Inverness Airport
Members' business today is a debate on motion S1M-2142, in the name of Margaret Ewing, on Inverness airport and links with hub airports.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the huge significance of direct links between Inverness Airport and London hub airports to the economic and social well-being of the Highlands and Islands, particularly in relation to tourism, exports, the business economy and employment; expresses its grave concern at the possible loss of landing slots at Gatwick; seeks not only to have such links preserved but also to have similar slots at Heathrow restored, and believes that the Scottish Executive should pursue these matters vigorously with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the European Commission.
I realise that members who have indicated that they wish to speak are not yet present. They are not the people who are rushing off to the Rangers game. I hope that no penalty points will be awarded against those who wish to speak in the debate as they arrive.
I thank all members who signed my motion, and those who are staying for the debate. I hope, given the circumstances, that there will be additional and sufficient time for all those who wish to speak to make their points, because I am clear that many points will be developed as the debate progresses.
Those of us who are regular users—or in the case of many of us, habitual users—of the airport at Dalcross view it as a point of coming home. There is always a warm welcome for us when we arrive there, and that welcome comes from the friendly and helpful staff at all levels. I know that that welcome is extended equally to visiting delegations from all parts of the world and to tourists. I pay tribute and express my thanks to the staff for their positive attitude and work at Dalcross.
The urgency of the debate arises from the fear that Inverness could lose its direct links to London. I recall only too well the devastation that was felt when British Airways cancelled the Heathrow links. As the MP for Moray, I received a call from a British Airways executive early one Monday morning, as a courtesy, to tell me that that was happening, "before the story hit the press". I was absolutely astounded by that, because only a few weeks before, I had been assured that our slots and our links with Heathrow were secure. To me, other elected members and the community of the Highlands and Islands, that was absolutely devastating. Much play was made of the alternative links to Gatwick, but nonetheless, it was a blow. Gatwick is okay for people travelling between London and Inverness for holidays or for occasional trips, but that move cut off our links, for both freight and passenger traffic, with the main hub airport on the mainland of the UK.
Under current legislation, the allocation of slots is a matter for airlines. Although British Airways argued at the time that the Inverness to Heathrow link was a loss area, suspicion and evidence indicated that the move had more to do with the proposed merger of British Airways with American Airlines and the significance of slots at Heathrow airport. The significance of Dalcross airport to our economy was dismissed and reduced to a pawn in the context of globalised profit.
People in the Highlands and Islands now face the uncertainty of what will happen to the links with Gatwick. In a similar debate in Westminster Hall yesterday, David Jamieson, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, said that he had been assured that BA had no plans to discontinue the Gatwick links. Given our previous experiences in the Highlands and Islands, I will be excused if I take that with a substantial pinch of salt. I recognise that the slots are not the responsibility of the Executive or of any Government department, but the issue requires investigation and thought if we are to bring a sense of security to regional airports in Scotland.
There are strong arguments for further debate on the organisation of our regional airports. Today's discussion is about maintaining the provision of services. We want no relegation in the league, no reduction in our services and no impoverishment of the facilities for our communities. Central to that is the possibility of the allocation of a public service obligation. To the best of my knowledge, nine PSOs operate in Scotland and to add one for the service on the Dalcross link is vital to the economy of the Highlands.
Highland Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, local chambers of commerce, small business organisations and representatives of the tourism industry have all lobbied on the issue. That lobbying continues even today, because the director of Inverness and district chamber of commerce is at the DTLR to discuss the matter further. I believe that others are directly involved in those discussions.
European Commission regulation 2408/92, which allows Governments to intervene in certain circumstances, states that
"A Member State … may impose a public service obligation"
if that is in accordance with the regulation to which I have already referred. There is a presumption that the supply of air services should be left to the liberalised market to determine, but the regulation provides for Governments to intervene in certain circumstances. It states that a member state may impose a public service obligation on a route to a
"peripheral or development region"
when the route is
"considered vital for the economic development of the region".
The member state may do so
"to the extent necessary to ensure on that route the adequate provision of scheduled air services satisfying fixed standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and pricing, which standard air carriers would not assume if they were solely considering their commercial interest."
That echoes the sentiments of many people in the Highlands and Islands.
Six Scottish members of the European Parliament have supported the proposal for a public service obligation. Debates in the House of Commons have shown cross-party support, and I believe that this debate will show similar cross-party support for the proposal. A well-attended meeting in Nairn, organised in August by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, saw unanimity of support for the pursuit of a public service obligation. That proposal has been lodged by Highland Council with support from many others.
What worries me is that there appears to be a constant shuffling of the matter from one department to another. In response to a question from my colleague, Angus Robertson, MP for Moray, at Prime Minister's question time yesterday, John Prescott said that the issue was being given serious consideration by the DTLR. However, it appears that complexities relating to terminal 5 at Heathrow, the revision of EC 95/93 and the production of the DTLR's white paper in 2002 might delay decisions. When he responds to the debate, will the minister give us an idea of what is happening and when we can expect a decision to be reached? The time scale is critical, because that provides the only way of assuring Highlands and Islands people that their case is being taken seriously.
I say in all sincerity that the debate involves no begging-bowl mentality. The various peoples of the Highlands and Islands have worked hard to create an expanding economy. Tourism represents 35 per cent of the local economy. Inverness has achieved city status and is bidding to be European city of culture in 2008. Such a city cannot exist without direct air links.
The idea that we cannot have guaranteed direct air links is an insult to the efforts of all those who have worked hard to create a growing economy that embraces established and new industries. We in the Highlands hold our heads high. Members who represent Highlands and Islands constituencies are not here as a lobbying group. We represent a dynamic region of Scotland and are united in ensuring that our links are not severed, but strengthened.
Margaret Ewing asked me in advance whether I would extend the debate if there was not enough time for all members to speak. I think that we will continue with the debate. We should finish by 16:40. If we are likely to be a few minutes over, I will ask Margaret Ewing to move a motion to extend the debate for a short time, if that is acceptable to the minister.
I congratulate Margaret Ewing on securing the debate and I welcome the context in which we debate the motion. The Scottish Executive is backing the campaign in the Highlands to introduce a PSO for the Inverness to Gatwick route. It is only right that all Highland MSPs should add their support. The Executive's decision to support a PSO for the route has boosted the campaign significantly. Maintaining a direct link to the UK's capital city is a crucial need, as it provides access to the many links that are provided from Gatwick.
When the Executive announced its support, Peter Peacock, Maureen Macmillan and I recognised the need to involve local businesses throughout the Highlands in the decision. With our colleague David Stewart MP, we launched a survey of the views of those businesses. The response to our survey was extremely positive. Businesses overwhelmingly support a PSO. Many businesses consider the Gatwick link to be extremely important for the future of their businesses and of tourism.
Several respondents wanted the Heathrow link to be restored. I am sympathetic to that view, but I am concerned that if we widen the debate, we will weaken our case. We should concentrate on a PSO for the Gatwick route. If we obtain that, we can look forward to other developments.
The link is important not only to people who live around the Moray firth. The fact that the debate was led by the MSP for Moray makes that point clearly. The link is in the interests of the entire Highlands and Islands area. Remote communities have air links to Inverness, which allow people to fly on to Gatwick and beyond. A PSO will give those remote communities benefits.
The route is a lifeline for all communities in the Highlands and Islands. Without it, businesses and tourism will suffer and we will lose the potential for inward investment into those communities. Therefore, I welcome the debate. It is important that we all join together to give the PSO cross-party support.
I hope that the minister will give details on how the Executive is pursuing the issue with Westminster and with European colleagues to achieve a successful outcome. I hope that he will also tell us what support back-bench MSPs of all parties can give to ensure that that happens.
I am also thankful that Mrs Ewing has seen fit to bring the matter to the attention of the Parliament. As Rhoda Grant reiterated, the subject is one that affects all of us in different ways. It should not be made a party political issue.
I am well acquainted with the debate on Inverness airport. In the past few years, the airport has changed radically. It has been modernised and rebuilt to international standards. Inverness airport currently provides excellent facilities for freight and passenger traffic. Unfortunately, the viability of its finances is, as always, subject to the commercial decisions of the major airline operators. There is nothing new in that, but the peripheral airports suffer more in that respect.
In 1997, British Airways decided suddenly to discontinue the Inverness to Heathrow link. I am sure that Mr Peacock will recall the strenuous efforts that were made by many, including those of us who were members of Highland Council, to try to redress the situation. Members will not be surprised to hear that the loss of that route had a detrimental effect on many aspects of our Highland economy which, over a number of years, had generated and promoted its business through the regular and direct link to London's Heathrow airport.
Heathrow was seen at the time, as continues to be the case, as the hub airport for visitors to and from Europe, the United States of America and Canada. Visitors now have to transfer to other airports, transporting themselves across the vast sprawl of the great city of London, to secure onward flights to their chosen destinations. That is unfortunate and inconvenient.
If we moved the control and allocation of landing slots from the major airlines and their representatives, that situation could easily be avoided. It is strange that, under subsidiary names, the big airline operators are in control of the landing slots. I understand that the company that controls slots at present has the strange title of Flying Colours. Why that should be the case, I do not know.
I mentioned earlier my own involvement at Highland Council. I would like to acknowledge the determined and continuing efforts of Highland Council to secure dedicated landing slots at Gatwick and Heathrow airports. I note that the issue is currently being debated by our colleagues at Westminster. I hope that sense and reason will prevail there and that a satisfactory solution to that long-standing problem is found.
Airline activity is currently undergoing a downturn. That affects many of our major airports. Surely the downturn will allow space to be found at airports. Spare slot capacity could sensibly and appropriately secure permanently slots to serve and sustain routes to our peripheral airports. The big issue now is that, even if we were to secure a slot in the short term, we would have to secure it for the long term.
The subject of the debate is the securing of a public service obligation for peripheral routes, in particular the London to Inverness route. As I said earlier, Inverness airport has excellent facilities. It has the potential to serve Inverness and the wider Highland area in the years and decades to come. The airport is modernised to a standard that has achieved international acclaim.
I am pleased that the Scottish Executive has supported the plea for a public service obligation. I hope that, with its support and the sensible deliberations of our colleagues in Westminster, we will achieve our aim of dedicated slots at Gatwick and Heathrow. Those slots should be dedicated under a public service obligation. That will allow us to secure eventually the benefits that we all hope to secure and enjoy, which will allow the travelling public to journey to and from the areas that we serve.
I thought that I had another hour to write this speech so I am afraid it is a bit disjointed. I apologise.
I have written to the minister several times recently about the topic of the debate and I thank Margaret Ewing for bringing it to our attention. I am pleased to endorse the minister in the support that the Executive has given to the case by Highland Council for the imposition of measures to ensure access to Gatwick from Inverness. I understand that Sarah Boyack wrote to the Westminster Government on 9 October—I am sure that we all fully support that.
Although it is a major aspect of Margaret Ewing's motion, the public service obligation is only part of the equation. I am seriously concerned that, in these days of great expansion in global travel, the management, attitude, vision and ability to market that one finds at many other airports is sadly lacking at Inverness airport. Such is the disgust of many of the island authorities served by Inverness airport that Shetland Islands Council, which has bought a 26 per cent share in a shipping line, has put forward a case to run and manage Sumburgh airport in Shetland. I received a fax today from Shetland Islands Council that highlights many of the serious concerns about the management of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.
The fax says:
"We in Shetland are convinced that to create overall best value for the region and the communities that HIAL airports should be managed and directed much more by the individual needs and opportunities of the communities they are located within."
The communities of Inverness and the Western Isles are mentioned. The fax goes on to say:
"We think the whole question of government ownership and the HIAL management structure accountable to the executive constrains individual entrepreneurial and business acumen and it is against this background that we in Shetland are promoting to the executive the local ownership and business management of Sumburgh airport."
I ask the minister to consider not simply the public service obligation but the whole management of HIAL. Does the minister feel that HIAL is doing its best to increase and market passengers and freight in the Highlands and Islands? Given that Inverness airport receives a subsidy of £16.2 million—considerably more than many other airports in Scotland—the minister should ask HIAL whether he is getting value for money.
It is the luxury of the Opposition parties to keep asking for more subsidy. Until HIAL can show taxpayers in Scotland that it is providing value for money, best practice and good management, it does not deserve a larger subsidy. It is still more expensive to cross the Pentland firth than the Atlantic. It is £276 for a day return from Inverness to Kirkwall and—as I discovered last week when I was looking at flights on the internet—a return to Los Angeles is £240. When I was in Orkney last week, a businessman told me that a day return from Kirkwall to Stornoway is £600.
Margaret Ewing's motion is crucial. I fully support the approach of the minister and Highland Council, and the public service obligation for the Inverness-Gatwick link, but I would like the minister to consider the whole structure of HIAL.
Would Mary Scanlon concede that air fares and charges levied against passengers are matters for the airlines and not for the management of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd or, least of all, for Lewis Macdonald?
Yes, indeed, but my point is that it is a matter for the airlines in negotiation with the management.
Speeches are tending to drag out to about five minutes. That is too long. Members should aim for speeches of three to three and a half minutes.
I have great pleasure in congratulating my wife, not least on securing this evening's debate. I also welcome the spirit in which we are all working together for a common aim. In doing so, I praise Rhoda Grant and John Farquhar Munro for their contributions to the debate. I listened with interest to Mary Scanlon's comments, which were largely about the organisation rather than the provision of air links. That is a topic for another day.
The question today is about how we can secure long-term protection for that vital lifeline link between Inverness and London. Inverness is a mini-hub to all the routes in the Highlands and provides a vital social service. On that ground alone it is essential that there is a PSO for every route that is dependent on Inverness. It is also essential for the economic development of the area that there is a PSO.
I was concerned by the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister, who indicated yesterday that questions about terminal 5 at Heathrow and a white paper in 2002 could delay a resolution to the issue. I would be grateful if Lewis Macdonald could address those specific matters today. Will the Scottish Executive join me in stating that a PSO should be obtained now, irrespective of a debate about terminal 5 and irrespective of a white paper on transport in 2002? If we have to wait until those issues are dealt with, we will be waiting until the next Government.
It is germane to point out that many people—my wife, Peter Peacock, John Farquhar Munro, myself, Mary Scanlon and perhaps most of the members in the chamber—have been campaigning on the issue since that black day in 1997 when BA pulled out of Heathrow claiming that it had made millions of pounds of losses but refusing to open up the books to justify that claim, which many of us regarded as utterly extravagant and untrue. We have waited since then for the Labour Government to take action.
Yesterday David Jamieson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, stated, in relation to whether a PSO should be granted, that
"The Government have interpreted the regulation very tightly indeed."
Why? In France, the Government does not do that. In France, every region has a PSO to Paris, but that is not the case here. No, no, not here, because apparently the Labour Government interprets the EU regulation very strictly. Well, that is not good enough. I submit that, as Mr Jamieson said, even if the Government interprets that regulation very tightly, the regulation states that a PSO is
"necessary to ‘ensure the adequate provision of scheduled air services satisfying fixed standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and pricing, which standard air carriers would not assume if they were solely considering their commercial interests'."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Westminster Hall, 31 October 2001; Vol 373, c 294WH.]
It is abundantly clear that the needs of Inverness and the Highlands, taken as a whole, more than satisfy that regulation. With an election imminent in 2003, I have every confidence that the collective minds of ministers here and elsewhere will be very much focused on delivering success for a campaign that has gone on for far too long.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and congratulate Margaret Ewing on securing it. The fact that this Parliament has taken the transport issues of the Highlands and Islands seriously is a sign of the importance with which they are now regarded. Not just air links but sea and road links into the area and within it are being closely examined, and we seek to improve them because they are crucial to the economy and social fabric of the area.
Now, more than ever, there is a pressing need to safeguard the Inverness to Gatwick slot and to do so as quickly as possible. If there was uncertainty about BA's intentions before 11 September, no one could now be blamed for fearing what the airline might do next. Almost as soon as the tragedy unfolded before our eyes, BA announced the loss of 7,000 jobs. A cut of such a size shows that there can be no room for complacency.
The PSO is an important initiative. I am pleased that the Scottish Executive has listened to those who have campaigned for it and has agreed to support calls for its imposition.
It is essential that Westminster support the initiative, too. David Stewart MP today led a delegation to meet David Jamieson, the aviation minister. I hope that the meeting will provide an important boost for the measure. The indications seem to be positive, but we must keep focused on what we want to achieve.
I refer to what Mary Scanlon said when I say that, sadly, for some, the focus has moved from the PSO campaign on to the issue of low fare services. There is a need to encourage new services, but that is not the primary focus of the PSO campaign.
Development opportunities should continue to be looked for wherever possible and I hope that the Executive will urge HIAL and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to seek ways of encouraging new services—for example, the hoped-for opening of Inverness airport for 24 hours a day. That would encourage air freight development and companies to use Inverness to service the north and north-east of Scotland.
It is essential that everyone works together on the issue. Criticising the HIAL board, as Mary Scanlon has done, does nothing to advance the debate on the future of the PSO for Inverness. Even if there were no airport charges, fares would be high because of the relatively small amount of traffic from Inverness to the islands compared to the number of jumbo jets that cross the Atlantic.
A positive debate on HIAL's role and how to achieve the best balance between the needs of the peripheral airports and the Inverness hub is needed. In the debate, we must not forget peripheral airports that are not served by Inverness—for Islay, Campbeltown, Tiree and Barra, planes fly out of Glasgow. Those airports must not be left out of the equation.
On the PSO, I hope that the minister will detail the next steps. In particular, I hope that he will detail the progress of discussions with Westminster and give his assessment of whether we will achieve a successful outcome. We must show Europe that there is complete unanimity in the Parliament so that it will be left in no doubt as to the importance that we attach to the issue.
I remember the excellent fight to keep Heathrow. I praise Highland Council and all the councils, because they fought together in a unified battle. I remember going to London to lobby. I think that Peter Peacock was there, too—perhaps he was not there on that occasion, but he was involved on many occasions.
The argument about losses always intrigued me. I remember when both BA and British Midland had flights to London Heathrow—they were packed. Where on earth were the losses? We never got to the bottom of that and, from my observation and common sense, I never understood the argument.
I remember going to see Neil Kinnock, who was the commissioner for transport, about the issue. It was clear that BA was going to dump us and the north of England, Wales and other bits and pieces of the UK. It was cosying up to an American company and was going to sell slots. Neil Kinnock did a great service for us in saying that slots could not be bought and sold. He did not help us to any great extent in the end, but he stopped BA from cosying up to its pals, whom it hoped to get in with. He established an important principle: slots should not be bought and sold because they concern whole societies.
Fergus Ewing mentioned France—I add Spain. In Spain, it is taken for granted that every airport must be connected to Madrid. People would be shocked and horrified if that were not the case.
There has been one disaster with Heathrow. I have sympathy with a point that Rhoda Grant made. She said that we must concentrate on the PSO argument and not argue for Heathrow at the same time, although all of us want Heathrow restored. We have lost Heathrow. I suppose that no one from the north of Scotland should have expected to be an MEP, but I was for 24 years. Once Heathrow went, what was my choice? Not Gatwick, because it had hardly any flights to Europe and involved hours of waiting. Not Aberdeen in the morning, because if the Aberdeen plane did not get to Amsterdam in time—which was normal—and I did not do a four-minute mile to catch the plane to Strasbourg, I had to wait six hours in Amsterdam airport. That was not pleasant. The result was that I, as an MEP, had to go on a Sunday to get to Europe. Before that, it had been possible to go in one day.
We are meant to be connected to Europe. We are meant to be in there, showing that we are internationally minded. At the moment, however, London is the place that links us to our involvement in Europe and the international world. We cannot allow the impending disaster to happen. We must act together. The tourism and economic arguments remain and we have the total support of the Highlands. We cannot wait. I agree with my son, Fergus Ewing, on that point. I am sorry for all the family being here—I cannot help it.
I congratulate Margaret Ewing on securing the debate. I am happy to add my weight to the call for the restoration of protection for the Inverness to London air links, which form a vital link between the Highlands and the rest of the world. At the same time as exporting our products and services, they bring in large numbers of tourists. Without the links, the Highlands would be isolated. That would have severe knock-on implications for employment and the economy.
The Highlands and Islands relies heavily on the tourist trade. The loss of air transport links between Inverness and London would be one more nail in the coffin for Highland tourism and would have a large impact on our export trade. A cheap air travel infrastructure would greatly encourage tourism.
Between 1986 and 2001, 20 regional airports across the UK lost their air services to and from London. A Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions consultation on the future of aviation referred to the vital role of regional lifeline services in the economic life of remote areas of the UK. A report in 1998 by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons called for guaranteed slots for regional air services at London hub airports. Both acknowledged the importance of regional flights, but as yet nothing has been done to guarantee their existence. Now is the time for the Executive to act and work with its UK and European counterparts to ensure that those flights are protected for the future.
With low-cost airlines offering more and more flights that depart from London airports to destinations in Europe, it would be wrong if Inverness lost its Gatwick slots simply to allow more people in the south-east to fly from Gatwick instead of enduring the hardship of travelling to Stansted or Luton.
The threat to the Highland economy from the loss of air services is huge. I have heard from many constituents who are alarmed at the loss of those vital lifelines, which provide a key economic catalyst to Highland trade and industry. Many people, especially in tourism and trade, are worried about what will happen if they are lost.
We must consider the role that Inverness airport plays in Highlands and Islands life. It is the key business and leisure airport for the Highlands and Islands. It supports links with London, Edinburgh and Glasgow as well as the regional services within the Highlands and Islands. It acts as an important centre for travel throughout northern Scotland and we have to ensure that the reduction and possible withdrawal of air services to London do not have an adverse impact on the airport and the role it plays in linking Highlands and Islands communities.
On reflection on the present world situation, it is important that we have faith in and support our airline providers. With so many job losses in the industry and threats to airline routes, we must all fight to ensure that we preserve the London to Inverness route against any further cuts.
British Airways has had to drop its Belfast to Heathrow flights—among others. Rather than those empty landing and take-off slots being held on to, could they now be used for Heathrow to Inverness flights? The Highlands have already lost the link to Heathrow. We need to act now to ensure that landing slots at other airports in and around London are not lost.
We call on the Executive to act to protect those important links for Scotland. By working with London and Europe, the Executive must ensure that Scotland does not lose this vital transport artery.
We will need another six or seven minutes to fit everyone in. To ensure that we do that, I will extend the debate until 5 o'clock. Someone will have to move a motion without notice to that effect.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended up to 5.00 pm.—[Mrs Margaret Ewing.]
Motion agreed to.
It might be dangerous to give me more time. I will get on rapidly.
I am once again the meat in the sandwich of the Ewing family. I recall an occasion, immediately after a general election in the 1990s, when I was the pilot who was sent to collect Winnie and Margaret from Inverness airport to get them to a press conference in Edinburgh. I enjoyed the experience, but I regretted not being at the party; I had to be sober to fly the plane.
Inverness currently needs a PSO. I regret that. I look forward to the day when Inverness is so successful and vibrant that there will be no question but that the facilities required to operate services to it will automatically be made available commercially, but that is not the case today.
There have been a number of threats to air transport in Scotland over the years. They have not all been the responsibility of Governments—far from it. Some 0.1 per cent or less of the air transport capacity in the United Kingdom is controlled in Scotland. We are therefore entirely peripheral to decision making on that front. Inverness airport has an excellent piece of tarmac and it is located far enough away from the surrounding towns to be environmentally friendly. It has lots of good things going for it, but climate is not one of them.
One of the problems that Inverness suffers from is that it is one of the very few airfields of its capacity that does not have an instrument landing system, or ILS. It suffers an undue degree of diversions, mainly to RAF Kinloss. Channel Express, which operates a nightly freight service to Inverness, flies to RAF Kinloss—not to Inverness airport—to maintain reliability. Lest we think that an ILS is the prerogative of big airfields, the Civil Aviation Authority website shows that Exeter, Dundee, Norwich and Londonderry all have an ILS. Instead of building wonderful new terminal buildings, which are great for the passengers on a transient basis, we should invest the small amount of money that is required to improve the facilities for airlines. The tower was relocated so that the airport terminal building could be rebuilt. The facilities for approaching Inverness are comparable technically to those at Barra. That might surprise members.
The PSO is the subject of the debate today; it is important that we preserve it. I will illustrate what matters. The most extreme airfield into which I have flown—as a passenger in a 100-seat jet—is the airfield at Juliaca, in southern Peru, which is at an altitude of 11,500ft. It is a gravel strip. There is no terminal building; there are just taxis along the edge of the field. The core is providing the facilities to get the aircraft in.
I am very fond of Inverness airport. It was the second airport that I ever flew into. That was on 31 December 1969, when I was returning to celebrate the new year. Let us hope that the people in Inverness can once again celebrate—I will be happy to join them—when they get the PSO that is vital to the airport.
I associate myself with what Margaret Ewing said. She made a measured and important speech in which she detailed the arguments. I also agree with the similar comments that have been made by members of other parties.
Margaret Ewing is to be particularly congratulated because at the start of the debate four Scottish Executive ministers were present, as was the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, the former chairman of Highland Council's transport committee. It would only be fair to point out that Mr Peacock is a former convener of Highland Council. That level of attendance shows the importance of the issue. The fact that four ministers found time in their diaries to attend Margaret Ewing's debate indicates the support that there is on this issue.
I also associate myself with remarks made by colleagues who have pointed out the important improvement that Sarah Boyack has made in taking the PSO forward. The only point on which I disagree with Margaret Ewing is that, for me, Dalcross signals a point on the way home rather than a point of getting home.
I take Struan Stevenson's point—
It is Stewart Stevenson.
I take Stewart Stevenson's legitimate point about providing services. The argument about services in the Highland and Islands—I think that, with respect, Mary Scanlon slightly missed it today—is about the cost of the service. Whether to a businessman or a family trying to get away, that issue is just as important as any other.
Routes in the Highlands and Islands can grow and Inverness can be the hub that Maureen Macmillan quite rightly talked about, but that can happen only if there is an imaginative approach from the airlines, particularly British Airways. As members have highlighted, we have lacked such an approach in the past and at the moment I am worried that the issue will go backwards rather than forwards. The arguments for the Inverness to Gatwick PSO are extremely important, because I am concerned about British Airways' commitment to the Highlands and Islands. I am not persuaded by the argument that such routes cannot grow; they can, but it will take imaginative pricing policies.
I find it a source of great regret that ever since I was elected to Shetland Islands Council in 1994 I have made exactly the same arguments to British Airways about cutting prices—providing family tickets and so on, which other colleagues have made in other places—and the company has never accepted the challenge. After 11 September, I can fly with my daughter to Prague for £65 but my ticket home to Sumburgh tomorrow will still cost £400.
I do not expect Lewis Macdonald to respond this evening to the first of my two final points, but perhaps in the fullness of time he will tell me in writing whether he will consider PSOs for the northern isles and other areas. British Airways has the monopoly in those areas and I believe that PSOs should also apply there. I do not want to detract from the arguments that Fergus Ewing and other members have made for a PSO between Inverness and Gatwick. Although those arguments concern economic regeneration and growth, I am sure that members will not lose sight of the need for companies such as British Airways to examine the cost of flying, which is such an issue for us all.
As a Central Scotland MSP, I very much want to speak in this debate just to register the support of people from outside the north of Scotland for the development of Inverness airport. I am quite glad that the two Central Scotland MSPs in the debate are Andy Kerr, who is the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, and me, the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
It is extremely important for the rest of Scotland that the Highland economy reaches its full potential. Last night, I was reading the latest newsletter for Highlands and Islands Enterprise. It pointed out that, for the first time in many a long year, there is net immigration into the Highlands and Islands and that there is a skills shortage in many sectors in the area. Unless we address that shortage, the Highlands will not be able to realise its full potential. A key means of solving the shortage would be a hub-to-hub connection from Inverness to London, Schiphol and other hub airports, which would be essential to the expansion of the Highland economy and allow it to realise its full potential.
I appreciate the arguments about whether we should concentrate only on the campaign for the PSO or whether we should be doing other things as well. As I fought for years to save and then to expand Prestwick airport, my advice is to move on all fronts at once. Although members should campaign on a united front for the PSO, they should not treat that issue and encouraging other carriers such as Ryanair and Go—if there is any chance that they will fly into Inverness as well—as mutually exclusive.
The lesson that we learned from the Prestwick airport campaign was that putting all our eggs in one basket means running a very big risk if nothing comes off. If we move on a number of fronts and one or two of them come off, we are sailing. [Laughter.] I mean flying, not sailing. Prestwick is now the fastest growing airport in the whole of the UK, with passenger growth last year standing at about 30 per cent. If we can get Inverness into that position, that will be a huge bonus not just for Inverness airport and Inverness, but for the Highlands and Islands.
Although I have a lot of sympathy for Mary Scanlon's arguments, they are not particularly the subject of today's debate.
The change of ownership at Prestwick, from the British Airports Authority to a local company, initially, was an essential ingredient in turning Prestwick around and making it a successful airport. I hope that the minister will address those medium-to-longer-term issues as well.
The development of the Highland economy is essential, and the development of Inverness airport is essential to make that happen. I hope that we will not see a united front just from the MSPs from the Highlands and Islands and the north-east, but from all MSPs. All 129 of them should put their elbows and shoulders behind that development, as it will be an enormous benefit to the whole of Scotland.
I am not sure how one can put one's elbow and shoulder behind something at the same time: it conjures up the image of a game of political Twister, which Alex Neil is perhaps better at than I am.
I do not want to restate the points that have been made, but I shall pick up on one or two of the things that Fergus Ewing said. He was right to make the point about Inverness being a localised hub. I am sure that the minister will take that on board. Fergus also says that he suspects—because of his particularly cynical view of life—that, with an election looming, there may be movement on this issue. Frankly, we do not care what gets it going; as long as there is movement on some basis, I am sure that all members will welcome it.
Margaret Ewing mentioned the importance of tourism to the local economy. I shall take the example of where we are at the moment and tie it into the rest of the Executive's strategy, which is about refocusing more towards the European Union and trying to increase our visitor numbers from there. Alex Neil mentioned the unity among members, and in other Parliaments, on the case for the PSO. We must also push the case for low-cost, direct flights. Kenny MacAskill and Winnie Ewing made that case on Monday, and it is worth making in tandem. It is not a diffusion of the issue.
I would be interested to know how much subsidy would be required for those low-cost airways and how Duncan Hamilton would speak to people in his region and in Tavish Scott's constituency to sell them the idea that money would be used to subsidise those airways while people such as Tavish would still have to pay £400 for a lifeline route.
I am not sure that I can give the member a detailed breakdown. If I were a minister, I might say that I would be happy to write to her.
Let us remember that low-cost airlines are given such deals all over Europe. European airports are clamouring to get on board that idea. The question is what members can do to improve the lot of their constituents. I suggest that we consider what has happened in Brussels, Paris, Frankfurt and Glasgow and look at the figures for the growth in passenger numbers between 1994 and now. There has been 550 per cent growth at Prestwick, compared with 29 or 30 per cent growth at Inverness. I would say that we have a problem there. As the operator, or the body that controls Highlands and Islands Airports, the Executive has the responsibility of making the deal.
Will the member give way?
No, not at this point.
Why should people in the Highlands and Islands be uniquely badly placed to access low-cost airlines? When the local economy is struggling, anything that we can do on every front should be pursued. That should not be regarded as fracturing consensus; it would be building on the consensus and confirming that we all agree with the PSO. On top of that, we should do what we can to encourage economic growth in Inverness. If the passenger throughput increases, surely that is an argument for the security of Inverness airport and economic prosperity. In the long run, does not that take us all the way back to Stewart Stevenson's point? Is not the position where PSO is not needed, because the consumer base and the business market are in place, the real element of economic regeneration behind which we should all unite?
I call Lewis Macdonald to respond to the debate for the Executive. We must be finished by 5 pm.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will take your warning to heart.
I welcome this debate on Margaret Ewing's motion, which has provided further evidence of the breadth and strength of support for the approach that the Executive has taken to protect existing access from Inverness to Gatwick as the strategic route that links the Highlands and Islands to London and the wider world. I welcome the constructive speeches that have been made by colleagues on all sides of the chamber.
Maureen Macmillan mentioned the key role played by David Stewart MP, who has championed this issue for many years in another Parliament. I acknowledge the key role that Westminster colleagues will continue to play, given that the next stage in the process lies with the House of Commons.
Perhaps Mary Scanlon would have been better to take a further hour to write her speech. I was disappointed by the way in which she allowed herself to digress into a different topic. Likewise, Duncan Hamilton appeared to show little appreciation of the difference between Prestwick and Inverness, which I found somewhat surprising. That is a different debate for a different day.
We all recognise that, since the withdrawal of Inverness's link to Heathrow in 1997, it has been important for ministers in the Scottish Office and, latterly, in the Scottish Executive, to keep a watching brief on that route. At that time, assurances were given on the operator's commitment to the Gatwick route, which replaced the link to Heathrow. However, those assurances related to the first three years of that operation and they have now expired. In addition, the operator—British Regional Airlines—has been acquired by British Airways. For those reasons, we have focused our attention on the security and long-term future of the service. At the same time, we clearly recognise that, whatever the short-term downturns may have been in recent weeks, the long-term pressures on the London hub airports will continue to increase.
Members from all sides of the chamber recognise the great concern that was felt in the Highlands when the Heathrow link came to an end in 1997. Peter Peacock and many others in the chamber were involved in expressing that concern. I understand the temptation to seek to reopen that issue at this stage, but I believe that we should resist that temptation, for reasons that I will explain in a moment.
The focus today is on how the links operate at present and how we should protect them. For obvious commercial reasons, airlines seek to maximise their returns from the slots that are available to them. They use those slots for the highest yield services that they can obtain, whether continental or further afield. In general, domestic services struggle to compete on yield. Given those circumstances, we recognised that the Gatwick service was in danger of becoming dependent on what was in the best interests of the operator rather than on what was best for the wider community.
We recognise that the Gatwick route is still not up to the level of passenger usage that was achieved by the Heathrow service at its peak. The point has been made that BA has not indicated any intention to discontinue the Gatwick route. On the contrary, and as was said in the House of Commons yesterday, BA has said that it has no such plans. However, in the absence of long-term guarantees, there is a clear need for us to examine what action can be taken to secure the future of the link.
The fact that passenger numbers are not what they were for the Heathrow route is surely because Heathrow is a much better airport for getting to other places.
I will address the Heathrow question in a moment—I realise that that question has been brought into the debate. In the first instance I want to explain what we have done to protect the Gatwick slot. My officials have worked closely with the local authority and the local enterprise company on the mechanisms that are available to us to do that. We agreed with them that the best way forward is the development of a PSO on the Gatwick route, recognising that that route is of vital importance to the economic development of the area and offering it a degree of protection and security.
We focused on the economic benefits that derive from having access to Gatwick airport, which is a London hub that provides the Highlands with a gateway to the world, a useful platform for the promotion of the area and a link that is good for business, good for the local economy, good for inward investment and good for tourism. The Highlands is an area that is heavily dependent on exports and on access to the wider world. In recent years, the area has made great strides in improving its economic base. We are committed to the view that the benefits of the area should not be diminished through the loss of the vital link with London.
I do not think that any member doubts the sincerity of the arguments that are being propounded in connection with the PSO, but they want to know about the time scale that is involved, as that is of critical importance.
My eye is on the deputy presiding officer's clock and I am keen to make progress so that I can address Margaret Ewing's point later.
To address other questions that can reasonably be raised, it is important to spell out the nature of the case. The peripherality of Inverness and the dependence of the Highlands on air transport are unusual in UK terms. A point was raised about what other countries do, but it is critical to our case that Inverness and the Highlands and Islands are unique in a UK context and must be considered separately from the wider issues. Other transport links from the north of Scotland cannot provide an adequate substitute for the established air links. The absence of a fast alternative adds weight to the PSO case, which is strong.
The imposition of a PSO would allow, as a secondary but critical effect, the ring-fencing of the Gatwick slots, which is necessary for the continued operation of the service. The case is not about the acquisition of new slots, but about ensuring that vital existing slots can be guaranteed for the existing service.
That brings me back to the question of Heathrow, which a couple of members raised. We are vigorously pursuing the case for the PSO on the Gatwick route. Part of that case is that that specific route is of vital importance to the Highland economy. We must be able to demonstrate that the maintenance of that route is critical. I urge all who support that PSO case and who want it to succeed not to dilute the strength of the case by broadening it too far.
The legal powers that might exist to reacquire slots at Heathrow, for example, are debatable at best. The clear route forward is to impose a PSO at Gatwick. That is the route that we should follow, to protect what we have.
Members have acknowledged the initiative that we have taken and have asked where we should go from here. In response to Fergus Ewing's earlier question: we want a PSO implemented now. He asked whether we will await the outcome of the aviation policy review and the debates over terminal 5. It is because we do not want to wait for those matters that Sarah Boyack wrote to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions at the beginning of October to make the case for a PSO being implemented now. We recognise that, in the light of recent events and the changes at Inverness, early implementation is critical.
The message that I am sure David Stewart and his colleagues will have conveyed to David Jamieson this morning is the same as that which we convey on a regular basis—the sooner the better. Talks are on-going—even as we speak. I will reverse the usual order of proceedings by using the closing speech to welcome officials from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, who have joined us during the debate and who are in Scotland to talk to my officials about the case that we are making.
Today's debate will have strengthened our case. The vast majority of speeches focused on the critical questions that sustain and underline our case for a PSO on the Gatwick route. We will continue to pursue those negotiations and we welcome the continuing support of members of all parties. I look forward to an early and successful conclusion to the matter.
Meeting closed at 16:58.