Glasgow Airport Rail Link
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-4882, in the name of Bill Butler, on don't derail GARL. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament regrets the proposal in the SNP government's draft budget, published on 17 September 2009, to drop the Glasgow Airport Rail Link (GARL) project; considers that the proposed cut is short-sighted, given that a new airport rail link would provide Glasgow with a direct connection to three international airports and would contribute in a positive fashion to the economic development of Glasgow and west central Scotland, especially at this difficult time; believes that the rail link is an indispensable component of a modern 21st century transport infrastructure for the whole of Scotland; considers that GARL will boost public transport and reduce the number of car journeys to the airport; further considers that the promise to have GARL in place was a vital consideration in the awarding of the 2014 Commonwealth Games to Glasgow, and hopes that, in the course of the budget process, wiser counsel prevails.
On 17 September, John Swinney announced the Scottish National Party Government's decision to axe the Glasgow airport rail link. It was a bolt out of the blue—certainly to Opposition members and, I suspect, to most, if not all, SNP back benchers. There had been no consultation of the main stakeholders in the project, the business community had been left in the dark, and the leader of Glasgow City Council had been given all of 20 minutes' notice of the announcement. The same degree of courtesy was extended to Amanda McMillan, the managing director of Glasgow airport.
The debate provides members with their first opportunity in the chamber to support a call for the reversal of this short-sighted proposal. I suspect that it will not be the last time that Government ministers find themselves under scrutiny on the matter. They should not be surprised, given the overwhelming case in favour of the GARL project.
Until 17 September, the case for GARL had enjoyed widespread support across the parties in the Parliament. As far back as 3 October 2000, Sandra White, the SNP list member for Glasgow, bemoaned the
"lack of a direct rail link to Glasgow airport"
and urged the then Scottish Executive to
"implement plans and make available the necessary funds"
for such a scheme. She was right to do so.
Indeed, in 2006, at the preliminary and final stages of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill—the private bill to promote GARL—all SNP members who were present voted in favour of the project's implementation. Parliament spoke with an almost unanimous voice. SNP MSPs—then humble Opposition back benchers, some now elevated to ministerial rank—willingly lent their support. Among them were Mr Swinney, who is now Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth; Stewart Stevenson, who is now holder of the transport portfolio; and Nicola Sturgeon, who is now Deputy First Minister and still one of Glasgow's 17 MSPs. In 2006, they all spoke up for GARL. Since the announcement of its axing in September, all SNP MSPs have been struck dumb. The debate provides SNP members—whether from Glasgow or not—with the opportunity to rediscover the power of speech and, importantly, their self-respect.
I hope that we hear from all parties the compelling case in favour of GARL. It is a powerful case, which not even the most obdurate minister would dare to ignore. The project would provide a number of significant benefits: around 1,300 jobs would be created; extensive training opportunities would be provided in the west of Scotland; and at least £300 million-worth of investment would be attracted to west central Scotland. Indeed, as the then Minister for Transport, Tavish Scott, said during the final stage debate on 29 November 2006,
"The Glasgow airport rail link will provide an important contribution to economic growth in Renfrewshire, Glasgow and throughout Scotland. The link will be good for local residents, airport workers, tourists and Scottish business."—[Official Report, 29 November 2006; c 29839.]
In addition, GARL would provide Glasgow's business district and the rest of Scotland with a vital link to the international airport, where passenger numbers are predicted to go from 8.8 million a year to 17.1 million by 2030.
Indeed, the environmental advantages of GARL are not insignificant. At the moment, 95 per cent of people who travel to Glasgow airport do so by road, many on the congested M8. From an environmental and logistical point of view, that is unacceptable. GARL and Glasgow crossrail—which, at the moment, finds itself shunted into a siding by the Government—are particularly significant in that regard, because such developments can provide a 20 per cent modal shift on to public transport, as evidenced by Manchester and Newcastle airports.
Members should also note that the GARL project and the Government's guarantee to deliver it played a vital role in Glasgow's successful bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games. A promise that was given on the international stage on behalf of all Scotland should be kept.
Given those obvious benefits and the Government's acknowledgement of the national strategic importance of GARL to the Scottish economy, our constituents are entitled to ask why on earth Mr Salmond has agreed to dump it.
Increasing concern at the
"significant difference in the real costs"—[Official Report, 17 September 2009; c 19763.]
of the project was cited by the finance secretary on and after September 17, especially in relation to early work being carried out to the airport campus itself. He claimed that costs had rocketed from £8 million to £70 million. That staggering increase is—I will be polite—misleading and inaccurate to say the least. The £8 million was a costing from 2004 before the bill had been introduced to the Parliament. The £70 million, which Mr Swinney and Mr Salmond say has been added to the overall cost, was clearly contained within the £210 million budget estimate when Strathclyde partnership for transport transferred responsibility for the project to Transport Scotland in May 2008. It is important for members to realise that, when the official transfer took place, Transport Scotland carried out its own thorough risk assessment and due diligence over a period of three months. No significant cost increase or overspend was identified. The financial case for GARL was and remains sound.
The Government's proposal to axe GARL is plain wrong. No convincing case to ditch the project has been advanced. On the contrary, the evidence for reinstating the project in the budget is highly persuasive. The SNP Government has got its priorities wrong, and I hope that all members, including back benchers on the Government side, will press ministers to reconsider. I advise them that not to do so is a mistake that will not readily be forgiven, for GARL is a national priority for Scotland. It is time for all parties to speak up, to step up to the plate, and to put GARL back on track. Members on this side of the chamber will do just that.
In view of the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the time for debate by half an hour.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by 30 minutes.—[Bill Butler.]
Motion agreed to.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and to give those who wish to make political capital from this difficult decision an opportunity to reflect on and, I hope, digest certain unequivocal truths.
I remind Bill Butler that his Government never took GARL forward—he should remember that. [Interruption.] Yes, we hear the shrill voices, outrage and horror from the Labour members, but will we have a mature debate on the subject and the savings that will have to be made if GARL is to go ahead? I doubt it.
Only yesterday, the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a further bail-out of Britain's banks to the tune of almost £40 billion, which dwarfs the entire block grant that is available to the Scottish Government. He also announced the sale of the banks' profitable insurance operations, which will endanger a very important sector that currently supports 1,600 jobs in Glasgow. Do we hear anything from the members opposite about that? No, of course not. They have no concern for the people of Glasgow, their future or their livelihoods. They are in opposition for opposition's sake, and are ready to dance whenever the jig is asked of them. It is political posturing of the worst kind. It has always been known that they do not stand up for Glasgow or Scotland's interests as they take their orders from London's Labour Party.
Order. I ask the speaker to address the motion that is before us.
I will, but this is part of it.
It pains me to say this as I have great respect for certain journalists—I lobbied and led debates in support of media jobs and freedom of speech—but the Evening Times, once a widely respect newspaper, has in many people's eyes become the mouthpiece of the Labour Party in Glasgow. Some might say that the tail is wagging the dog. I wonder who is being ripped off. GARL is mentioned in the Evening Times day after day.
Order.
I mentioned GARL.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Would you be so kind as to remind the member again to speak to the motion?
The member must speak to the motion that is being debated, which I have not heard much about so far. Can we get back to it? I would also appreciate fewer interruptions from Labour members.
Presiding Officer, I did—
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not.
I did mention GARL. It was part of an Evening Times campaign about ripped-off Glasgow.
Let us deal in truths rather than scaremonger. Let us acknowledge—I am going on to GARL—that, of all the mainland councils in Scotland, Glasgow City Council receives the highest funding. Does Bill Butler dispute that it receives £2,871 per person?
Labour members have a big chance today. It is time for their party to grow up, be straight with the people of Glasgow and the people of Scotland, and tell us where they would save money to allow GARL to go ahead.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry.
I suspect that Labour members will not tell us where they would save money to allow GARL to go ahead and that, through their inability to put forward any alternative proposal, they will be exposed as the political opportunists that many have come to know them as. Why will Steven Purcell, who is a Labour councillor, not use his millions of pounds of reserves to help to fund GARL? What is he doing with that money? It is time to come clean with the voters and explain to them exactly what is going on in Glasgow.
Labour is no longer the party of the people; it is the party that has created the largest public deficit in history. We are currently paying out £6 billion in interest rate payments every month. Labour members talk about GARL, about money, about Glasgow and about savings. The Labour Party has been in control in Glasgow for decades and has had the opportunity to take forward GARL and crossrail.
I am sorry, but the member's time is up.
It is Labour that is ripping off Glasgow. [Interruption.]
Order.
I congratulate Bill Butler on securing the debate. In his speech, which was mature and reasoned, he made it clear that the Glasgow airport rail link is of regional importance but it can also be an indispensable component of a modern, 21st century transport infrastructure for the whole of Scotland. My constituents in Aberdeen would agree with him on that.
Does the member accept that the impact of the Glasgow airport rail link would be felt outside Glasgow, not just in it? Does he agree that people in constituencies such as mine, which has the lowest level of car ownership in Scotland outside Glasgow, would benefit from the existence of a rail link that would give them public transport access to Glasgow airport that they do not have at the moment, and that the decision that has been made therefore has implications far beyond the city? I hope that the Government is aware that its concern for the airport should extend beyond funding for Glasgow and that it will support the constituents of Lanarkshire and elsewhere.
Jack McConnell is absolutely right. He speaks with authority as he was First Minister when the GARL proposals came forward. My constituents in the north-east will welcome his comments. Their ability to use Glasgow airport to access places that are not served by flights from Aberdeen is significant. On that ground, they will support a direct link from Glasgow airport to the railway network that connects our cities.
Will the member tell his constituents and MSPs where the cuts would come in order to have the Glasgow airport rail link reinstated?
SNP members are not satisfied with setting Scotland against the rest of Britain; they spend a lot of time and effort trying to set one part of Scotland against other parts of Scotland.
The cancellation of the Glasgow airport rail link is not the SNP's first offence, of course. Mr Swinney and his colleagues cancelled the Edinburgh airport rail link as soon as they could after taking office. Some might believe that the cancellation of EARL and GARL is mere coincidence; others might detect a trend. For those of us who represent areas outwith the central belt, that trend is very worrying indeed. Of course, I want to see more direct routes to and from Aberdeen airport, which already has good connections with Scandinavia and generates much traffic indirectly with North America. However, a city region with a population base of 500,000 people, no matter how dynamic its local economy, cannot sustain the whole range of international and intercontinental routes. That is why I want my constituents to have the best possible access to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports and it is why I want those airports to have the best possible connections with the north-east.
The suggestion has been made—it was implicit in Brian Adam's question—that reinstating the Glasgow airport rail link would put at risk projects of importance to other parts of Scotland. That is a deeply divisive and misleading proposition. When it was first made, I raised my concerns directly with John Swinney, who responded within the same working day—I give him credit for that. However, he did not answer directly the question that I put to him then: was the Aberdeen western peripheral route considered for cancellation at the same time as the Glasgow airport rail link? That is what has been suggested by members of the SNP in the north-east, and it would be useful if Mr Swinney could answer that specific question directly this evening.
The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee heard in evidence last week that it will take three years to build the WPR—
I am afraid that the member's time is up.
I, too, congratulate Bill Butler on obtaining the debate and thank him for bringing the matter to the chamber. It is important that the issue is debated.
The justification for the GARL project has been repeated time and again in the Parliament, and I had thought that there was unanimity of opinion on it. As Bill Butler has said, its cancellation has implications for jobs and for the allied training that those jobs would inevitably require. Also, the existence of the link would make Glasgow a more attractive venue for both tourism and business. Indeed, as I have said in the chamber before, I doubt whether there is any city of metropolitan status in Europe that does not have a rail link from its airport to the city centre.
Is the member aware that there are more than 300 proposed airport rail connections throughout the world and that only the Scots have cancelled two such projects instead of building them?
I was not aware of that, but I welcome the information as it underlines that airport links to city centres are very important.
It is particularly disappointing that GARL is now not going to take place because it was an important feature in bringing the Commonwealth games bid to such a satisfactory conclusion. I have considerable sympathy with the view that Councillor Purcell has expressed. He feels that he gave his word on something that is no longer going to happen, which is disappointing to say the least. How the matter was handled and how the information was imparted left a lot to be desired.
On the other hand, the Government has an argument in respect of the costing of the project. The fuel dump removal costs, which have escalated dramatically, are a consideration that we must look at. There is also the difficulty that has arisen since it was agreed that the project would be undertaken with regard to BAA's policy on the disposal of certain airports. We cannot predict what the outcome of BAA's approach will be, but the potential sale of Glasgow airport would create some uncertainty about the GARL project.
The overall financial position must be looked at. I have been disappointed—not only in this context, but in many contexts over the past few weeks—that there still seems to be no appreciation in the Parliament as a whole of just how serious the economic situation is and what we will have to do to remedy it in the two to three years ahead. Those things must be considered. Everything is now in the melting pot for budget consideration and I hope that, even at this stage, the Government will look again at GARL and see whether there is any possibility of the project being fulfilled.
At the same time, it is incumbent on all of us who have any other viewpoint on the matter and would wish the project to go ahead to come up with solutions to the problem of how savings are going to be made in other accounts. In the present situation, that might not be easy.
I too congratulate Bill Butler—it is not something I am known to do, but I will on this occasion—on securing this vital debate and giving us all an opportunity to debate the Glasgow airport rail link.
I will concentrate on the issue that I know best in connection with GARL: the successful 2014 Commonwealth games bid.
The bid document that the previous Scottish Executive submitted to the Commonwealth Games Federation in 2007 clearly stated the many commitments that the Scottish Executive, Glasgow City Council and the Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland would make to support the bid to bring the games to Glasgow.
One of the major infrastructure projects that was included in the document was, of course, the Glasgow airport rail link. It was there in black and white. Helpfully, so too was a letter from the parties in the Parliament that supported the bid, in all its detail and complexity. Ms Sturgeon, in her capacity as deputy leader of the SNP, signed that letter and seemed pleased to do so. Indeed, there was unanimous support across the parties that are still represented in the chamber.
It was not only the front bench of the SNP that understood the value of the Glasgow airport rail link; in the final stage debate in November 2006, Sandra White, an SNP backbencher, stated:
"The benefits of the link are overwhelming, but one of its greatest benefits is that it will be a major feature in Glasgow's bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games. I believe that, with such an asset, we will win the bid."—[Official Report, 29 November 2006; c 29844.]
Mrs White was right on that occasion—we won the bid, and our joined-up approach to transportation and the accessibility of all the venues in Glasgow was a key factor in that win.
The SNP Government has not only reneged on a commitment to Glasgow, the west of Scotland and to tourism providers, travellers and businesses across Scotland; it has broken a solemn undertaking that was given to the Commonwealth Games Federation.
As is the way with such organisations, the Commonwealth Games Federation has been diplomatic about the cancellation. It has, understandably, said little publicly, as it is a body that takes seriously its responsibility for the delivery of the games and the standards that are set, but as the person who was charged with the ministerial responsibility for Glasgow's bid in the previous Administration, I regret the cavalier decision of the SNP Government and sincerely hope that it will reconsider and not give the Commonwealth reason to believe that we are a nation that does not keep its word.
The previous British host of the Commonwealth games was Manchester. It is a sad irony that a Scot can travel from Waverley station direct to Manchester airport but cannot travel directly to Glasgow airport.
An editorial in yesterday's Evening Times quite rightly made the point that 17 Glasgow MSPs working together should be able to secure a better deal for Glasgow from this SNP Government. Those MSPs should also be able to persuade the Government that it must change its mind about GARL. Glasgow MSPs on this side of the chamber will try to do so. Unfortunately, tonight's debate would seem to indicate that, although we have the support of many of our colleagues, we will not have the support of those in the SNP. That is a fact that I genuinely regret, but is one that the people of Glasgow will remember—not just next Thursday, but for a long time to come.
This must be the first members' business debate in which the two most senior cabinet ministers in the Government have stayed behind to reply to the debate.
The decision by the SNP Government to cancel the Glasgow airport rail link has no redeeming features. It is wrong in principle, wrong in practice, wrong politically and commercially and flawed in method. Indeed, it is unnecessary.
There must be something about airport rail links that casts a red film over the eyes of SNP ministers, but I must confess that it is still unclear to me why they have cancelled the GARL project. It is to Bill Butler's credit that he has expressed himself in moderate terms in tonight's debate, in the motion and in his speech. I hope that such an approach will produce a positive response from Mr Swinney and his colleagues as the days and weeks go by.
Robert Brown commented on the presence of two cabinet ministers. I ask him to comment on the absence of the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change—as I wish to reflect on the minister's role in the matter—and on the absence of a number of SNP Glasgow back benchers.
I will leave the facts to speak for themselves, as that is the best way to deal with them.
There is a plaintive cry from ministers and their back benchers that their opponents must say what they would cut, but that will simply not work: GARL was in the 2009-10 and 2010-11 capital budgets and it was deleted by the SNP. That signifies two things. First, the SNP Government has, with no process of review or appraisal, unilaterally decided that the outstanding economic case that was accepted by the Parliament when it approved the project was wrong. Secondly, the employment benefits in the current financial and economic crisis of a major infrastructure development such as GARL are to be cast aside, along with the 1,300 jobs and the £3 million of investment that go with it.
It is the way in which the SNP Government has gone about the cancellation that bothers me most. We can leave aside the fact that there was no proper reappraisal process and that the transport minister did not see fit to tell other stakeholders of the cancellation until 20 minutes before the announcement—perhaps he himself had not been told; the real gripe that people in Glasgow have about the cancellation is that there was no attempt to sit down with other stakeholders and ascertain whether, against the future pressures that Bill Aitken mentioned, which we all accept, the project could be progressed, perhaps in a more satisfactory fashion. Perhaps the timescales could be recalibrated, or the costs reduced. Perhaps other stakeholders would contribute, or other ways could be found to fund the project.
The transport minister—whose absence from today's debate has been mentioned—is in the process of finalising a private-sector-funded design, build, finance and maintain funding model for the Borders rail link, the cost of which is not dissimilar to the £175.7 million cost of the abandoned GARL branch link. In broad terms, a privately funded DBFM model might have a revenue cost to the public purse of around £10 million or £15 million per year, some of which should be offset by the passenger revenues that the line would create when it opened. Why was that option not examined? Why were alternative funding models not considered? I do not accept Mr Swinney's dismissal of that idea at the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. What was needed was political will but, unfortunately for Glasgow and for Scotland, the Government has not got what it takes. The abandonment of manifesto pledges has entered into the very iron of its soul and affected much of its actions. The cancellation of GARL lacks transparency, justification and common sense.
In the words of Glasgow airport's managing director, the Government has created "a gaping hole" in Glasgow's and Scotland's transport infrastructure. No Government worth its salt should have done that; no Government with even the glimmerings of a commitment to a coherent transport strategy would have failed to consult and to examine options. The SNP Government has failed the basic test of competence, and in doing so it has badly let down Glasgow and Scotland. I hope that it has the common sense to think again.
The member's time is up.
I congratulate Bill Butler on bringing to the chamber a debate on a project that is essential to the city of Glasgow. I anticipated with pleasure what I thought would be the opportunity, on my return to the front bench tonight, to renew my acquaintance with my opposite number: Stewart Stevenson, the SNP Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. Another time, perhaps.
I can, however, renew my acquaintance with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney; we had a good go at the same subject yesterday at the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.
I have said that I, and Labour, regard the project as essential to the city of Glasgow. We always regarded it as desirable, but as we are not yet fully out of recession it is essential for the sake of maintaining and creating employment that we invest in skills and infrastructure, particularly transport infrastructure.
Yesterday, the cabinet secretary told the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee that he regarded the project as desirable but not essential. He went on to say that even if additional resources could be found to reinstate the project, it would not be something that he wanted to do. That is a strange definition of "desirable".
I would be grateful if Mr Gordon would complete the explanation that I gave him at the committee yesterday: I agreed with his colleague, Mr Gray, that if there is more accelerated capital the greatest priority has to be social housing. I thought that that was Mr Gordon's view into the bargain.
I made it clear that Labour has a strong commitment to additional expenditure on social housing, but we do not see it as a question of either/or. Accelerated capital might indeed be part of the solution to the reinstatement of GARL, but as the cabinet secretary knows, at yesterday's committee meeting we also discussed several other options for funding the reinstatement—indeed, Robert Brown has just made yet another suggestion—but the cabinet secretary turned me down when I suggested that he call a meeting of all the relevant stakeholders and interested parties.
This is emphatically not a question of getting a hack's brief from a party resource centre and playing some kind of political game; this is about doing the right thing by the people of Glasgow and the people of Scotland in very difficult times. People are still losing their jobs and many others are worried about losing theirs. Surely investment in a project such as GARL is absolutely relevant at such a time, as so many of the organisations that represent businesses are saying.
The project is essential and not just desirable, but even if the Government believes that it is only desirable surely we must find a way in which to get it back on track. We are considering the draft budget for 2010-11, when the project would require expenditure of £62.6 million. Are we seriously saying that that is not manageable within the ambit of a budget of £31 billion, given the examples of all the other financial solutions that it might be possible to bring into play? The debate is only just getting under way.
As I have only four minutes, I will not be taking any interventions. I congratulate Bill Butler on securing this evening's members' business debate, even though I disagree with his motion.
At the outset, I pose a question to all those who support GARL. What would they scrap to reintroduce the project? As the Parliament's committees are undertaking the budget scrutiny process, I look forward to reading how supporters of the GARL project would reintroduce it and by what means they would fund it. If GARL goes ahead, how many communities the length and breadth of Scotland will suffer as their funding is cut to pay for it? GARL supporters need to remember that, and they should also prepare their explanations of why they have cut local projects to fund a scheme that will transport a mere 11 passengers per train.
The costs of GARL were increasing long before the SNP came to power—from £140 million to about £160 million, then to the figure that Tavish Scott gave in an answer to the Parliament, when he said:
"The Glasgow airport rail link is on target to cost £170 million to £210 million".—[Official Report, 16 March 2006; c 24050.]
It is obvious that the costs of the project were wholly underestimated from the outset and, as a result, were not sustainable.
Some constituents have told me that they welcome the decision because they do not want another Parliament building fiasco to take place. I do not want that either, as it would do nothing to build confidence in the people of Scotland.
Glasgow has consistently done well from the Parliament. In 2009-10, Glasgow City Council received from the SNP Government the highest share of funding per head of population of any mainland council. Its share was 22 per cent above the Scottish average. Glasgow received more than £2,500 per head compared with the Scottish average of just over £2,000 per head. Aberdeen and Edinburgh receive just over £1,700 per head and Dundee receives just over £2,200. Glasgow is doing tremendously well from this SNP Government. I should also mention the money for the M74 extension; the Commonwealth games; the M80 upgrade; the new £842 million southern general hospital; which will be built with money from the public purse, not from the shameful public-private partnership and private finance initiative system; and the £1.164 billion for the Glasgow to Edinburgh railway improvements programme. I could go on, but I do not have the time.
Glasgow has done and is doing very well from this Parliament and this SNP Government. It is getting a better share of resources than any other mainland authority, so this "Poor Glasgow" political campaign is simply not factually accurate. In fact, the more that new Labour goes on about poor Glasgow, the more votes the SNP gets across the rest of the country, including the west of Scotland region.
Archie Anderson, the chairman of the Paisley north community council, got it right. In welcoming the decision on GARL, he said:
"Common sense has prevailed. This is the right decision for the local area.
It is good that the Scottish Government realise that the rail link was simply a case of the emperor with no clothes. There was no economic case for the project."
In the future—[Interruption.]
Order.
In the future, let us have a GARL. Let us have a GARL that we can be proud of and can shout about. Let us have a GARL that actually takes people off the roads, compared with the 11 passengers per train that this project would have operated with. Moreover, let us have a GARL that will not require a £3.1 million subsidy every year. What we need is a GARL that is not a symbol of inadequacy and lack of ambition.
Like other members, I congratulate Bill Butler on his excellent speech. He showed not only that he cares about ensuring that Glasgow gets a fair deal, but that he is not willing to stand aside and let the city continue to be ripped off by this SNP Government.
This might be a habit of my new role as shadow business manager but I note that, this evening, eight of the nine Labour MSPs who represent Glasgow's constituencies are present in the chamber, and Pauline McNeill has provided medical certification to clarify why she cannot attend. That says something for those Glasgow members who, even when they were in government, were unwilling to stand aside and kept making the case for Glasgow.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I am very happy to give way to Sandra White or any other SNP member.
I will take Sandra White's point of order, although I ask that we get back to the debate on the motion. I would appreciate it if Mr Martin did so as well.
That is what I was going to ask, Presiding Officer. Mr Martin has not yet mentioned GARL.
I thought that it would be helpful to refer to members' speeches. Indeed, Sandra White herself mentioned the Glasgow Evening Times. The fact is that sometimes the truth hurts. We need to remember that the same things were said not only by the journalists who wrote the Evening Times articles, but by those who contributed to blogs and letters pages and the many other people in Glasgow who are concerned about this SNP Government.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
It would be fair to say that, over the years, Glasgow has faced—
Hang on, Mr Martin. Sandra White has a point of order. [Interruption.] Can Sandra White's microphone be turned on, please?
No.
Order.
My point of order is the same as my previous one. We are now two minutes into Paul Martin's speech and he has not yet mentioned GARL. Will you ask him to stick to the subject?
I will decide whether a contribution is relevant.
I will follow your guidance, Presiding Officer.
Members have already raised a number of points and, in his summing up, John Swinney has to clarify why he was unwilling to get round the table with the various stakeholders that Charlie Gordon and others have mentioned. Perhaps he will also confirm my understanding that Councillor Steven Purcell was willing to provide additional funding to allow the project to go forward, because that would have been a very important move for GARL.
As members throughout the years have argued in this chamber, a good transport infrastructure is crucial to tackling many of the economic challenges that the city of Glasgow faces.
The Glasgow City Council briefing confirms the possibility of more than 1,300 job losses. Some SNP members might find that amusing, but it is not amusing for the men, women and children who will be affected by the Government's decisions and the issues that face us.
It is clear that the SNP Government has its priorities wrong. If members really want to make the case and stand up for Glasgow, they should get behind the motion in the name of Bill Butler.
I am happy to congratulate Bill Butler on a continued high rate of success in bringing members' business motions to the chamber. He said that he hoped to hear a compelling case for the Glasgow airport rail link from members of all parties but, although he will certainly not hear a case against it from me, he will hear a rather more lukewarm case in favour. I highlight the difference between Bill Butler's speech and that of the next Labour speaker, Lewis Macdonald. Bill Butler attempted to make the environmental case and then Lewis Macdonald talked about the need to generate ever more air traffic. The Labour Party cannot have it both ways—either position is consistent, but it needs to choose one or the other.
Does Patrick Harvie believe that John Swinney has made the case for the cancellation of the project?
John Swinney has not made the case for the cancellation of the project. I will come on to that.
Bill Butler talked about the potential for a 20 per cent modal shift from road to rail if the project goes ahead, but that will bring a benefit only if, at the same time, we constrain aviation growth so that we have the same total number of journeys to and from the airport. If the number of journeys goes up, we will have a double whammy, with increased emissions from surface journeys and from the larger number of flights. At some point, we will have to get beyond that contradiction.
When the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill was introduced, I argued consistently that crossrail was the top priority. It should always have been the top priority, as it would have the maximum benefit for the maximum number of rail users in Glasgow and the wider region. It still should be the priority. I voted for the GARL bill simply because it would have been irrational to vote against it on the basis that projects were being pursued in the wrong order.
Although my support for the GARL project was lukewarm, my support for cancellation would be bizarre when set against the substantial and continually growing road-building project that the Government and its predecessor Administration have pursued. There are projects on the books that I would not build even if they were free to build and those should have been the targets for cancellation. Sadly, it is too late to cancel some of them, but there are other road projects that could be targets if savings are needed.
Some of the arguments on the project have been rehearsed at the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee and will continue to be debated as we draft a report for the Finance Committee. There are issues on the timing of the decision and its announcement and on the process, which, in effect, prohibited rational discussion of alternative approaches by stakeholders. There are also issues on the presentation. The Government could have floated a proposal or recommendation from Government, with a willingness to discuss alternatives. However, we were merely presented with a decision. There is also the dispute about the figures and the management of costs. No doubt, the committee will address all those issues in our report.
Before I finish, I will address a longer-term issue, which is that, although we all expect that there will be funding constraints in the future, the far greater constraint arises as a result of Government priorities, because of the idea that a single vast project with a vast price tag—the additional Forth road bridge—should be the top and only priority. GARL will not be the last project to suffer because of that perverse priority. At a time when we need to invest in the low-carbon infrastructure through small measures, medium ones such as crossrail, and what is potentially the most expensive public investment programme—in electric charging points—that is a perverse priority.
I will accept no interventions until I am finished. I congratulate Bill Butler on securing a members' business debate on what is quite a controversial topic.
Yesterday was an historic day for rail transport. Warren Buffett, the sage of Omaha, has spoken. He bought the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway's 3,000 miles of track for $26 billion. Had he bought at the rate at which the GARL project was calling on our finances, he would have got about 200 miles of track.
We should remember—I address Charlie Gordon in particular—that, in 1999, Sir Alastair Morton, who was the first and, in effect, only chair of the Strategic Rail Authority, went to Gordon Brown with proposals for major high-speed developments for Britain's railways that would have cost £30 billion. However, Gordon Brown—with Lady Vadera, the dark lady of the London Underground, standing beside him—slapped him down. Had we gone ahead with modernisation then, we would not be having this debate today, just as the town council of Marseilles does not have debates about more flights to Paris because the train à grand vitesse, or TGV, which is the fast express train on French railways, can get people there in three hours. We are suffering from the prudence in spades of a decade ago. Only in the mid-2020s will we get what every major European nation, down to and including Spain, has got now. That is the penalty of having had the Labour Government in power.
The GARL project would only marginally, if at all, enhance accessibility to Glasgow airport. As one who travels quite frequently to the airport, I know that I can reach the airport from central Glasgow in about 15 minutes by bus, which takes a more direct route than what is proposed under GARL—
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
The estimated cost for the airport rail link has increased from £170 million at the point of parliamentary approval to almost £400 million.
That figure is for two projects.
Yes, that figure is for the two projects, but the branch at the end of the line would still cost £175 million for about 1.5 miles of track.
Anyway, I do not think that Glasgow airport's passenger numbers will double in the next decade because we will hit peak oil within about 10 years. We have already seen oil rebound from about $30 per barrel to upwards of $80 per barrel. My guess is that, by 2020, the price might be as high as $300 per barrel. I wrote the history of North Sea oil, so I think that I know a bit about that. Therefore, the Labour members' notions of the importance of air traffic in Scotland will be sadly diminished by that time.
Brown's prudence has brought in the cuts—his failure to handle our banking system has led to the decision—but, as Charlie Gordon will be aware, the rot goes far further back. It takes me two-odd hours to come up here from the Borders, but what did I read on Monday? That day's edition of The Scotsman was deeply hostile to the Borders rail project, on which the Labour Party is advancing what is, let us say, a very sceptical view.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in tonight's debate. I congratulate my colleague, Bill Butler, on securing it. As ever, he made a very strong and articulate case for retaining the Glasgow airport rail link.
In my comments, I want to look at what contribution the GARL project would make to the Scottish economy. From my early days on the Parliament's Finance Committee, I remember Alex Neil time and again reminding us that the SNP Government's prime policy was economic growth, with the aim of achieving by 2011 a growth rate greater than that of the UK. On each occasion on which the Finance Committee has visited other parts of Scotland and held away days—interestingly, it will meet in Glasgow next Monday—committee members have pointed out the importance of connectivity and transport links for economic growth.
The Glasgow airport rail link would not only make an important contribution to Glasgow's economy, but would provide a link to other parts of Scotland. It would ensure greater movement of people and resources not just through Glasgow, but to other parts of Scotland. That view is shared by the business community, as we have seen from the submissions from the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, the Institute of Directors and others.
Comments have been made tonight about the number of jobs that will not be gained if we do not go ahead with the project: 1,300 jobs are likely to be lost.
As Patricia Ferguson eloquently pointed out, one of the big successes in recent years has been the bringing of the Commonwealth games to Glasgow. An infrastructure that will be sustainable in the future, which will involve building strong transport links, is central to that. The Glasgow airport rail link had the opportunity to contribute to making the games successful. We want visitors who arrive in the city to be able to get from the airport to their hotels and the Commonwealth games venues as quickly as possible. The decision that the SNP has taken will prohibit that.
Some SNP members have asked where we would take the money from. In previous contributions to finance debates, I have made suggestions about how money could be cut from the budget. I will make just one suggestion this evening: the Government should scrap the Scottish Futures Trust. At a cost of £23 million, it is a waste of public money and has brought no new projects into the Scottish infrastructure.
The SNP's attitude to the Glasgow airport rail link has been inconsistent to say the least. We have heard from others how the clarion calls came from the SNP in 2006 in support of the airport rail link, but tonight it is almost like we have the silence of the lambs. It is time that the SNP took its blinkers off. It should stop ripping off Glasgow and move forward with a decision that would support not just Glasgow but Scotland's economy. It must move forward now and support the airport rail link.
I congratulate Bill Butler on securing the debate. Many excellent speeches in support of the Glasgow airport rail link have been made.
The SNP is very fond of drawing comparisons with other small European countries. Some of the small northern European countries with which it makes comparisons, such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Ireland, all have rail links to their airports. The only exception in the SNP's arc is Iceland, but, of course, Reykjavik has particular problems, because it does not have a railway and it has lava fields between the airport and the centre of the city. There really should not be a problem in connecting Scotland's biggest city and its airport through the rail link. That should be a natural thing for a country to do in support of its own economic development.
Steven Purcell described the decision as
"a dagger in the heart of Glasgow".
I disagree slightly, for the reasons that Jack McConnell mentioned. This is not just a Glasgow project—it is national project. The airport rail link would have brought many people closer to Glasgow airport by public transport.
I say to Mr Swinney that a Government that is unwilling to act in the interests of Scotland's largest city, which is at the centre of the conurbation where nearly half the people live, is not really fit to be governing Scotland.
There are a number of absentees this evening, to whom others have referred. Where are Bob Doris, Bill Kidd and Anne McLaughlin? More important, where is Stewart Stevenson? The SNP has been keen to insulate him from questioning about the decision. The reason for that is straightforward. In July, he was asked what was happening to the project and he said that it was on track and on target. If that was so, the question that I want to ask him, but which I will ask Mr Swinney, is this: When was Mr Stevenson told that the project was to be cancelled? Was he told one month before, one week before, on the same day or after the decision? I would like to know the answer.
The decision is wrong. In 2006, Parliament reached the right conclusion—that GARL should be built. The project has not been downgraded from "essential" to "desirable" in the meantime. I say that because Mr Swinney has provided no evidence to support his decision. At the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee meeting yesterday, he made it clear that the decision was his. He did not follow a review process for the GARL project or a review process that would have set out transport options and allow him to choose the least-damaging option. Any business that faced a financial problem would ask systematically what were its options and alternatives. The SNP has made a political decision, which is why Bob Doris, Bill Kidd and Anne McLaughlin are not here.
The process by which the decision was reached was flawed. I have an additional question to ask Mr Swinney. He has said that the decision was driven by a budgetary shortfall. I accept absolutely that there is a financial hole; the question is whether it is GARL shaped—
I am afraid that the member's time is up, so the question will have to wait. We must move to the final speech. I call John Swinney to wind up the debate.
I congratulate Bill Butler on securing the debate. He also secured important congratulations from somebody who does not always congratulate him, and I am not talking about me.
I seem to cause a lot of trouble with Margaret Curran when I attend Parliament. She complained about my speaking in a debate the other week and wanted to know why I did so. The debate was on the school building programme and the Scottish Futures Trust, in which it was appropriate for me to participate. Equally, she should have no complaint about my presence tonight. I would have thought that a serious response from a Cabinet member to Mr Butler's debate would be welcome.
I say with no disrespect to the cabinet secretary that he should not flatter himself; I criticised not his presence, but the absence of others. The ministers who are responsible for decisions are not being held properly accountable to the Parliament. Fiona Hyslop should have faced the questions and Stewart Stevenson should face Parliament, too.
I say with the greatest respect to Margaret Curran that no one could in any way question my entitlement to respond to a debate that is the consequence of a decision that I took in bringing the Scottish Government's draft budget to Parliament. The responsibility for the decision rests on my shoulders and it is entirely appropriate that I should be here to answer for it.
As a matter of fact, Stewart Stevenson cannot be here because he is representing the Government to promote the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which the Parliament agreed, at an international summit in Barcelona. Of course, choices about diaries are made, but I judged that it was appropriate for him to fulfil that long-term commitment to support and explain the climate-change position, given the significance of the discussions on the subject that will take place in the next two months until the Copenhagen conference. I made that judgment and thought that it was entirely appropriate for me to stand here to respond to the debate.
Mr Brown—and others, to an extent—asked why more extensive consultation of and dialogue with stakeholders did not take place before the decision was taken. Again, the decision on that was mine and I will give the reason for it. I sit in Parliament and frequently hear Opposition members complain that Parliament is not told first about Government decisions. If I had shared the news with stakeholders—who it is clear would have been aggrieved at the decision that the Government proposed to take—I could not have guaranteed that I would be in a position to assure Parliament that I had handled the communication and explanation of the decision properly. My conclusion was that it was important that Parliament was given its place and that it heard the Government's decision.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that the issue is not how he reported the decision once it was made, but how he reached the decision and what alternatives he might have explored with stakeholders before he came to that decision? The issue is not about protecting the rights of the Parliament once the decision was made, but about reflecting on the Parliament's view that GARL should have gone ahead.
With respect to Johann Lamont, the complaint that has been made is about the fact that stakeholders were not involved before the decision was explained to Parliament. I am simply sharing with Parliament why I decided to take that particular route.
Points have been raised about the process. I want to explain, as I did to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, exactly how the decision was arrived at. I maintain regular monitoring of the Government's capital budget. That is entirely my duty. I supervise the progress of projects and I determine the way in which projects will be timetabled to fit within the financial envelope that exists. Members will know—they do not need any lecture from me—that we have a fixed capital budget that cannot be breached and must be balanced every year. The importance of ensuring that capital budgets can be afforded is therefore central to the decisions that I must make.
In all the discussion that we have had tonight, there has been scant attention to the overall financial position. The reason why the GARL project was cancelled—
We discussed yesterday in the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee the possibility that the cabinet secretary could seek an alternative funding route through the regulated assets of Network Rail, something that allows him greater flexibility than the financial envelope to which he referred. Why did he not see that through?
I did not see it through because it would have meant that I would have had to re-open the commitments that I have asked Network Rail to deliver through the regulatory settlement, which include improvements to the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail link so that we can have greater connectivity between our two great cities, reduce journey times to 35 minutes between them and have trains stop at the new station that will be built in close proximity to Edinburgh airport and which will provide much greater capacity on the Edinburgh to Glasgow route. If I had asked Network Rail to accept the GARL project on to the regulated asset base, which I cannot be assured would have been possible, I would have had to re-open the regulatory settlement on Edinburgh to Glasgow improvements, Edinburgh and Glasgow to Aberdeen improvements or Inverness to Glasgow and Edinburgh improvements, which are major strategic projects to encourage modal shift in our country.
Apart from Mr Aitken, no member who has spoken in the debate has paid attention to the fact that we are dealing with a budget for 2010-11 that is lower than we expected it to be. Further, no account has been taken of the fact that there will be massive pressure on the public finances of Scotland in the years to come.
I hope that the cabinet secretary recognises that I made comments on the expectation that funding for the Scottish Government will be constrained in the future, and on the much bigger factor of the Government's decision to prioritise one vast project that threatens every other transport intervention that the Parliament might choose to prioritise.
If we do not take the steps that we are taking on the Forth replacement crossing, there will be an even greater threat to the prospects of the Scottish economy—on a much wider and more significant level than any economic impact that could be surmised about the Glasgow airport rail link.
I have to make judgments within the financial position that is available to me. As we all know, the prospects on public finances are very difficult in the forthcoming five years. I therefore had to take a decision that would enable the capital budget to be affordable and sustainable. That was a very difficult decision, but it was taken in the best interests of the sustainability of our capital programme. The Government will assert that position throughout the budget process that is before Parliament.
Meeting closed at 18:09.