Glasgow Light Rail Scheme
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-1286, in the name of Tommy Sheridan, on a Glasgow light rail scheme. The debate will be concluded without any question being put after 30 minutes.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament believes that the construction of a light rail scheme in Glasgow would provide enormous benefits to the city in relation to jobs, improving the environment, tackling congestion and related pollution and regenerating the city as a tourist attraction; resolves therefore to reappraise urgently the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive's private legislation proposal for a light rail scheme promoted in 1994 but rejected by four Parliamentary Commissioners, appointed under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, in 1996, and agrees that this matter deserves to be investigated by the Minister for Transport and the Environment immediately.
I apologise to those members who listened to the previous debate and are staying for this debate—it was not my choice to debate two motions in my name in one day. I apologise if my dulcet tones are not kind to the ears of those members who remain.
In July 1996, the Earl of Mar and Kellie reported to the then Secretary of State for Scotland on behalf of the four parliamentary commissioners who were appointed to conduct an inquiry into Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive's light rail transit proposal. He said:
"The commissioners were unanimously of the view that the need for the order has not been established and that the preamble of the order had not been proved. There are no other circumstances as to which it is desirable in the opinion of the commissioners that information should be given."
Under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, the Earl of Mar and Kellie, on behalf of the four unelected and unaccountable parliamentary commissioners appointed by Michael Forsyth, was able in the space of seconds to refuse a proposal that was developed over two years at a combined cost of £2 million.
The aim of this debate is to seek a commitment from the Scottish Executive that it will re-examine the Glasgow light rail proposal in a positive light, given the massive benefits that such a light rail scheme would bring to what is, in effect, the poverty capital of Europe.
It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the original proposal by the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive secured huge public support throughout Glasgow and beyond, with only the incredibly small number of 22 objections being submitted. Those 22 objections were reduced to six by the time of the inquiry, and the one principal objector was FirstBus, which represented the newly privatised bus company. That begs the question—had bus deregulation and privatisation had not been on the agenda, the scheme would probably have been supported.
Perhaps more important, had the scheme been subjected to a more democratic and accountable analysis, it would surely have been accepted, given the potential improvement in public transport, job creation and reductions in congestion and pollution.
The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 was and still is archaic and unacceptable in a modern democracy. It is a terrible educational example to set when a group of individuals can decide to reject a scheme that was developed over several years at a cost of £2 million of public money, especially given that the group is not obliged to present any reason whatever for its refusal.
I hope that the minister will confirm tonight that that arcane order is no longer in place now that we have a Scottish Parliament with responsibility for transport issues. If the order is still in place—
Will Mr Sheridan give way?
Of course.
I draw Mr Sheridan's attention to the fact that last week Parliament approved a report from the Procedures Committee that came into effect on 24 November and that provided for a parliamentary procedure for future private legislation.
I am grateful to Murray Tosh for raising that point. If the procedure were still in place, members from all parties would be genuinely shocked to learn that this democratically elected Parliament with devolved responsibility for transport could not lay even a single line of track without first securing the permission of Westminster. If we have got rid of that procedure, bodies such as the SPTE need to know that, because only last week they were still complaining about its continued existence. I ask the minister to address that question.
The initial phase of the Glasgow light rail proposal considered by the commissioners in 1996 connected Maryhill to Easterhouse, passing through the centre of the city. That was planned as the first line of a wider network; other lines to Drumchapel, Balarnock and Tollcross were envisaged, with a view to connecting the whole of the south side of Glasgow, including Pollok. The capital cost, at 1995 prices, included £146 million for infrastructure, £36.4 million for 26 new trams and £1.3 million for land purchase, coming to a total of £183 million. The operating costs were envisaged at £7.4 million, with a revenue income of £8.6 million, thereby delivering an operating surplus.
The fares were to be set at a level between existing bus and rail fares. The construction period was to be two years to open the first phase, with a further two years to completion. The scheme would have created 738 full-time construction jobs, 178 operating jobs and a further 800 jobs through regeneration effects. Although it was envisaged that jobs would be lost on bus operations, there would be a net gain of 53 jobs, with many existing bus drivers operating the trams. The scheme proposed a tram frequency of one every five minutes between 7 am and 6.30 pm and one every 10 minutes thereafter.
In the UK, there are light rail schemes in Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and Croydon, most of which have proposed extensions. There are nine street rail systems running in the London docklands and Newcastle. There are plans to construct light rail schemes in Leeds, Nottingham, Bristol, Hampshire, Medway, Bath and Cardiff. Local Transport Today magazine reported on 3 August this year that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions envisaged 25 new light rail schemes across England and Wales within the next 10 years. It said that the DETR intends to use £CAPut!' billion of public investment to support those schemes, at an average cost of £150 million per scheme. There is £CAPut!' billion of public money to support light rail schemes in England and Wales. The question for us tonight is: where is our £1.9 billion as a proportion of that?
In a DETR press notice of 13 December 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, said:
"In our towns and cities we will see more light rail systems, giving people a modern, attractive alternative to the car."
Glasgow is a city on its knees in terms of public investment. We feel completely neglected in relation to public housing, arts, culture and transport investment. A recent council analysis of the respective share of the Government's transport challenge fund for 1997-98 and 1998-99, together with the public transport fund for 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002, illustrates clearly that Glasgow is losing out to Edinburgh in public investment in transport schemes.
The reservations for the previously proposed light rail transport network are currently protected through the 1995 Strathclyde structure plan. The proposed 2000 Glasgow and Clyde valley structure plan has a policy of protecting former rail solums, including those required for the light rail transport network. In other words, there is absolutely no technical or engineering reason why the existing Glasgow light rail scheme should not be reinvestigated, updated and rapidly implemented.
The scheme would provide a major regeneration opportunity to the city of Glasgow in terms of jobs and accessible, efficient and environmentally friendly quality transport linking every part of Glasgow and providing a full-frontal double assault on congestion and pollution. All that is lacking is the political will. A major public investment of between £150 million and £170 million could bring Glasgow public transport into the 21st century, which would regenerate our tourist industry.
The Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive is 100 per cent behind tonight's motion but, before committing another penny to updating and developing its existing proposal, it requires a positive indication from the minister that the scheme will be looked on favourably. I appeal to her tonight to give a public commitment that she is willing to support the construction of a Glasgow light rail network that will bring us into the 21st century, with modern efficient trams connecting every corner of Glasgow and—hopefully—supplementing the crossrail scheme and the urgently required direct rail link to Glasgow airport. Glasgow cannot afford to be neglected any longer.
Tommy Sheridan talked about our having to listen to his dulcet tones. I never mind doing that, because he usually has something sensible to say.
This proposal has been on the line—if members will excuse the pun—since the early 1990s. In my speech in the debate on crossrail and the direct line to Glasgow airport, I said that that proposal had been on the cards for 30 years. Tommy Sheridan is asking not for a light rail scheme to be implemented right away, but for an investigation that should have taken place in 1995-96. That is not too much to ask.
If we had a light rail system around the George Square area of Glasgow, it would be absolutely fantastic. Not only would it help people travelling in and out of Glasgow and to peripheral schemes, but it would bring tourism into the area. If members have ever tried driving around George Square and been caught up in the traffic, they will know that it is absolutely unbelievable. A light rail system, coupled with crossrail and a direct rail link to Glasgow airport, would make Glasgow one of the best cities—if not the best city—of the 21st century. That is what we are looking for from today's debate.
I see that Glasgow MSPs from the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, along with Tommy Sheridan and I, are intending to speak in today's debate. Unfortunately, I do not see any Glasgow Labour MSPs present. Given that I sent a letter to every Glasgow constituency and regional MSP asking them to support an integral transport system in Glasgow, I would have thought that they would have come along for this debate. If we support this proposal, along with the other two schemes that I have mentioned, we can put Glasgow on the map.
Tommy Sheridan referred to the money that John Prescott has made available. Where is our share of the £CAPut!' billion—£1.9 billion, as Tommy rightly said? Does the minister intend to ask John Prescott for that money to fund a light rail system? Previously I asked the minister about the £1.88 billion that John Prescott had allocated for transport. What representations have been made to him for money to fund crossrail and the airport link?
People in Glasgow and Scotland are crying out for this proposal. It would regenerate not only the heart of Glasgow, but areas such as Maryhill and Easterhouse, connecting them to the heart of the city. As we know, not everyone lives in the heart of the city. Glasgow is made up not only of Glaswegians who live in the city centre, but of thousands of people who live further out. They need affordable access to the city, which they are not getting at present. If members go to George Square, they will see that it is chock-a-block with bus lanes. I do not dislike buses, but there are so many of them on the streets of Glasgow that they have started to take precedence over all other forms of transport.
I ask the minister seriously to consider investigating this proposal. I hope that she will come up with a workable solution—not just a light rail system, but an integrated transport system for the Glasgow area.
It is appropriate that this issue should be debated this afternoon, although to some extent the debate is a rerun of the one that Sandra White initiated several weeks ago.
I prefer not to address the question of the commissioners and private legislation, as Murray Tosh dealt with that issue in his intervention. I would like to focus on how transport may be improved.
The experience of other cities, both in the United Kingdom and abroad, has been that there are a number of benefits to having a light rail system. As Tommy Sheridan said, Manchester and Sheffield are prime examples of that in the UK. Classic examples of cities in which a light rail system has been established, bedded down and expanded on are Amsterdam and Düsseldorf, where this form of transport works very effectively.
I suspect that the reason why so few people objected to the 1996 proposal was partly out of nostalgia for the old Glasgow trams, which form an important part of Glasgow's folklore and history.
There is some merit in an investigation being carried out. It might find that a number of factors have to be considered. Tommy Sheridan has articulated the advantages of the scheme very well, such as that it would bring much-needed investment to Glasgow. I am sure that if Robin Harper speaks, he will also say that there are sound environmental reasons for implementing such a scheme.
There are also several negative aspects. Tommy Sheridan dealt fairly with the fact that there could be job losses on the buses, which could more or less offset the job gains in the new system. The investigation could discover that road congestion might increase. The implementation of the appropriate work would initially cause disruption in Glasgow. Everything is worth considering.
Glasgow's transport is, as Sandra White correctly said, deficient in many respects. Any scheme that could be implemented to improve it would certainly make better the lot of the average Glaswegian. Let us examine the matter. I am dubious about whether such a project could be implemented, but it is worth considering. I would have no difficulty if the minister were to state that that was her position, too.
In order to accommodate all the members who want to speak, I ask the remaining members to limit their speeches to three minutes.
A salient point is that, if the parliamentary commissioners had not rejected the scheme in 1996, we would have been looking forward to the opening of the system that was proposed in about a year or 18 months' time. I do not think that anyone who travels around Glasgow by any form of public transport would dispute the necessity of an improvement in the system.
As Tommy Sheridan mentioned, there is a profusion of metro systems, tramways and light railway systems in Britain. Scotland is behind other countries in that respect. Los Angeles, the Mecca of cars, is moving to a system of trams. In Turkey, five new tram systems have been introduced since 1989. In the United Kingdom, a system was introduced in Manchester some time ago. Studies have shown that that metro system has cut the number of car journeys by 2.5 million a year, reduced road traffic by 10 per cent in the corridor areas that are served and created 5,000 jobs at a cost of £169 million. Those seem to be worthwhile targets.
I will make the parallel with the Glasgow underground. Who, under the present financial restrictions—private finance initiatives and all the rest of it—would have thought of building a Glasgow underground? But, who can deny the value of the underground? It is full to capacity, even on the one link that currently exists. It takes many people off the roads and is a major part of Glasgow's traffic infrastructure. However, it barely pays it way; it requires a revenue subsidy of about £1 million a year. The revenue costs are broadly met, subject to that subsidy; capital is the problem. There has to be a capital input from public sector sources to make such a system work.
The benefits of the proposal must be taken on board. It could utilise unused rail track and tunnels—there are plenty of those in Glasgow. It would free up space that is congested by motor vehicles, especially in the city centre. It would allow a proper approach to transport, which would attract tourism.
Tommy Sheridan's motion has one omission. It does not make explicit the transport benefits that the scheme would bring, which are a major reason for seeking to have such a facility. In June, I asked parliamentary questions about whether the SPTE had contacted the Scottish Executive on its desire for such a scheme. The answer was that it had not. There was no project and no proposal. The scheme was not mentioned in the 1998 local transport plan for Glasgow or in the integrated transport plan.
For a long time, I have felt that such a scheme in Glasgow would be an essential component of a modern European transport system that will do its proper job of making the economy work and of transporting people around the city in an environmentally friendly fashion. The project has got to happen and I hope that the minister will give due urgency to the proposals.
I will be brief. I have dim and distant memories of some of the debates and news coverage of the project before it was so cruelly cut. After a constituent recently asked me what had happened to the scheme, I took time to write to SPT on the matter, which sent back a reply containing information similar to what Robert Brown has reported. The scheme has not been formally resurrected with the Executive or the authorities, which means that there is time to discuss the issue. In Glasgow, land that was set aside for the network has become a blight, as it is lying dormant, wasted and underdeveloped. That issue must be considered.
Glasgow is a great city that deserves great projects, as many members have said. While other parts of the economy are overheating, Glasgow is not; it needs a dramatic increase in the number of public and private sector projects to deliver in many ways. Both the environmental case and the business case for the network are sound and the scheme would bring beneficial changes to commerce and the city centre. It would also bring benefits for tourism and highlight Glaswegians' natural instinct to get into something new and use it. Like the clockwork orange—the underground rail system in Glasgow—this network could prove an exciting and popular mode of transport.
The Parliament will soon be passing an integrated transport bill and such a scheme will sit very well within that integrated strategy. The strategy acknowledges that there is a hierarchy of transport needs and of delivering those needs. This project sits near the top of that hierarchy.
I will be brief, but I am keen to indicate my support for Tommy Sheridan's motion.
Bill Aitken was not terribly serious in raising the spectre of disruption. For the past three months, members will have heard the curses of the people from North Queensferry, Falkirk and Glasgow who have been queueing at the Barnton roundabout. That situation has been sorted out and, now that proper traffic controls are in place, people will be raining down blessings on the heads of the Edinburgh councillors who in their wisdom have made decisions on the route. There will be a similar outcome in Glasgow if a light rail system is introduced into the city.
I want to follow up comments made by Andy Kerr and Robert Brown. Tommy Sheridan suggested the possibility of competition between Edinburgh and Glasgow for funds. Every transport scheme in Scotland should be judged on its own merits; this light rail scheme should be considered on its own considerable merits and not in relation to a possible pool of funding that does not exist.
I have pursued the minister politely but relentlessly over the past year and a half on the prospect of the Executive committing itself to actual targets for traffic reduction. The introduction of a light rail system in Glasgow would produce such a reduction. For no other reason than that, I support the proposal to the hilt.
I commend Tommy Sheridan for securing tonight's debate, which allows us to look beyond the current crisis on the railways to think to the future about new investment and opportunities for development.
As there have been summaries of the project's history, I will not go into that in detail. However, it is true that in 1994 SPT promoted at Westminster a draft Strathclyde tram provisional order, which sought permission to construct and operate a tramway from Maryhill through the city centre to Easterhouse. At the time, the cost was estimated at between £150 million and £170 million. After a two-month inquiry, the parliamentary commissioners refused to grant the necessary powers and declined approval of the order.
We could spend our time debating whether the commissioners were right. However, that was then and this is now. The Scottish integrated transport policy has moved on since the mid-1990s. The Scottish transport white paper of 1998 set a new framework for public transport. The Transport (Scotland) Bill, which will be discussed in the Parliament in a couple of weeks' time, puts much of the vision of that white paper into practical effect.
In the past two years, Glasgow has received major investment from the public transport fund. Awards have been made totalling £90 million to 52 projects throughout Scotland, and Glasgow has so far benefited to the tune of £20 million from that £90 million pot. Of that £20 million, £15 million has been allocated for four quality bus corridors, £3.5 million has been used to develop Partick station as a transport interchange and £1.8 million has helped SPT to improve trains across the network. Over the next three years, £150 million will be made available by the Scottish Executive for public transport projects throughout Scotland.
The Executive is keen to consider the contribution that light rail and trams could make to an integrated approach to transport. We need to understand how those forms of transport could link into heavy rail, bus services and park-and-ride schemes, to make the most of those opportunities. We are seeking practical proposals and are keen for people to promote those ideas and to come to us. Almost every member has mentioned that our congestion problems are increasing and will not get any easier. We need high-quality options to give car drivers a real and better alternative to clogging up our streets.
I agree with the members who say that we must learn lessons from England and from European cities. They are right to say that 25 light rail and tram projects are now being promoted by local authorities and passenger transport executives throughout England. We can learn from that experience. The development of local transport initiatives rests with the relevant local authority, and in the Strathclyde area it rests with the SPTE. I look to the SPTE to identify opportunities and to promote relevant options. A range of funding opportunities is available.
Will the minister give way?
No. Members have raised a lot of points and I want to address them all.
I understand that the SPTE supports a joint venture whereby light rail services would run on existing heavy rail infrastructure. That sounds eminently sensible, as it would make the maximum use of existing infrastructure. Bill Aitken asked for further research. The SPTE has deferred that issue until it has examined other major public transport proposals. The SPTE has commissioned a wide-ranging study on cross-city demand, which will consider the subjects that Sandra White referred to and other rail options in Glasgow. It will also evaluate the broader impact on the existing network. The SPTE expects to receive that report by the end of this year.
The fact that the tram project failed in 1996 should not put the SPTE off reconsidering the project in the context of the wider transport opportunities in Glasgow. As Robin Harper said, we must ensure that we get the right public transport schemes. Those schemes should be on the agenda. The experience of 1996 should not deter other local authorities, in other areas of Scotland, from exploring the potential of tram and light rail projects. I know that such projects are under discussion in areas outside Glasgow.
Tommy Sheridan asked about the Parliament's powers. That issue is critical. Murray Tosh was right to suggest that the Scottish Parliament assumes responsibility for granting the permissions that are required for the construction of railways and tramways. I expect that that power will be effective by spring next year. Decisions on proposals in Scotland will be made in Scotland, as is appropriate.
A tramway would have the potential to deliver a commercial return and I expect the private sector to play a full part in developing the project. Other potential funding options are coming through the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I agree that we must consider new transport projects on their merits, as Robin Harper said. One of the new opportunities that will come through the bill is congestion charging. We need to consider seriously the potential of trams and light rail in Scotland's major cities and the Scottish Executive is prepared to consider any serious approach for developing a scheme that would bring improved services to the public.
It could be argued that we are behind the game in comparison with England. However, we can learn from the experiences there. A number of light rail projects already exist in England and we must learn from their experiences. A proper evaluation must be carried out by the SPTE, as the relevant transport authority. There are funding opportunities and a range of choices, which the Executive will consider when proposals are put to us. To date, that has not happened, but that does not mean that it will not happen.
I am glad that Tommy Sheridan lodged this motion, which puts the issue firmly back on the agenda as a matter in which MSPs and the public are interested. That will ensure that light railway is considered as part of the range of new public transport opportunities in Glasgow and that local authorities in the area and the SPT give it proper consideration. They can then come to the Scottish Executive for support and advice to take those opportunities forward.
Meeting closed at 17:30.