and Ayrshire, so there is no plan that could be compared with the plan for GARL. We are not aware of any such business case being prepared in the past, but John Halliday has talked about what is going on at the moment.
I want to go back to some of the evidence that we heard this morning. Will you update the committee on how close you are to reaching agreement with Renfrewshire Council so that its objection can be settled?
You heard Mr Darracott this morning. We have had very constructive discussions with the council. On Friday, the council's legal department sent us its comments on a draft agreement that we had provided and which we had felt dealt with all the issues. It is too early to comment on the council's response—and I have not yet seen it myself.
I do not want to pour cold water on that, but I need to ask a question. Why has Renfrewshire Council not been asked to make a financial contribution to the scheme?
I will say a bit about how we are funded. SPT is funded partly by all the councils in its area, so any contribution that SPT makes is partly funded by Renfrewshire Council. The same applies to all the councils, including Glasgow City Council.
That clarifies the situation.
It is true to a degree that opportunities are available to undertake that development. However, as Mr Darracott said, although the local council and the development industry are aware of those opportunities, nothing has been proposed for some years. In the report on the benefits, we took great care to point out that the GARL scheme would be likely to act as a catalyst for increasing the confidence of the market and the industry. The difficulty is that the industry's confidence is susceptible. In our professional judgment, the GARL scheme is an excellent input to build confidence to use such opportunities.
Let us return to the information that was provided by the Network Rail representatives. They said that Network Rail had withdrawn its objection on the ground that its concern about statutory provisions had been resolved. Given the fact that broadly the same issue has been raised in other objections, do you believe that all those concerns will be resolved in the same way?
Not necessarily. At the airport, there are two statutory bodies with their own statutory requirements, and we need to balance the two. We need to be able to provide the railway to operate as a railway and, on airport land, the airport operator must be able to operate the airport. BAA, however, is looking for some security around the commercial aspects of operating the airport. It is seeking to hold control of the land, and I am not sure that that is entirely compatible.
Have you set an end point for your negotiations? Will you be able to tell us next Monday that you have struck an agreement with BAA?
I would like to. I will come back to the committee and give you an update on that.
I can give you an update on the situation regarding the other statutory bodies that you asked about. We are aware of the objections that have been received from other bodies such as the Royal Mail, National Air Traffic Services and some of the telecom companies. We have responded to every one of those objections and our legal advice is that there should be no major difficulty. The exception, among statutory bodies, is BAA.
It would help the committee if you could give us an update by Thursday on where you are in terms of each of those bodies, so that we can pick that up next Monday at the final round-up.
I want to pursue the compulsory purchase issue. What is significantly different about having the CPO power to build GARL over the land and being amenable to the rights of access that BAA might require, compared to having, say, a long lease? I mean not just a rental, but a 99 or 200-year lease that has rights for both sides built into it concerning the recognition of access and the ability to construct. What is the difference between having that and having a CPO power?
The intrinsic issue is that if we tried to negotiate without CPO powers we would be in an even negotiation that it might not be possible to conclude: the opposing party would be seeking to resolve all its issues, we would be trying to build a railway and there would be no compulsion to reach an end point. That is why CPO powers are required. Without them the bill could be and remain a source of frustation.
I have a quick point to add. The point about using CPO at the airport and the suggestions about the effect of that on the airport's development is important. I hope that our evidence—and that of BAA—has helped the committee to be clear that we have taken full account of airport development in selecting the airport alignment and the station. The ownership of the land is clearly a matter of control for the immediate future and in the longer term. We are certainly not seriously jeopardising the long-term development of the airport. The rail link alignment fits into the airport's master plan and there was a lot of discussion about that location.
I now take you back to the thorny question of consultation. We heard Fairline Coaches this morning indicate that it has not been consulted. SIAPRA also indicated that there had been no consultation. Do you have any explanation?
I will ask Charlie Hoskins to say something about the detail of the consultation.
I will talk about Fairline Coaches and bus operators in general. As the SPT, we have a clear role in buses—
I would hope so.
We consulted in detail all the bus operators that we believed were running along that route. That included Scottish Citylink, FirstGroup, Stagecoach, which came in later, Linn Park Buses, which—interestingly—developed a service when we were designing the rail link, and Fairline Coaches.
It was abundantly clear that Mr McGlynn was speaking on behalf of the Scottish Independent Airport Park and Ride Association. From his body language, it would be fair to assume that, as an individual, he was satisfied with the amount of consultation in which he had been involved. However, he felt that there had been no consultation on the wider issues of park-and-ride facilities and airport parking. You say that he spoke to your chairman. Was SIAPRA consulted? Did you write to it or ask it to contribute to your consultation?
I do not think that that was the case, but I would have to clarify that. One can never cover all the associations—there will always be one or two that slip through the net.
Yes, but I put it to you that SIAPRA is quite a significant parking association.
I want to reiterate the point that Douglas Ferguson made. We took great pains to get the consultation process right. We extended the consultation period to 17 weeks. We distributed leaflets and tried to identify all the relevant organisations. If we missed SIAPRA, that is an omission that we will have to examine. The association is new to me—we did not know of its existence. We would like to know who makes up the organisation. Mr McGlynn is one member, but I am not sure who the others are. I do not know whether he has given any evidence about that.
Okay. There are no further questions. Is there anything else that the witnesses want to get on the record?
I do not think so. In your final question about consultation, you picked up on the very issue that we wanted to pick up on.
I thank all the witnesses for their evidence.
Meeting closed at 15:35.