Official Report 469KB pdf
I welcome everyone to the sixth meeting of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee at the preliminary stage. Today we hear oral evidence on the adequacy of the bill's accompanying documents. The committee has a number of questions for the witnesses. I ask that all responses to questions be brief and focused, which will allow good progress to be made while ensuring that all matters that are of interest to the committee are explored.
SNH states that the environmental statement
We reached that conclusion in the normal way that we consider all environmental statements. We consider what we perceive to be the impacts; what impacts have been identified; and how significant or otherwise they might be. After that, we consider the mitigation that is proposed and the residual impact.
In relation to the appropriate assessment, will you please elaborate on the mechanisms or amendments that you would like to be put in place to ensure that the mitigation measures that are proposed in the environmental statement, the code of construction practice and the promoter's report on the Firth of Forth are delivered?
We seek mechanisms that will allow for whatever mitigation is proposed to be enforced. However, we would leave it for the Parliament and the committee to decide what mechanisms are best. Under the regulations with which we seek to comply, it is for the committee to ensure that measures have enforcement mechanisms that will enable them to work.
How would Scottish Natural Heritage like section 46 of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill to be changed to provide the guarantees that it seeks?
Section 46 is quite vague and talks about best practicable measures. The promoter has provided us with information along the lines of what was prepared for the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, which says that it will seek to ensure that the mitigation measures that are finally put in place leave no residual impact that is worse than what is identified in the environmental statement. The promoter has prepared further information that we can consider.
Good morning. What has been SNH's involvement in landscape and habitat management and what work have you yet to do?
Soon after the draft environmental statement was produced last year, the promoter set up several meetings with us to consider several issues, including the landscape and habitat management plans. We have provided advice on how the principles of landscape mitigation can be applied. We believe that the promoter is working on that and will deliver to us in the next few weeks further information on how it is developing that area.
I move on to protected species. If the promoter cannot mitigate the landscape impact, what effect will that have on the line's development? Could that stop the line? For example, in Galashiels, bats have prevented the demolition of an old government building. Could bats, otters or newts prevent the construction of a railway line?
We seek to provide advice. The Scottish Executive has a role in providing licences in relation to European protected species. The assessment process is two-pronged. We would provide advice on the surveys that are undertaken and consider what mitigation can be done but, ultimately, we would not stop the line. We would advise the Executive on licensing and it would be for the Executive to decide whether the tests had been met to allow it to issue a licence.
Will you elaborate on consideration of European protected species? I mentioned three of them. What must be included in the consent process?
To obtain a licence, compliance with the habitats directive is needed. European protected species legislation contains three tests. In the environmental statement, the promoter has provided SNH with information on its knowledge of otter movements, bats in the vicinity and great crested newts. Our advice is that some of that information is not specific enough and we have asked the promoter to undertake further survey work, which it will do.
I note that your submission says:
That has happened to several development projects throughout the United Kingdom. European protected species should be considered before consent is given to the bill. The promoter is working towards that.
Can we get back to bats? I know that I will be teased and called "Mrs Bats" after the meeting. What steps should be taken to protect bats and great crested newts? What mechanisms would you like to be put into place to protect them?
It depends on which part of the line we are talking about and whether we are talking about bats' foraging or roosting habitats. We are aware of only one pond, which is in Dalmeny, in which great crested newts have been recorded.
Now that you have said where the great crested newts are, people will go to that pond to look for them.
I hope not, because they would disturb them too much.
Thank you.
I would not dream of calling Christine Grahame "Mrs Bats".
No. Our outstanding concerns are to do with enforcement mechanisms, and we have put those concerns on the record.
In essence, does the promoter's environmental statement conform with what is required under schedule 4 to the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999?
Yes. The environmental statement is pretty thorough.
Will you elaborate on why the committee should include in the bill or the code of construction practice mechanisms to ensure that SNH and the local authority access officer are consulted over the design of the Newbridge to South Queensferry cycleway, given that you acknowledge that the promoter has made every effort to maintain the quality of the cycleway? What more would you seek to achieve?
There are duties and obligations as a result of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, and we should ensure that whatever is proposed is an adequate substitute for what will be taken away.
As members have no more questions, are there any other points that you think have not been covered?
No. We are content.
Okay. I thank you for giving evidence.
Mr Smart has proposed an alternative scheme to the Edinburgh airport rail link. Under the standing orders, the promoter's memorandum should set out whether alternative ways of achieving the policy objectives have been considered. Mr Smart has proposed a scheme that combines a Glasgow crossrail service with enhancing services to Prestwick airport and moving South Gyle station north of the A8. Do members have any questions for him?
Good morning, Mr Smart. We understand that there are two parts to your alternative to EARL. One part is support for the Glasgow crossrail scheme and the other part proposes moving the current South Gyle station north of the A8, where it would act as an interchange. Please elaborate on how your scheme would assist in growing Scotland's economy.
I am a bit sceptical about the economic arguments; rather, I have proceeded on the assumption that, for environmental reasons, we cannot continue to increase the amount of flying that we do. Prestwick airport is the nearest thing that we have to an environmentally friendly airport. I understand that the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee has said that there should be a Glasgow crossrail service, which we need anyway for other reasons. It seems sensible to have the crossrail, which would be much cheaper and better environmentally and would enable Prestwick and Glasgow airports to connect to the rest of Scotland.
Edinburgh airport is the local airport for those of us who are from Fife, but we cannot get access to it. What is your answer for us?
A bus service from Inverkeithing station to the airport has already started. The Gogar interchange that I propose would assist people from Fife. There should also be better express bus services and that sort of thing.
The promoter, Edinburgh Airport Ltd and the United Kingdom Government have predicted that passenger numbers at Edinburgh airport will continue to increase. Please comment on how your scheme would meet that increasing demand.
I do not accept the premise. I agree with the gentleman from Spokes who spoke at a previous meeting. We cannot go on with the policy of predict and provide, which has been a disaster on the roads and which will be a disaster in the air as well, both economically and environmentally.
The fuel is not taxed.
Mr Smart, how do you respond to the suggestion that what you propose is just a way of reducing air travel—I think that you alluded to that in your previous answer—rather than an attempt to meet the bill's policy objectives?
Part of my argument is that for short haul we should substitute rail for air travel. That is not just my view. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution produced a report, "The Environmental Effects of Civil Aircraft in Flight", which said clearly that for short-haul trips—for example, to Leeds, Manchester and even London—better railway connections and faster trains would help. The people who deal with integrated transport have said that we could have a two-and-a-half-hour rail service from Edinburgh to London. That would certainly cut down air travel.
I accept that that could cut down air travel. I have much sympathy for arguments about that. However, it seems to me—correct me if I am wrong—that much of the growth in Edinburgh airport over the past few years has not been about short haul but about travel to Europe and places that are further afield. For example, there are flights to Newark, Prague, Helsinki and Barcelona, which are places that we could not conceivably get to by train. I wonder whether the expansion in the airport is more about catering for that market and giving people in the east of Scotland a better choice so that they will use their local airport.
Well, the channel tunnel link would help to some extent for people who are not in a desperate hurry. They will not have to cross London; there will be a 10-minute walk from the Edinburgh platform to the channel tunnel platform. There is already huge overcapacity on the channel tunnel link and that will increase when it is completed next year. That is an alternative for people who are not in a hurry, although I accept that businessmen will probably not use it.
I represent the ferry port, which is in my constituency. My understanding is that, on the Zeebrugge line, the freight traffic has been cut down, not the passenger traffic, which is incredibly healthy. However, it still takes passengers 16 hours to sail from Rosyth to Zeebrugge—never mind how long it takes them to get a train from Zeebrugge to wherever else in continental Europe they are going—whereas it takes them two hours to fly to Prague or two and a half hours to fly to Helsinki. Those destinations will never be reached by train, will they?
Helsinki will not but, when the channel tunnel rail link is speeded up, the differential will be less. I am not talking about businessmen in hurry; I am talking about tourists, who are not necessarily in a hurry. The channel tunnel rail link provides an alternative, particularly for people who do not like flying. I suspect that there are people who do not like flying but fly because the alternatives are not as good as they could be.
In previous evidence, some of which you have sat through, we have heard that it is not only about people leaving Scotland to go elsewhere but about bringing people into Scotland—the weekend and short-break tourism markets. Do you not agree that, without an expansion in the airport, our ability to grow tourist numbers would be severely restricted?
I do not have details, but there is evidence that cheap flights are taking more people out of the country than they are bringing in. I am told that the tourist deficit for the United Kingdom amounted to £12 billion in 2001. Approximately 21 of the destinations from Edinburgh airport are holiday resorts—in other words, there are very few return passengers—and approximately 12 are large cities. That is a crude example, but there is evidence that cheap flying is having a negative effect. We should encourage people to spend at least short breaks in their own country. Why do people fly to Prague for stag parties? It is totally unnecessary. The group of old-age pensioners who flew to Hamburg for a Christmas market got publicity because they were stranded for two or three days, which is another issue, but are there no Christmas markets that they could go to in this country? We must investigate how much flying is really necessary.
In answer to Jamie McGrigor's first question, you said that Prestwick airport has huge environmental advantages over Edinburgh airport. Will you elaborate on what those environmental advantages are?
I do not know whether you have seen the letter that I received from the operators of Prestwick airport. It has spare capacity and does not need to be expanded, so there is already an economic advantage. It has a train station at the front door and express buses stop at the front door, so it is easier to get to and does not require any expenditure, although I suppose that the railway service could be improved. The flight paths are over the sea and fields; there are very few urban areas on the flight paths for Prestwick compared with those for Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, which are over urban areas such as Cramond, Newbridge, Musselburgh and Johnstone. That amounts to an immediate environmental benefit to using Prestwick airport.
There would be an environmental benefit for those who do not live in close proximity to flight paths for Glasgow and Edinburgh but, for those of us who live on the east coast of Scotland, Prestwick airport is a heck of a difficult place to get to, whether by car or by train. You suggest that people should use their local airport, but Edinburgh is the local airport for east-central Scotland so why should we not fly out of Edinburgh?
As I said, we should encourage people to use their local airport. I do not suggest that people from Edinburgh should go to Prestwick, although some might. However, if we built the Glasgow crossrail—which is needed anyway—we would immediately have a connection that would allow people from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Stirling and Perth to fly from Prestwick.
I might be different from other people, but my motivation for flying from an airport is rarely to do with the airport itself. I choose the airport that happens to have the airlines and flights that I want. Basically, there is a chicken-and-egg situation. A big disadvantage with Prestwick is that few airlines—for reasons that I will not go into—route flights into and out of that airport. More people use Edinburgh airport because airlines choose to fly from there because people want to fly from there. Travellers cannot simply turn up at Prestwick and say, "Take me to X." They go to Prestwick only if the airline happens to fly from there. People choose Edinburgh airport because airlines choose to fly out of there.
Given the political will, I see no reason why politicians could not encourage people to use Prestwick instead of Glasgow and Edinburgh for certain flights. Prestwick is used for quite a few flights but obviously not as many as Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, that could change. There is no reason why it should be set in stone that Prestwick is the least used but environmentally best airport. That could change.
Have you costed your proposals for increased access to Prestwick and for the Glasgow crossrail?
Mr Gordon knows more about the Glasgow crossrail than I will ever know. I do not have figures, but the bridge over the Clyde already exists so we have an engineering advantage right away. The costs would be tiny compared with the £650 million for the proposed EARL tunnel.
If members have no further questions, I will allow Mr Smart to make any final points that he wants to make to the committee.
I want to comment briefly on the documents that have been produced by the promoter. The promoter's memorandum states that EARL would be sustainable, but the memorandum fails to recognise that the airport expansion is utterly unsustainable. The environmental impact statement summary refers to the EARL project without reference to the environmental impact of the airport's expansion. That impact will include more noise and more pollution that will have an impact on global warming. The increase in the number of passengers, which is forecast to rise to 23 million by 2030, is an environmental nightmare. Apart from that, we do not know where they will come from. I suggest that the Government's policy of predict and provide is wholly wrong. Demand management, which is being proposed for roads, should also be applied to air travel.
I thank Mr Smart very much indeed for his evidence this morning. He has given the committee a number of points to ponder. I am sure that we will return to some of those, perhaps even this afternoon.
Thank you for hearing me.
I propose to suspend the committee for a few minutes while we wait for the next panel to arrive.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Unfortunately, the remainder of our witnesses for panel 2 have yet to arrive. Is the committee minded to take agenda item 4, which is an item in private—[Interruption.]
It is in public.
I am sorry, it is in public; I am getting mixed up. Is the committee minded to take agenda item 4, which is on the role of the assessor at the consideration stage of the bill, at this point? If we take the item now, we will not have to deal with it this afternoon. Are members agreed?
Next
Assessor