Future of Air Transport
We are beginning this debate rather late, so I appeal to the opening speakers to take less than their allotted time if possible. The debate is on motion S1M-3469, in the name of Iain Gray, on the future of air transport in Scotland, and an amendment to the motion.
I am pleased to introduce this debate. The debate itself is an introduction, because its essential purpose is to allow members to contribute to the consultation process on air transport, which was launched by Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Transport, in July, and which will close at the end of November. The process is taking place across the United Kingdom. A suite of consultation documents and technical studies provide a variety of detailed growth scenarios and outline the likely infrastructure requirements.
In Scotland, the consultation process is being conducted jointly by the Department for Transport and the Scottish Executive. Compared with the situation prior to devolution, Scotland is in a strong position because many of the key areas are devolved. Land-use planning, surface access and the management of publicly owned airports are our responsibilities. Licensing, safety, security and environmental policy are reserved matters, along with international agreements, economic regulation and slot policy.
The aviation industry is critical to Scotland's future, not only because it is worth £0.6 billion a year to the Scottish economy and provides directly 15,000 jobs—and at least as many again through multiplier effects—but because it links our nation to the rest of the world. Air links bind nations together. Airports and air services promote economic growth by increasing access to markets and suppliers, and by encouraging inward investment and tourism. Airports themselves act as focuses for clusters of businesses.
The aviation sector is growing. The success story in Scotland is one of dramatic growth with passenger numbers doubling in the past decade. The Scottish consultation document indicates that the current 18 million passengers a year who pass through Scottish airports may well increase to somewhere between 26 million and 50 million by 2030. The document also outlines the potential for air freight and the role it can play. The freight sector is subdivided into different categories, with dedicated cargo flights by freight aircraft—either scheduled or chartered—as well as belly-hold facilities on passenger aircraft, and dedicated mail operations.
The minister mentioned forecasts of future traffic levels. Will he explain why Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd forecasts that 1.8 million passengers a year will use Inverness airport by 2030, whereas the Department for Transport estimates that that figure will be only 800,000? Why does the Department for Transport estimate 1 million fewer passengers than HIAL estimates, if those organisations are working together in partnership?
Predictions for a period as long as that to 2030 are not an exact science. That is why the prediction for the number of passengers passing through Scotland by 2030 is between 26 and 50 million, which I freely acknowledge is a wide range. Perhaps HIAL's estimate shows its ambitiousness to develop its business in Scotland.
Dynamic growth is predicted for all three categories of freight. Scotland could have dramatic growth in freight tonnage from 119,000 tonnes in 2000 to more than 570,000 tonnes by 2030. Mail and belly-hold tonnage will increase, but much of that increase will be delivered by dedicated freight aircraft.
The minister continually refers to growth in the air industry and I go along with everything that he says. Does he agree that safety in the air is all-important? What representations has he made to his colleagues south of the border about providing the long-delayed air traffic control centre at Prestwick?
As the consultation process makes clear, we are in constant discussion with the Department for Transport on all aviation issues and other transport matters. Of course air traffic control is part of that. I agree with Mr Gallie that safety is key. One challenge of the consultation, as we consider dramatic growth, is to allow and facilitate our industry to grow in a way that in no way compromises air travel safety, which is to the forefront of everyone's minds these days.
Glasgow Prestwick airport has established itself as a major freight hub for Scotland and the UK. Glasgow airport has a healthy belly-hold freight operation. Edinburgh airport is the dominant air mail centre for Scotland and its position in the central belt, its road links and its proximity to express freight users give it great advantages for express parcels and air mail in the future. Aberdeen airport plays the same role for north-east Scotland and the northern isles and Inverness airport plays a role in the distribution of mail and newspapers throughout the Highlands and Islands.
The possibilities are huge and the capacity of the air freight sector to deliver is vital to the development of many of our important businesses, such as information technology and biotechnology, and to meeting the needs of the large-gauge cargo market in the oil and gas, aerospace and engineering industries. As with the growth in passenger traffic, many considerations must be taken into account, not least environmental factors. The consultation document, rightly, assesses the impacts at Scottish airports of the growth scenarios, and environmental factors include noise and air quality changes as well as the potential impact on ecology and heritage. Like safety, those factors are key elements of the circle that must be squared to allow us to develop the aviation strategy in the best way.
Anyone can participate in the consultation process. All the documents are available on a Department for Transport website or through a call centre. Background technical reports can be viewed in inspection centres. A questionnaire can be completed online and stakeholders have been sent copies of the questionnaire.
The Executive hosted a successful stakeholders conference on 9 September in Glasgow, which Alistair Darling, Jim Wallace, Helen Liddell and I attended. That was a strong indication of the importance that we place on the process. We are part of the way through a series of topic workshops, which are being held in Aberdeen, Inverness, Glasgow and Edinburgh. As I speak, Department for Transport, Scotland Office and Scottish Executive officials are engaging with those who use, and live around, Edinburgh airport at an exhibition in an airport hotel. That exhibition was at Braehead shopping centre in Glasgow yesterday. A closing conference will be held in November to draw together the consultation strands.
We are doing everything to encourage an informed debate about the many key issues that face us—maintaining and developing services to remote areas; providing extra airport capacity; the provision of adequate surface access to airports; the development of new routes; and maintaining access to the hub airports in south-east England.
We are committed to ensuring that the rising demand for air transport brings maximum economic benefits at minimal environmental cost to all Scottish airports and the communities that they serve.
I am sure that all members will agree that one element in the growth of a prosperous future for air transport in Scotland is the construction of modern rail links. When will the minister announce the favoured option for the development of the Glasgow airport rail link? When will a clear timetable be published for speedy implementation of that link?
I want to say something about rail links to both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports and something about the timetable that we face. If Mr Butler will bear with me, I will do so later in my speech.
We have no preconceived view on the best way of providing extra airport capacity; there is no hidden agenda. The consultation document sets out a range of options including a number of scenarios for Glasgow and Edinburgh. The document also considers the case for an entirely new central Scotland airport by examining an example site at Airth.
Although a new central Scotland airport would have distinct advantages in terms of route development, we have to recognise that it would be extremely expensive and time-consuming to develop, even if a site could be found that met all the environmental, safety and engineering requirements. Such a development presupposes that Glasgow and Edinburgh airports would close. However, that would result in the majority of passengers having to travel further to reach the airport, which would lead to increases in cost, congestion, and pollution. Given suitable investment, our other major airports at Aberdeen and Glasgow Prestwick have the capacity to handle higher volumes, as is the case at Edinburgh and Glasgow. All those options must be discussed fully.
Does the minister accept that one of the reasons that Scotland underperforms in respect of passenger numbers is landing charges? The Office of Fair Trading report into charter flight supplements indicated that landing charges at Glasgow and Aberdeen were significantly higher than the landing charges at Manchester and Newcastle. Will the minister address that point? If so, what will he do about it? If not, why not?
Key to the aviation industry is the fact that it is an industry. As such, it is led by the marketplace. The landing charges at Glasgow and Edinburgh airports are a matter for the operator of the airports who has to negotiate with the airlines in order to create the possibility of new route development. I would expect that to happen.
I turn to Mr Butler's point. Glasgow and Edinburgh airports are the two largest airports in the United Kingdom without direct rail access. That is why the Executive has said that providing rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports is one of its top priorities. That commitment pre-dates the air transport consultation.
The study to determine the value-for-money case for the links is progressing well. The consultants are considering in more depth four options for each airport and I expect their recommendations on the preferred option at each airport in the next few weeks. With the assistance of the Strategic Rail Authority, BAA, which owns both airports, and the relevant authorities, we will be able to move the projects forward to delivery.
However, necessary and unavoidable groundwork has to be done, including ensuring that the private bill that comes before the Parliament is robust enough to enable members to make informed decisions. All that groundwork suggests that the earliest starting date for design and construction of any link is likely to be 2005. I recognise that that is an ambitious timetable but, with the will and a fair wind, I believe that it is achievable.
Like many members, I am keen to see an improved network of direct routes to Europe and beyond. In the past we have considered new routes on a case-by-case basis. Together with the enterprise agencies, we are now working towards a coherent route development strategy. However, any financial assistance to air operators must comply with European Union regulations on state aid. A framework is required for identifying the routes that provide the maximum benefit.
In that context, I am pleased that Scotland has been selected to host the ninth world route development forum next September. The forum is the largest gathering of airline network planners in the world. Well over 1,000 route development specialists are expected to attend one of the most important events in the aviation calendar. By bringing that highly prestigious forum to Scotland, we are sending out a global message that we want to develop air travel in Scotland to our full potential and ensure that we achieve maximum advantage from the benefits of strong air links. Securing more direct international air services for Scotland will be top of the agenda when the leading players in the aviation industry visit Scotland.
Access to the London airports is also important for Scotland. Such access gives us entry to markets and services in south-east England and to many interlining opportunities. We will work closely with the other devolved Administrations on how best to protect access to the south-east and on the view that we should take on extra capacity at the south-east airports.
We are keenly aware of the particular requirements of remote communities and their need to access central Scotland, south-east England and interlining opportunities at the big hub airports. The financial support that we have made available to HIAL has risen from £7 million in 1997 to £21.5 million in the current financial year, which represents a 207 per cent increase in Government support over a five-year period. In the period from 2003-04 to 2005-06, HIAL's expenditure will further increase to £22.1 million. That is a substantial commitment to HIAL and to lifeline transport links in the Highlands and Islands. The support that we provide will allow HIAL to continue to operate 10 airports and will keep airport charges at a level that can encourage the continuing development of air services. I understand that on Friday there will be an announcement about a new route from Inverness. I am sure that more details about that will follow.
Air services are shaped by businesses making commercial decisions. Our role in Government is to identify failings in the market and to be persuasive about, promote and legislate for the provision of public goods. In order to do that, we require a broad consensus about our aims for the industry that takes account of economic, social and environmental factors and considers the needs of all our communities. That is where the current consultation process comes in. We will do our best to ensure that everyone has a chance to contribute—that is the purpose of this afternoon's debate.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the consultation process currently being undertaken jointly by the Department for Transport and the Scottish Executive on the future development of air transport in the United Kingdom.
It is right to have a debate on the future of air transport in Scotland. As the minister said, air transport is essential for the economy and for tourism. Improvements are desperately needed in the Highlands and Islands and throughout our land. However, what solution does the Executive suggest? What strategy does it intend to pursue? After all, a strategy is essential if progress is to be made. We are debating a motion that asks Parliament to note
"the consultation process currently being undertaken jointly by the Department for Transport and the Scottish Executive".
Yahoo! Bingo! Salvation is upon us. A solution to poor air links, high air costs and few flights is about to unfold. That will be right—there will be more spin and consultations, but no substance or action.
I do not think that the Executive is the worst Government in Europe, as the leader of the Tories suggested. The Parliament and our country do not need lectures from the leader of the self-confessed nasty party. That party inflicted misery on many people in its native land and deindustrialised huge swathes of our homeland. With friends like Iain Duncan Smith, Scotland has no need for enemies.
However, I say to the minister that that is as good as I will be about the Government. The Government might not be doing us harm, but it is certainly not doing us any good. The Government might not be the worst Government in Europe, but it has a responsibility to govern. There has been an abdication of responsibility and a dereliction of duty. There are serious problems with aviation in Scotland that the Government has not addressed or even acknowledged.
Let us consider the situation. Internally, we have outrageously expensive flights in the Highlands and Islands. The cost of those flights is sucking the lifeblood out of communities and is an impediment to social and economic progress. No mention is made of that, never mind a solution provided. In the central belt and in urban airports elsewhere there is a critical shortage of direct air services to Europe and beyond. Direct links are essential, both for tourism—from an inbound point of view—and for the economy, from an outbound point of view. Comparable and even smaller nations have more direct flights and better air connections.
Does Kenny MacAskill realise that there is an ever-increasing number of flights to Europe from Prestwick airport? Does he agree that that is a great credit to the private entrepreneurship that has been shown by the management of Prestwick?
I visit Prestwick regularly, as Mr Gallie will know. I am a great supporter of that airport and I wish it well. It has served Scotland well and I agree with Mr Gallie and endorse his sentiments.
Whether in comparison with Iceland or Ireland, Scotland falls short in relation to direct air services. After all, there is a direct flight from Reykjavik to Halifax in Nova Scotia, the homeland of the Scottish diaspora, but there is no direct flight there from Scotland. Our absurd position is that when the second First Minister—the one before the current one—went to tartan day last year, he flew by Aer Lingus via Dublin. Is not it absurd that at the start of the 21st century our country's foremost statesman travels to the capital city of the economic powerhouse of the world through the capital city of another nation on an aeroplane that belongs to that other nation's national flag carrier?
In the north of Scotland, where tourism is essential to the economy—yet where we find that it is in decline—affordable and accessible air links are also essential. What do we discover? Inverness airport, in the capital of the Highlands, has the highest landing charges in Europe. Ryanair says that the charge is £15 per passenger. "That's no true," says the chief Executive of HIAL, "It's only £8." Whether the charge is £8 or £15, it is too high. The First Minister says that Ryanair must pay its share. It does; it pays its fair share at 58 airports in Europe where it lands, from Kerry in the west to Graz in the east and from Oslo in the north to Pescara in the south. What it does not pay are the First Minister's unfair charges at his airport.
To paraphrase Mr MacAskill's last few words, he said yesterday that Inverness had the highest landing charges in Europe. That statement was described as an ill-informed media stunt aimed at grabbing headlines with no regard to the facts. I take it that he now says that it is correct that Inverness does not have the highest landing charges in Europe, but that that is of no interest in the argument that he is seeking to develop.
It is a great pity that the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning has not read the study by Dr Romano Pagliari at Cranfield University, which was published many months ago. It may be that the previous minister was dealing with the issue then, but I would have thought that Iain Gray would have been up to date and up to speed on that important document.
What is the situation? What does the Executive suggest? It asks us to take note of its consultation document. Take note? I know that the First Minister wants to do less better, but that is doing nothing whatever. The consultation document is really one for south-east England. It is predicated on whether to have Heathrow 5 or a new airport elsewhere in leafy England. The consultation document recognises only two airports in central Scotland when it is clear that there are three. Is not Prestwick in central Scotland? Cannot the Department for Transport acknowledge that airport's location and appreciate its importance? Scotland is factored in only to the extent of how we link to the hub airports down in greater London. That, I say to the minister, is the current problem. We need an aviation strategy for Scotland. Surely that is what a Scottish Government should provide.
It is clear to any mature parliamentarian that the "notes" motion is part of the consultation process and allows members to contribute to the debate on how we should develop our aviation strategy. Mr MacAskill is now seven minutes into his speech, but he has contributed no ideas whatever. Given the experience of the prison estates review, perhaps we should look to the previous leadership of the Scottish National Party for a contribution to this important consultation. Does the SNP intend to contribute any ideas?
I am coming to the ideas. I might be seven minutes into my speech, but Labour is six years into government in London and has not delivered any improvements in aviation north of the border.
Michael O'Leary has been banging on the door offering to fly to Inverness and Stornoway, not in 2015, but now. Talk about looking a gift plane in the mouth.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
What are the solutions? The minister might wish to note that I am coming to the matters that he should deal with. We need a route development fund and we need routes to Spain, Italy and Scandinavia, among others. The Irish—never mind the Icelandic—take such routes for granted. We need to provide a marketing budget that will support airlines in providing such routes. Cornwall County Council did so for the Ryanair flight to Newquay airport and has reaped the benefit. The Welsh Development Agency supported Cardiff airport in attracting bmibaby. Cornwall County Council might not be the best council in Europe, and the WDA might not be the best agency in Europe, but those bodies have done more than the Executive has done to support and promote aviation. If they can, we should and come next May, if Labour will not, we will.
I remind the minister that his boss owns Inverness airport; Jack McConnell is its sole shareholder. It is his airport. He is responsible and accountable, but he has grounded flights into Inverness. He must take action to get charges down and to get flights flying. It is time for him to say why he has put tourism in the Highlands into a nosedive when he is in the cockpit. Tourism will fly high if he gets landing charges down. If he does not, we will know whom to blame. Come next May, if he will not get landing charges down, we will.
The Executive's position is not blue-sky thinking, but pie in the sky. It does not involve the development of new routes or the removal of existing impediments to flights. Flights into and out of Scotland are delayed or grounded, but not through bad weather or mechanical failure and not because of any airline or airport. The buck stops with the Executive, which will neither initiate new routes nor remove present impediments from airports. That is why I will move the amendment. I want to provide a flight path to the improvements that are badly needed the length and breadth of our land, throughout all sectors of our economy and in air services. The Executive is devoid of vision and it is vacuous when it comes to solutions. If the Executive rejects the amendment, the opportunity to take off remains for Scotland through a change in Administration next May.
I move amendment S1M-3469.1, to leave out from "consultation" to end and insert:
"urgent need, in relation to tourism and the economy in Scotland, to increase the limited number of direct international connections and to expand the number of routes operated by low-cost carriers; further notes that Inverness Airport is operated by Highlands and Islands Airport Limited, which is wholly owned by Scottish Ministers; is concerned at studies indicating that Inverness Airport has the highest landing charges in Europe, and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to set up a route development fund to promote direct international connections from Scotland and to take immediate action to reduce the landing charges imposed at Inverness Airport."
If Kenny MacAskill's speech is releasing our potential, it is not only the SNP's slogan that will not take off. We have just heard 10 minutes of unadulterated drivel and no clear policies. If I heard correctly, although Kenny MacAskill advocates Scotland as a hub for airlines, from what he said about Aer Lingus, people from countries other than Scotland would not be allowed to fly on such airlines to get here. The logic of what he said is that it is somehow an insult to Scotland to use an airline that does not come from this country.
Mr Mundell is extremely unfair to Mr MacAskill in accusing him of having no ideas in his 10-minute speech. The single idea that he presented in 10 minutes was that we should support the marketing of Ryanair flights. We should acknowledge that.
Ryanair is the only issue that Mr MacAskill ever raises. Those of us who were present for his performance in Aberdeen will recall that the issue was raised then, although there was also a vague notion that Scotland could be towed out into the middle of the Atlantic and relocated so that it could be developed as a hub.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the importance of air links.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at this stage.
It is appropriate that we are debating the Government review. Conservative members who represent areas that have strong airport bases have many ideas to contribute to the debate. It is also to be welcomed that academics, business people and politicians have proposed the creation of a central Scotland airport. Although I will take some convincing that existing significant investments in Glasgow and Edinburgh should be sidelined in favour of a new build, with all the inherent difficulties that that would bring, including planning and environmental considerations, it is important that that idea be evaluated. I welcome the on-going study and I hope that, although the study outcome will miss the deadline for submissions for the review, the minister will ensure that the Scottish Executive and the UK Government take its findings into account.
Those who have argued in favour of the central Scotland proposition are right to say that, in the United States, Glasgow and Edinburgh would be regarded as a twin-city conurbation, like Dallas and Fort Worth, and that our cities must work better together to maximise their economic potential. However, analogies with the United States must be treated with great care, given the hugely different geographic distances and population dispersal that are involved.
Kenny MacAskill's speech showed again his unwillingness to pay any regard to issues such as where our centres of population are, where Scotland is relative to the rest of Europe and the wider world and the needs of different types of travellers. The air industry is extremely complex. For example, we cannot ignore the impact that foreign Governments' support of state-owned airlines throughout Europe has had on routes and services. I am afraid that there has been a pitifully low level of action from the European Union to stamp out such anti-competitive practices.
Despite that, it has been refreshing to see genuine competition emerge in the air travel industry in the form of low-cost airlines such as Ryanair and easyJet. The combination of Ryanair's innovative fares structure and services and the equally entrepreneurial operation of Prestwick airport has led to one of Scotland's real successes in air travel, which should be celebrated. My colleague, John Scott, who is the local member for Prestwick, will no doubt return to that in his speech.
When I visited Prestwick this week, I was struck by the buzz and vibrancy at the airport. The number of international visitors passing through the airport confirmed the fact that low-cost flights not only take Scots abroad, but bring international visitors to Scotland. There has been significant evidence for that in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's continuing inquiry into tourism in Scotland.
I whole-heartedly endorse what Mr Mundell says about Prestwick airport and its success. However, it is a former British Airports Authority airport, and it was not a success under that company. Does David Mundell agree that the airport's success has occurred when it has not been owned by BAA? Does he also agree that that success can be replicated elsewhere in Scotland and that Prestwick is not the only airport that can enjoy such success?
I accept that the success that Prestwick airport has enjoyed should be replicated at airports throughout Scotland. There is tremendous scope for that; we can learn from Manchester airport. I am not going to beat the drum for BAA and I am sure that the Scottish Executive would not do so. We must lobby and ensure that BAA is positively promoting the capacity of each of its airports.
Let us return to Mr MacAskill's speech. One airline flying to one airport will not resolve the issues that surround air links to and from Scotland. Low-cost airlines are not a panacea for the issues that are faced by Scotland's remote communities, nor are they the complete solution to the need to establish business links between Scotland and Europe.
We must not repeat the tunnel vision that overwhelmed discussions of air travel in Scotland in the 1970s and 1980s, which led to an obsession with transatlantic direct flights. Having more low-cost flights in and out of Inverness would be welcome—I am sure that Mary Scanlon will speak about the benefits of that—but it is not the only way in which to develop the wider range of flight options that Scotland needs.
The Scottish Executive has a significant role to play, not least in relation to the transport infrastructure that surrounds our airports. A fundamental development for Glasgow airport will be completion of the M74 northern extension, to which the Scottish Executive is committed. Let us hope that the wording of the comprehensive spending review does not rule out completion of that major project. It is clear that the perception of delays and difficulty of access via the Kingston bridge are restricting the development of Glasgow airport. The development of the rail link to the airport needs to be progressed. As Bill Butler pointed out, decisions need to be made as soon as possible.
The same is true of Edinburgh airport, the development of which could be enhanced by completion of the A8000 and firm decisions being made on the proposed rail link. I am sure that Brian Adam agrees that the construction of the western peripheral route would have a significant beneficial impact on developments at Aberdeen airport. Airports do not exist in isolation—the infrastructure around them makes them more or less attractive to travellers, be they travellers on low-cost airlines or those travelling first class on business. If we do not get that right and the Scottish Executive does not deliver on the important infrastructure issues that I have mentioned, the consultation process and the air links review will have been futile.
It is axiomatic to say that in the modern world we depend on air transport links. The speed of modern travel has shrunk the world to the global village in which we live. We welcome the Government's consultation on how best the UK can respond to the increasing importance of, and demand for, air transport.
It is vital that the future of air transport and how it is developed are not considered in isolation. The perceived imperatives for development should be examined critically; some lateral thinking would be welcome. In Scotland it is particularly important that social factors are given proper weight.
There are a series of interlinked aspects to overall consideration of air transport. The starting point in the UK context is the congestion and the pressure on air services in and out of London. To what extent is the solution to that problem to build more capacity? To what extent would it be more sensible to release capacity by diverting traffic away from the south-east, both by developing regional hubs to free capacity directly and by taking measures to move economic development out of the south-east? Should not we try to take the heat out of the area and to spread some of the glow to other places where there is the infrastructure, including housing and a work force, to cope with it?
Spreading air traffic to regional hubs would make it easier to ensure air safety, because planes would be operating in less crowded skies. A much higher proportion of internal business and tourist traffic to and from the south-east and throughout the UK should travel on the much more environmentally friendly rail system. The sums of money that are needed to build new airports or to extend existing ones would buy a really good train set.
Air transport is a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Should we direct our thoughts towards using air transport only where it is really necessary to do so? Should we place a tight definition on the word "necessary"? The other environmental aspect of air transport, which is not talked about much, is the different taxes on aviation fuel and fuel used by other forms of transport. Planes may be airborne, but there is no level playing field.
So much for the arguments for limiting air transport. In considering air transport in the Scottish context, I return to a word that I used earlier—"necessary".
Nora Radcliffe referred to the necessity for air and other transport. Does she agree that it would be more environmentally friendly to have direct flights from Scotland's airports, particularly to Europe, rather than for flights from Scotland to go first to a hub airport in the south of England, thereby causing congestion and using excessive aviation fuel?
I agree absolutely with Brian Adam's point, which shows the importance of thinking holistically.
Arguments about the links between airports and economic development are a bit over-egged. Economic development needs a transport infrastructure, but not necessarily an air infrastructure. What is essential is the strategic provision of air services; Scotland needs direct transatlantic and European links. Scotland also needs links to London, but perhaps not as many as there are.
A decent rail service would offer more comfortable, more convenient and more environmentally friendly journeys between Edinburgh or Glasgow and London, probably with journey times that compare reasonably overall with the air routes, which would free up capacity at both ends. However, when one considers the Aberdeen and Inverness routes to London, the time factor begins to tip the balance towards air travel.
In a Scottish context, the so-called lifeline services are vital. To echo Para Handy's comment,
"If Dougie was here he would tell you",
if my colleague Tavish Scott—who is in Quebec—were here he would tell you about the problems that are posed to remote and island communities by the ferociously high cost of air transport when it is priced purely commercially. Those high costs impact on individuals and on island service providers. For example, Shetland NHS Board has a bill of well over £1 million for flying patients to Aberdeen and a Shetland family that goes on a package holiday to Majorca pays the cost of the holiday over again to get to the departure airport on the mainland.
Careful consideration must be given to how essential air services are protected, to where public service obligation orders should be used and to what can be done to mitigate the high cost of air travel for island dwellers. The Cranfield University study into PSOs argued that they are being underused in Scotland in comparison with other European countries, particularly Norway, which is similar in size and topography to Scotland.
There has been some mitigation of tax for air passengers from island airports. Should there be more? Are there other avenues for doing more to bring down prices? A single superairport to replace Edinburgh and Glasgow airports has been mentioned. That might be an attractive proposition, but although that long-term prospect is being explored, the possibility must not be allowed in the meantime to freeze other much-needed developments for Edinburgh and Glasgow airports. The planned rail links to both airports must go ahead in the short term while the pros and cons of the various development options at both airports, and perhaps the development of a single, central airport, are carefully thought through.
The consultation is extremely important and it is important that Scotland's needs and opportunities are clearly articulated, well argued for and met. We await with interest the outcome of the consultation.
We move now to open debate. Time is rather tight, so speeches should be kept to four minutes, please.
Like other speakers in the debate, I welcome the consultation that has been launched by the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive. The consultation is vital not only for Scotland's aviation industry, but more generally for our wider economy. The continuing debate and consultation should be an opportunity for all parties and stakeholders to impact on the future shape of air transport in Scotland.
Air transport has undoubtedly been growing strongly in Scotland. In the past 10 years, the number of passengers using our major airports has grown from about 8 million in 1991 to about 16 million in 2000. If we include all the minor airports, that figure rises to about 18 million. Passenger numbers are projected to increase to between 26 million and 50 million by 2030, depending on different assumptions. Therefore, this is undoubtedly the right time for us to look at the shape of our airports and aviation industry for the future. It is also the case that Scots have a higher propensity to fly than do people in any other part of the UK outwith London. The picture is not one of failure, doom and gloom, as Mr MacAskill suggests.
Air travel is essential to Scotland and makes a direct contribution to the economy. Iain Gray referred to the 15,000 direct jobs that it provides, of which more than 500 are in the area of West Lothian that I represent. However, it also provides thousands of jobs that result indirectly from the aviation industry in areas such as tourism and air freight and in the businesses that prosper because of the good links to and from Scottish airports.
We should recognise that the opportunities for people in Scotland to travel for leisure purposes have also been growing in recent years. Scotland has direct links to many European cities including Amsterdam, Paris and Dublin that we did not have a number of yeas ago. Edinburgh airport also has the highest number of low-cost airline departures of any airport in the UK outwith the south-east of England. Those are other areas of success that we should welcome.
It is important that we take into account the environmental impact of expansion of the industry, which has been referred to by other speakers. I draw to the attention of the minister the matter of noise pollution from night flights, which affects a number of constituencies in Scotland. This is the right time to plan for the future. There is no point waiting until capacity has run out.
Kenny MacAskill's speech was disappointing but not at all surprising. It contained the usual mixture of talking Scotland down and making uncosted spending promises. It also contained inaccuracies: Mr MacAskill claimed that Inverness airport has the highest landing charges in Europe, but the information that I have before me states that Norwich airport charges £19.47 per passenger, Bournemouth airport charges £17.26 and Teesside airport charges £14.99, which is broadly in line with the figures that Mr MacAskill gave for Inverness.
Will the member give way?
No, I have only a short time.
Mr MacAskill makes the case for extra public subsidy to allow a private company to make money from air travel. If that is his argument, why is the SNP against allowing a private company to make a profit from any degree of public investment in a public-private partnership?
That is anathema to the SNP.
As Brian Fitzpatrick says, that is anathema to the SNP. I look forward to an SNP speaker answering the question.
The growth in passenger numbers will continue. In partnership with the industry, the Executive and the UK Government should be identifying opportunities for the Scottish aviation industry to connect with new destinations, whether they are in Europe—for example, Milan, Munich and Barcelona—or across the Atlantic.
The future of Scotland's airline industry is positive. It has performed well in recent years and it is vital to Scotland's economic prosperity. The Government should work with industry and other stakeholders and it should disregard the doom and gloom merchants in the SNP.
I think that it was Samuel Johnson who said:
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life".
The Executive's consultation document is a product of that same metropolitan mindset. As we read it, we learn fascinating insights into the state of aviation in Britain. We learn that, of the 180 million passengers who pass through UK airports every year, no fewer than 100 million—well over half—go through London. We know that there is huge potential not only among the members of the SNP, who are looking forward to achieving their aims next May, but in the future of air traffic. The document tells us that air traffic will double or treble in the next three decades. That means that there are massive opportunities. If the United Kingdom were truly united, should not more of the benefits of those flights be dispersed around the UK? Are Labour members happy that well over 60 per cent of all flights from Scotland go through London as the hub?
I agree with much of what Nora Radcliffe said. The situation is not sensible, but nothing in the consultation document will change it. Indeed, everything in it will perpetuate the congestion that is caused by flying through London. I agree that Scotland wants new routes. We want them to be established to other UK destinations and to mainland European and American destinations.
In the short time that I have, I will address a number of matters that affect the city of Inverness. In the Highlands and in the Parliament there was a united approach to the submission of an application for a public service obligation for the Inverness to Gatwick route. I will remind members why that is so important. I will give one concrete example. Inverness Medical, which now employs more than 13,000 people, came to Inverness partly because Ron Zwanziger, the head of the company, was, as he said, able to travel from Heathrow to Inverness to get there.
Inverness Medical would not exist if he had come five years later, because British Airways scrapped the Heathrow service without any notice. Only a strong political campaign by the Scottish National Party and others secured the Gatwick route as an alternative. The precedent exists; the Gatwick route must be protected. The PSO application was submitted well over a year ago. What has happened to it? Highland Council, Maureen Macmillan, who seems to find this amusing, and the Scottish Executive support it.
We were just commenting that Fergus Ewing seems to have no problem with flying through London if Inverness Medical does it. Inverness Medical has expanded considerably since the Gatwick route opened.
I am glad that Maureen Macmillan agrees that the PSO is sensible. Unfortunately, the Scottish Executive does not say anything about it any longer. It is the application that dare not speak its name.
Perhaps I will give way to the minister in a second.
We heard in February, March, April and May from the Secretary of State for Transport that he would make an announcement of his decision on the PSO soon. Perhaps Lewis Macdonald can make it now.
Far from saying nothing about it, the Scottish Executive has been fully supportive of the bid and has enabled the Department for Transport to carry it forward in co-operation with Highland Council and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
When will we get a decision? The bid seems to have gone into the ether. The consultation document has been published as a means of shelving the decision.
We need to establish new routes. I was delighted with Kenny MacAskill's proposal of a route development fund. That proposal has been supported by many, including the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, which made a submission in a letter of 1 February. Inverness airport is making progress on a number of fronts. I believe that it is working towards establishing new routes, but the main problem is high landing charges. Unless that problem is addressed, Inverness airport will not be competing on a level playing field. That is abundantly the case. State aid is irrelevant. Unless the situation is addressed, Inverness will not achieve its potential. The SNP will not allow that to happen. Sadly, the Scottish Executive seems complacent and intent on ensuring that that is what happens.
I commend Kenny MacAskill for pitching for a job as a marketing assistant for Ryanair from 2 May next year. He must be top of the list.
I will concentrate on the future of air transport to and from the Highlands and Islands. I note that the Executive motion
"notes the consultation process … on the future development of air transport".
I hope that the minister's responsibility for HIAL will include conducting a similar consultation process. In Aberdeen, significant consultation and debate surrounded the late opening of Dyce airport. However, I understand from constituents in Nairn that HIAL carried out no such consultation prior to announcing 24-hour opening. There is also concern about increased freight on the Inverness to Aberdeen road. I ask the minister to extend the culture of consultation to HIAL.
To compare the lack of growth at airports in the Highlands and Islands with the growth at airports in the rest of Scotland is interesting, given the current subsidy of £21 million. If we take the eight HIAL airports that were in operation in 1991 and note their expansion—or otherwise—over the decade to 2001, we find that the number of passengers has reduced by 23 per cent. As the minister said in his opening speech, that compares with a doubling of passenger numbers at BAA airports over the same period. I hope that that figure will be used when HIAL is asked whether it is making the best use of its subsidy and whether it is working fully with all partners to utilise the potential of its airports to provide cheap flights for visitors, residents and business. While there has been a 23 per cent reduction in the number of passengers at HIAL airports, passenger numbers at Prestwick airport have increased thirty-fivefold in 10 years, from 35,000 to more than 1.25 million last year.
I appreciate the particular local circumstances in Shetland—I am sure that Tavish Scott would be jumping up and down on hearing that word were he here—but it is interesting to note that, over the same 10-year period, there was a sixteenfold increase in the number of passengers at the Shetland Islands Council-owned Scatsta airport. However, it is still the case that crossing the Pentland firth is more expensive than crossing the Atlantic. This week, I was trying to get back to Inverness for a meeting having been to Carstairs hospital on Monday. The flight to Inverness from Edinburgh airport cost £182, and was not at a time of day that would favour business travel.
Does Mary Scanlon accept that the figures to which she refers primarily reflect the position at Scatsta and Sumburgh airports, and that Inverness airport, the hub airport for HIAL's network, has experienced an average annual growth of about 6 per cent over the past 10 years?
Inverness is one of the few airports where there has been any expansion over that period. I do not want to waste my time over this, but other figures, including those for Kirkwall airport, are very worrying.
I understand that HIAL and Highlands and Islands Enterprise have funded a study into the economic and social benefits that low-cost airlines would bring to the area. Although the report on that has not yet been published, it is hoped that, with a partnership approach that emphasises the economic and social benefits for the whole of the Highlands and Islands, and with seasoned negotiators in place, people in the Highlands may reap the benefits of low-cost travel in the future.
There is much talk about landing charges, but I do not think that they are the only factor. However, we do need a financial structure that will give incentives to HIAL to increase traffic at Inverness and throughout the network. There are many times of day when Inverness airport is quiet, and surely it is better to have cheap flights than no flights.
I ask the minister, when summing up, to appraise the performance of Highlands and Islands Airports in its use of the public subsidy, in its accountability to Government and in its ability to represent the interests of the Highlands and Islands in air travel.
I welcome this opportunity to debate the future of Scotland's air services and the fact that there has been wide consultation on the issue. Naturally, I, too, wish to concentrate my comments on the provision of air services in the Highlands and Islands.
As Fergus Ewing said, whenever the future of air services is discussed, people in the Highlands and Islands understandably get nervous about the Inverness to London link. The decision to withdraw the direct link between Inverness and Heathrow airport caused outrage, and initiated what was a long-fought, but unsuccessful, campaign for the route to be reinstated. What is more, people in the Highlands believe that the Inverness to Gatwick link is under threat. We are concerned for its future. British Airways has said that it has no plans to withdraw the service, but reports that the service might be withdrawn surface continually, which is disconcerting.
The former Minister for Transport and Planning, Sarah Boyack, is to be commended for giving strong backing to the case for a PSO on the route, and the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership has stressed in its report the compelling case—on social and economic grounds—for introducing PSOs to protect lifeline Scottish air routes. I am glad to hear the present Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning say that he continues to work closely with ministers at Westminster to ensure that the case for a PSO is properly understood and is fully considered by the UK Government.
The debate is about more than just links between Inverness and London. There are myriad other issues in the Highlands and Islands.
The way in which the SNP referred to low-cost airlines suggested that no such airlines flew into the Highlands. That is a complete misrepresentation of the position—easyJet flies in and out of Inverness. Although everyone would like Ryanair to come to Inverness, the principle of fairness must underpin the discussions. People in the Highlands have been truly appalled by the way in which negotiations have been conducted. They have also been appalled by Kenny MacAskill's ranting about the situation. I hope that HIAL and Ryanair will continue to discuss how they will achieve their mutual aim. That must be the overwhelming priority.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
The role of HIAL is not simply to support Inverness; it must support air services in the rest of the Highlands and Islands, where there is no competition for routes. HIAL continues to develop and upgrade all the Highland airports, but it is not responsible for air fares. Lack of competition and a low population density lead to the high cost of air travel from Wick and the islands—and, in the case of Orkney, between the islands—even though those routes are exempt from air passenger duty.
The key point is that high fares do not offer those who live in Caithness or on the islands a genuine choice of travel options. I am often bemused by the fact that companies use low passenger numbers to justify high fares. If airlines thought about the issue imaginatively, they would realise that bringing down their fares might attract people to travel. Companies such as BA need to think carefully about the social and economic implications of their high fares and the lack of concessionary fares on some routes. I hope that the minister will continue to enlighten the airlines' thinking.
I am particularly interested in the future development of Wick airport, which suffers from poor timetabling and neglect of its second runway. Economic growth in Caithness should mean the development of Wick airport and I ask the minister to consider building capacity there.
I want to deal with the importance of the smaller airports in the Highlands and Islands and to mention the possibility of building more airports. Skye councillors have recently proposed an airport for Skye, which could benefit tourism. The cost might compare favourably with the cost of upgrading roads. The development of the airport in Oban could provide real alternatives for people on the Argyll islands, whose only air services are to Glasgow. For someone on Colonsay, a ferry trip to the dentist in Oban is a three-day event.
There is a case for ensuring that such airports continue to develop by becoming local hubs. We should consider how air services could complement the ferry services in Argyll. Oban airport could serve the Fort William area. It is obvious that investment is necessary. I urge the Executive to think imaginatively about the potential of airports in the west Highlands. The issues are complex. When it determines the future configuration of air services in the rest of Scotland, the Executive must ensure that it takes into account fully the needs of the Highlands and Islands.
To some extent, the debate has focused on low-cost carriers and the competition that they might well bring. A possible concern is that low-cost carriers might merely knock out the competition, rather than grow the market. They might also provide competition for the railways, which are more environmentally friendly. I suggest that the evidence supports the view that low-cost carriers grow the market and open up genuinely new opportunities for people to travel—whether for pleasure or for business. We must encourage that.
The people who are responsible for the infrastructure, particularly those in Scotland, have been slow to react. Prestwick airport has been the notable exception. It has seen large growth, almost exclusively from low-cost carriers. That growth has taken place in spite of Prestwick's location disadvantages—
Will the member give way?
No, I want to develop my point. I might find time for the member later.
We must consider why so much of Scotland's business has to go through the London airports. One does not have to look much further than BAA's comments on the situation. BAA has stated:
"In particular, we are forecasting growth in passenger traffic through Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted".
BAA's commercial interests are not necessarily the public interest. One reason why Prestwick is now successful is that it is not part of the BAA group. The current consultation exercise should take a serious look at BAA's almost monopoly position in the large airports that serve Scotland.
I do not for one minute suggest that we should have no links with London hub airports. Such links are particularly important in the Highlands and we need continued access to them.
The consultation document addresses the issue of ownership and considers proposals that could incentivise greater route development. Will Brian Adam respond to the consultation in that context?
It will be most interesting to see what happens as a consequence of the consultation.
I can inform the minister that, despite the significant expansion in the air travel market, Aberdeen airport's growth has been around 2.3 per cent per annum, which is rather pathetic. That is against the background of the benefits of the oil and gas industry that Aberdeen has. We are not seeing the kind of growth that should happen. There is no real competition between Aberdeen and Edinburgh or Glasgow for international air travel. Indeed, the focus of BAA's business is, as BAA itself has said, to forecast growth in passenger traffic through Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. That is in nobody's interest. I hope that one consequence of the consultation will be a change in focus, if not ownership, of Aberdeen airport. A change in ownership is one option that should be seriously considered.
There has been much debate about access to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, but there are serious problems in Aberdeen. The western peripheral route alone will not provide the answer, so we ought to look at how rail links could be improved. There is little in the way of proper public transport to the airport—a fact that has been recognised in recent BAA publications. Unlike Edinburgh, which has a good and successful bus service, Aberdeen airport does not have a bus service. The success of Edinburgh's bus service may reflect the fact that the service is wholly owned by Edinburgh City Council, which has recognised the city's economic needs. That is not the situation in Aberdeen, which has only a deregulated bus service.
We need to consider seriously how we get people to the airports if the airports are to form part of an integrated transport arrangement, which I believe is the desire of the Executive and ought to be the desire of everybody. If we had a proper railhead near the airport in Aberdeen, we would be able to attract a much wider group of passengers. The route development plans, as endorsed by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, are the way to grow the business in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way.
We ought to focus on regional airports as a way of making certain that Scotland has a proper and successful place in the future of international air travel.
I welcome today's timely debate. As we look forward to the next 20 to 30 years, this is precisely the time when we should discuss what kinds of air services Scotland needs.
I have been disappointed with some of the nationalist speeches this afternoon. Never mind "Release our potential", listening to the SNP is like listening to the doom and gloom party. We heard about all the things that are wrong. There were some wonderful obsessions with London as a place to fly through—it is great if one is coming from Inverness but terrible if one is travelling from anywhere else. We need to recognise the interconnectedness of air services. It is important that we can fly via London, Brussels, Amsterdam or Paris. That is the modern world. People who want to fly in and out of Scotland need to have the right choice. We should not be obsessed with London.
The one amusing thing in Kenny MacAskill's speech was his analogy between Iceland and Scotland. At some point, Mr MacAskill needs to get out the map and look at the differences.
Will the member take an intervention?
No thank you. I have heard Mr MacAskill already today.
One of the things that really disappoints me about the SNP amendment is that it ignores the range of challenges that are set out in the consultation document. It is almost as if the document had not even been read. The amendment ignores key issues to do with the development of routes and the development of Scottish Airports Limited under the aegis of BAA; issues to do with capacity and growth that our airports face; issues to do with surface access links, which are at a critical stage in Glasgow and Edinburgh; and of course the issue of the future development of HIAL, which Nora Radcliffe and Maureen Macmillan spoke about.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
I want to focus on surface access issues. Although we are looking forward over the next 30 years, we must consider an urgent issue. I welcome the minister's commitment to get going on rail links by 2005. Around Glasgow and Edinburgh, the road network has reached capacity. Travelling to either airport by bus, taxi, car or—crucially for our freight industry—lorry, there are times in the day when people can miss flights because the delays are so bad. I welcome the look forward over the next 30 years, but the next five years will be critical. Many opportunities will be missed if we do not get our act together.
I welcome the improvements that have been made—improvements that were welcomed by Brian Adam. The Labour council in Edinburgh has improved bus access through the creation of the greenways network, which also gives taxis much faster access to the airport. Much can be done to focus investment to improve the quality of the experience for tourists to Scotland and to make the country more attractive for domestic users.
The debate has not focused on making better use of our existing infrastructure. Glasgow and Edinburgh airports have seen significant investment over the past few years. They are now more attractive and much more could be done to market them and Prestwick to make them better used—with the existing infrastructure.
When he winds up, will the minister confirm that he will consider the future capacity of runways? No decisions will be made in this consultation exercise but, over the next 10 years, we will have to involve local communities. I was at a community council event at the weekend—as was Mr MacAskill—at which it came over strongly that community councils feel that they have not been consulted. We must talk to the key stakeholders and the national stakeholders, but we must also talk to local interest groups, environmental groups, local business interests and local transport companies. They need to be consulted about the future of our airports to ensure that the benefits of our airports and the opportunities that they offer are maximised.
The consultation gives us an excellent opportunity to discuss a 30-year approach, but we must make the most of the current opportunities in our airports. We must make the best use of them and consider the environmental impact of expanding the access to them. We must do that in a sensible and managed way. Critically, we must make the most of the airports that we have. The challenge is to see them as part of our economic future.
I welcome the debate. I strongly support the Executive's motion, which has done the job—it has given us the opportunity to debate the issue. Let us be positive, let us look to the future and let us see what we can do—rather than just whingeing and moaning.
A number of members have spoken from a local perspective and I will unashamedly do the same, by looking at the ways in which airports affect my constituents in Tayside and Fife. At present, the area is not well served by airports. As we have heard, there are, in effect, five regional airports in Scotland—at Edinburgh, Glasgow, Prestwick, Aberdeen and Inverness. None of those airports directly serves Tayside and Fife, which have a large population.
I suppose that the closest and most accessible airport is Edinburgh, but the transport links are still poor. There is no rail link as yet, although I hope that we will have one in a few years' time. However, not all travellers have access to rail and many will still travel by car. Last week, it took me more than two hours to travel from Dunfermline to Edinburgh because of a car crash blocking the A8000. Sadly, such events are not uncommon. I was not going for a flight so I did not miss it, but I was late for a committee meeting. If I had been going to the airport to catch a flight I would have missed it despite having left in plenty of time to get there. Such occurrences are not uncommon and cause considerable problems for people trying to use their local airport.
There is an airport in Dundee that is owned by Dundee City Council and which has daily scheduled flights to London City airport. That is a welcome service, but the airport in Dundee is not financially viable and is heavily subsidised by the council tax payer.
A proposal has been made for a new central Scotland airport in the Falkirk area. That idea was floated by my colleague in the European Parliament, John Purvis MEP, and by various others. It is an interesting proposal, but I wonder whether it is realistic, given that it would depend on the closure of Glasgow and Edinburgh airports to be successful. It would be no more accessible to my constituents than Edinburgh is, unless and until a new Kincardine bridge is built.
Businesses in Tayside and in Perth and Kinross want a local airport.
Will the member not accept that if we get improved rail access to Edinburgh airport, one of the options would provide excellent access for residents in Fife and Tayside and beyond?
The member makes a fair point but she should recognise that rail access is only as good as where the railway goes to. Many of my constituents live a long way from railway stations. They do not want to travel to a railway station and leave their cars parked there for two weeks while they go on holiday. They would rather drive to the airport. A rail link would be welcome, but it is not the full answer to the problem.
There is also a proposal to reopen for commercial use the airfield at Errol, which is currently used only by gliders and light aircraft. Ryanair has already expressed an interest in using Errol for low-cost flights. If Errol were to be developed, the existing 1,500m runway would have to be extended to 2,200m. Facilities would also have to be built for aircraft and passenger handling, fuel provision and security. It is inevitable that there would be some opposition from local residents, but the financial benefits for the economy of Tayside and Fife would be extensive.
A recent feasibility study that was done in Newquay, from where Ryanair has started flying once a day to Stansted, estimated that that service will put £40 million into the Cornish economy. Ryanair's initial proposal for Errol is for five routes, which would generate an estimated £200 million per annum. The potential for the Scottish economy—particularly for the tourism industry in Perthshire, Angus and the southern Highlands—is tremendous.
The advantage of the Errol site is that it is handy for the centres of population in Perth and Dundee that are not currently well served by airports. It is immediately adjacent to the M90 motorway and to the east coast main rail line, so it would be possible for it to be served by a rail link. It is also within 90 minutes of 90 per cent of the Scottish population. I believe that it would be an ideal site for a new airport to serve Tayside and the northern parts of Fife.
A development at Errol would be led by the private sector but would of course require some support from the public sector in putting in the necessary infrastructure. Although responsibility for such matters is reserved, I ask the Executive and the ministers to consider the proposal for Errol. It would be of great benefit to the local economy and to the wider Scottish picture.
While listening to the speeches, I have to ask myself why it is so bad to put Scotland's interests first in the Scottish Parliament. Labour members should also be asking themselves that. Where are their ambitions? Perhaps Wendy Alexander's letter was right; their only ambition is a Mondeo car or something like that.
There is no question but that air transport is crucial to the growth and well-being of the economy. As the minister said, it is important for tourism and industry. It is vital that investment should be made to develop international routes and to enhance accessibility of airports by improving transport links.
Glasgow airport has suffered from the lack of support from BAA and successive Governments. BAA has evidently prioritised its airports in the south-east of England, as has been stated by many members. The Executive has failed to show any vision, commitment or speedy action in putting in place the decent transport links that are required by Glasgow and Edinburgh airports.
The importance of rail links was highlighted in BAA's paper on rail strategy. It proudly lists lots of improvements in rail links to many of its airports and I shall mention a few. The Heathrow express was launched in 1998 at a cost of £500 million. There are now plans to extend that rail link at a further cost of £150 million. The Gatwick express runs four times an hour, seven days a week. Stansted has one of the highest shares of rail access, at 27 per cent, and there are plans there for a new fleet of rolling stock and for investment in stations and infrastructure.
The BAA paper describes how Southampton is linked by excellent rail services to the local area and by an express route to London. Let us see what it says about Scotland. It proposes a mere 7 miles of rail links, which tells us how BAA has participated in the studies into the potential for rail access. That is shameful on the part of BAA. A lack of vision and investment on the part of BAA and the Government is responsible for the sorry situation. We still have no rail links to Glasgow or Edinburgh airports.
Now we have a proposal for a new so-called central airport—a hare-brained scheme for a super-duper airport costing God knows what and taking God knows how long to build. For Mr Mundell's information, it is a smokescreen to hide the fact that it is in BAA's interest, as Brian Adam mentioned, to push traffic through Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and ignore the needs of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. It might be all right for us if we want to pay extra air fares to fly from London, but our constituents either do not want to or cannot afford to. I say to Sarah Boyack—who is leaving the chamber—that it may be okay for her, but it is not okay for people in the rest of Scotland who wish to fly directly from Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Inverness or wherever. Why should they not be allowed to do that?
Will the member give way?
No, I will not.
The main problem is that BAA owns every single one of those airports. I find that rather strange. I ask the Executive to write to the Government—I will certainly write on my own behalf—because it is about time that the Office of Fair Trading looked into the dealings of BAA. It is obvious that not just Glasgow but the whole of Scotland is suffering from BAA's monopoly. I hope that the Executive will pick up that point. I know that the matter is referred to in the Executive's consultation document, but I would like to see it in writing—and I would like the letter to be copied to me—that BAA is becoming a monopoly and is doing down the whole of Scotland.
We move to closing speeches. We are absolutely on schedule. Robert Brown, you have four minutes.
This has been an interesting debate, but it went off slightly half-cocked at the beginning because the SNP amendment addresses issues that are fairly peripheral to the central matter. On that, Kenny MacAskill did not provide a significant degree of enlightenment. The SNP's idea of a national air strategy is that airlines should be some sort of national virility symbol, with the St Andrew's cross on the side of aircraft that are flown on by First Ministers as if they were third-world tinpot dictators. That is not my idea, nor is it the idea of the chamber, of what the national airport strategy should be for the United Kingdom or for Scotland.
Airports, as a variety of people have said, do not exist in isolation. There is a social context—members have talked about lifeline links to the islands, Highland airports and so on—but the central issue that we have to begin with is that the strategy of predict and provide is wrong. Too many flights are going through London. A number of members have made that point. In what was otherwise a good speech, Sarah Boyack rather overstated the case the other way. We need to have a regional strategy that takes flights away from London to the north, the midlands and Scotland. It is the job of Government to examine that and consider how we get away from overheating the south-east economy, which is bad for that area and bad for us—those are two sides of the same coin. Too many flights go through London.
Nora Radcliffe made a significant contribution on the need to view aeroplanes in the context of other forms of transport. It is obvious that aeroplanes are not necessarily the most environmentally friendly way to travel. They are necessary in many instances—for example they are the best way to travel long distances—but for travel from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London, trains may be the best way to travel.
Will the member give way?
I will finish my point. It is extremely disappointing that the SRA's plans for the west coast main line seem to have gradually dissipated almost to the point of vanishing. Capacity would be freed up if the west coast main line was brought up to the standard in the original plan, which would be much more environmentally friendly. It would also free up capacity on aeroplanes.
My main point relates to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. They may not be big enough, as the consultation document suggests, to be niche hubs by themselves but, if we view Glasgow and Edinburgh airports—which after all are only a few miles apart—as having a number of things in common and if we view them together strategically, we could produce a different context. I do not know whether the phrase "duplex airport" describes the right approach, but the potential is considerable for co-operation to divert and attract transport to Scotland and to those two airports.
The recent Fraser of Allander Institute report suggested that Glasgow, more than Edinburgh, would have employment and job creation benefits from the provision of a new runway at its airport. That is particularly because of the higher level of international flights at Glasgow—some 70 per cent of Glasgow's traffic is international—which incurs higher charges and generates higher income. If we take the hangover point, the west of Scotland's economy is forecast to grow, but not by as much as the east of Scotland's economy. The debate has a within-Scotland context, too.
Like others, Sandra White touched on the crucial Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport railway links. Unless we have the infrastructure to make those airports work to best advantage in an integrated way with transport structures in the rest of Scotland and the UK, we will not make the best of the opportunities that are available.
A consultation is being undertaken. Many good speeches have been made today. We should build on that and progress with consensus from the Scottish Parliament on how we develop the important airport links.
Members will forgive me for being parochial, but as the constituency member for Prestwick, I will deal with the issues that relate to Prestwick airport. Before I do that, I must say that rarely do Government reports leave one feeling angry and exasperated, but "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Scotland" does so. It does not acknowledge that the future of passenger air travel in Scotland has changed. Low-cost carriers and no-frills airlines are here to stay. Ryanair's importance to Prestwick and its contribution to growing the market—to which Brian Adam referred—cannot be underestimated.
Neither does the report acknowledge the phenomenal rate of passenger growth at Prestwick. It projects that 3 million passengers a year will pass through Prestwick only by 2030, whereas real-world estimates suggest that 3 million passengers will use Prestwick by 2005. The report puts Prestwick in the same category as Inverness and Dundee. Without being unkind to Inverness or Dundee, I say that the report could not be wider of the mark.
Prestwick is the only civil airport in Scotland with a 3,000m runway. It is virtually fog free. It has a rail link that 30 per cent of its passengers use and an improving road and rail infrastructure. The completion of the A77 upgrade by 2006 will, in effect, make Glasgow Prestwick Glasgow's second airport. It is more accessible to Glasgow travellers than Stansted is to London travellers, as Prestwick is sited only 30 miles from Glasgow city centre. Furthermore, Prestwick can expand in its existing buildings to take more than 3 million passengers and further expansion can be accommodated on site without the need for land acquisition.
To put it simply, I see no need to develop a central Scotland airport at enormous cost, as the development of Prestwick as Glasgow's second airport can be achieved easily and at relatively little cost to the taxpayer. The £1.5 billion for a central Scotland airport, plus the road and rail infrastructure costs, are costs that we can well do without when we have under-used assets at Prestwick with all the road and rail connectivity in place.
In addition, low-cost freight carriage may follow low-cost passenger flights in an increasingly competitive market. With its 3,000m runway, quick turnaround times and the potential for rail access, Prestwick has the capacity to facilitate that next step in freight growth. Of Scotland's airports, only Prestwick can accommodate a fully laden 747. To further enhance Prestwick as a freight destination, some freight must be moved from road to rail. I have discussed that idea with all the local stakeholders.
First, a feasibility study must be undertaken into moving freight from the airport on to the railway by means of a bridge or a tunnel. Secondly, we have to ensure that the rail line from Ayr to Glasgow is cleared to carry containers. That would enable the Ayr to Glasgow line to connect with the existing cleared line network that takes freight to the south of England and Europe. Just-in-time delivery, combined with low-cost freight flights and supported by quick turnaround times will make Prestwick the Scottish airport of choice for air freight in the next 20 years.
The people of Ayrshire take enormous pride in Prestwick and in its potential to become a niche hub for Scotland because of its maintenance, repair and overhaul facilities, and its freight and low-cost travel capability. It is well recognised locally that Prestwick will be the engine of economic growth in the area. I believe that the future development of Prestwick enjoys the blessing of the public and politicians alike, which is important, as Sarah Boyack said.
In the present climate of low-cost travel, the development of Prestwick offers Scotland the ability to accommodate the increasing need for capacity in air travel for at least the next 20 years at little or no cost to the public purse. All that is required is for the blinkers to be taken off and for Glasgow Prestwick to be recognised as the national asset that it is.
In summing up the debate for the SNP and speaking to our amendment, I thought that it would be useful to start with the points on which we agree before moving on to set out for the Executive the areas on which we disagree. The SNP is not girning or complaining; we are trying to make positive suggestions that can be developed. If that is not the point of a consultation, I fail to understand exactly what is.
Everyone in the chamber agrees on the importance of the sector. The consultation document mentions that air transport is expected to make up 2 per cent of Scotland's gross domestic product by 2030. We all understand the importance to the inward investment market—when it recovers—of our direct links with the European Union and the United States. We all understand the importance of air transport for Scottish exports and tourism, which is a £4.5 billion industry. In other words, we all understand that air transport is a key driver for Scotland's economic growth.
Will the member take an intervention?
With all due respect, as the member has just arrived, I will not.
I think that members also agree that, because of environmental concerns, it would be sensible to divert flights from going through London. The point is made not out of constitutional obsession, but because we believe that it would make sound environmental and politically sensible policy. Nora Radcliffe made the point that travel through London leads to an excessive environmental toll. She said that an added environmental impact resulted from planes being stacked up because of delays in landing. She also said that we should look ahead to what we could do to roll out PSOs in the Highlands and Islands. I am sure that many members would agree on all those matters.
There are two areas of dispute. The first is how to encourage growth and discourage the pressure on the south-east. "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom" states that growth will be dependent
"upon whether or not additional capacity is provided at airports in the South East of England."
That shows why there is a need to refocus and for Scotland to have a hub. However, the consultation document appears to flirt with us. It sets out the need for support for more direct flights to the European Union and America, but it continues to look through the same prism that says that flights have to go through the south-east hub.
We know that the number of passenger flights has doubled in the past decade and that that trend is set to continue. Sarah Boyack referred to the possible growth scenarios. Under the heading "South East Constrained Scenario", the document captures the effect of one constraint on that growth. If there is no growth in capacity down south, that would
"make access to London's principal airports from Scotland more difficult and expensive."
The point that we are making is that there is no need for that to happen; it is entirely unnecessary and avoidable. The pressure on the south-east hub is not an SNP obsession, nor is it a Liberal Democrat obsession. It is a fact that is recognised in the consultation document. We have to ask the question, "What do we have to do to get ourselves out of this south-east prism?"
The SCDI made it clear that passengers in Scotland want to be able to fly direct to a large number of destinations. The SCDI said that that would provide massive cost savings and reduce inconvenience and transfer times at hub airports. That is not a political point; it is a factual business point and we should look at it in that way.
The second area of dispute relates to what should be done in the Highlands and Islands, which is the subject of the second part of Kenny MacAskill's amendment. Fergus Ewing highlighted the disparity between HIAL's estimate of 1.8 million passengers per annum and the Department for Transport's estimate of 0.8 million. With a waft of his hand, the minister said that there is a wide margin of error. However, a margin of error that is bigger than the original estimate is ridiculous—a difference of 1 million cannot simply be dismissed as a margin of error.
The answer to the problem lies in the report, which says that HIAL's forecasts
"depend heavily on attracting ‘no frills' carriers and international services".
The problem and the answer are in the report, but the minister does not seem to recognise that. He should tell us which estimate he and the Executive back. Given that HIAL's estimate is 1.8 million passengers and given that it is predicated on no-frills carriers and international services, why, in the name of goodness, would the minister be against it?
No member has said that they are against widening the range of available direct flights or increasing the number of no-frills, low-cost carrier services that are available from Scotland. The point is that HIAL already has such routes operating out of Inverness in a business deal that it negotiates with the airlines.
It is remarkable that the minister says that no one is preventing anything, given that that is exactly what the Executive is doing. Ryanair wants to come into those routes. Incidentally, it has been suggested that the SNP is somehow in hock to Ryanair and is desperately trying to promote the Ryanair interest. I make it clear that it is fine if British Midland, KLM, Lufthansa and Scandinavian Airlines want to come into those routes. The issue is structural and the Government could do much to aid matters.
There has been an argument about why Inverness airport has the highest landing charges in the European Union. Bristow Muldoon even disputed that that is the case. In a biting piece of oratory, he told us not to worry about the £15 landing charges, as he had heard on good authority that Bristol airport's charges are higher. He did not give us his source. He is saying, "Don't worry. Inverness airport's charges, even using your figures, are not the highest; they are just exorbitant." If that is his best defence, it is not very good. We have cited the Cranfield University report—a proper academic study that is much more trustworthy than Bristow Muldoon is.
Will the member give way?
I will not, as there is not enough time.
The Executive could act on the punitive costs. I am not sure whether Bristow Muldoon or another member mentioned the fact that passenger volume at Inverness airport has grown by 6 per cent. We should contrast that with what has happened at Prestwick airport, which Mr Scott spoke about. The increase in volume at Prestwick has been 120 per cent. Does not that suggest that there might just perhaps be merit in going down the road that I suggest?
The SNP has made a range of constructive proposals that are driven by nothing other than the need to ease capacity in the south-east and to give Scotland a competitive advantage. The SCDI said:
"Responding to the consultation document's question on shifting maintenance operations to regional airports, SCDI considers that such a change would solve the capacity problems in the south-east regarding both excess air traffic and land shortages."
It comes to an important conclusion:
"As Inverness airport has both air space and land availability, SCDI recommends that an aircraft maintenance facility be located there."
In other words, there is massive potential in Inverness to use and expand the facilities in the Scottish national interest.
The amendment contains two concrete proposals that the minister could progress as part of the consultation. The route development plan could extend to Spain, Italy and Scandinavia, as Mr MacAskill said, and there could be increased emphasis on the marketing budget—some members, including Murdo Fraser, mentioned such emphasis in other parts of the UK. The fact that the minister will not follow our proposals tells us a great deal about the Executive's paucity of vision.
The debate has been useful, as a review of air transport is overdue. The previous aviation policy white paper was published in 1985. Since then, the industry has been subject to considerable change and development. More than ever, air travel is an integral part of the way in which countries do business.
By its nature, aviation is highly interconnected. That is why the consultation process sees us bringing forward a consultation document in partnership with the UK Department for Transport. The consultation covers reserved and devolved matters and will lead to the publication of a UK white paper next year. That will lay out a strategic framework within which we will develop our vision for the future of aviation in Scotland. We will add detail to that vision by producing a route development strategy and by adapting the proposals that come forward through our land-use planning system.
Clearly, the tragic events of 11 September last year led to a major restructuring in the industry, both by accelerating existing trends and by creating opportunities. We have seen the demise or the realignment of some international flag carriers and the welcome rise of low-cost, no-frills airlines. The role of second-force operators has also increased. That is why this is a good time to review the focus and direction of aviation strategy and why the consultation process is important. The process provides the opportunity for a full and thorough debate. I am glad that many members have taken that opportunity in the spirit in which we brought it forward.
In general, the issues are complex and do not lend themselves to quick fixes. We need to approach them in a mature and considered way. We must shape support for the industry and achieve the capacity requirements that are necessary to meet Scotland's needs. In doing that, we must strike a balance between economic, environmental and social priorities. That balance must maximise benefits and minimise disbenefits.
Several members have mentioned the disbenefits, which occur locally and nationally. Noise pollution, planning blight, additional road congestion and increased generation of greenhouse gases are all potential disbenefits of increased airport capacity. That is why it is important, as we look to continue growth in air transport, that we consider those issues carefully and in good time. Technological improvements, better operational practices, provision of rail links and the efficient use of existing facilities can all help to reduce the disbenefits. Alternatives must be adequately considered. Our aim in the consultation is to generate a broad consensus on the best overall strategy for sustainable development.
Scottish aviation is clearly a fast-moving industry. There has been clear market segmentation in recent years and we are looking for ways in which to develop all those potential markets. We will do so in a way that strengthens the role of all our existing airports for the benefit of Scotland as a whole.
Some members have emphasised the options for enhancement of capacity. It is important to stress that, at this time, we are considering the enhancement of capacity and not the construction of new runways. The limiting factors are different for each airport. We recognise that, if the demand predictions are correct, we may need an additional runway at some point in the future. One of the purposes of the consultation exercise is to preserve long-term development options at the pressured airports in order to avoid having them sterilised by other uses. In response to Sarah Boyack's question, I can say that no decision on extra runways is required at this stage and none will be required for at least 10 years. We recognise the long-term pressures and the need for incremental additions to terminals, aprons and taxiways to meet some of the short to medium-term pressures. We also recognise the possible need for runway extensions.
The capacity issues in the north of Scotland are of a different sort from those that apply in the central belt. At airports such as Inverness and Aberdeen, the ability to operate the latest generation of aircraft will be vital for future development. This is why the Government, together with the operators of the airports, will look at the issues closely.
Does the minister recognise that a number of low-cost airlines have ordered a significant number of new aircraft of the type to which he referred? What steps has he taken to ensure that Scotland has a fair share of the new routes that will be flown by those aircraft?
I will return to that matter. I know that Brian Adam will join me in welcoming the new routes that Ryanair and Air France have established in recent weeks from Aberdeen airport. We are engaged in the consultation to identify the means that are required to develop such routes.
An important aspect of the improvement of existing facilities relates to surface access. A number of members have raised the issue of rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. We are looking to be in a position to announce preferred routes for those rail links within the next few weeks. Our ambition is, as Iain Gray said, to be able to carry those forward by 2005.
Will the minister clarify the time scales for the likely developments? The dates for the Glasgow airport rail link have recently been the subject of controversy.
I confirm Iain Gray's comment that the timetable for work to begin on the rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh by 2005 is ambitious but achievable. An agreed strategy on surface access to Aberdeen airport, which was devised by local partners, including BAA and the local authority, is also in place. I am delighted that the Executive kick-started that strategy a few weeks ago by providing funding.
Much has been said about HIAL, which is the publicly owned operator of lifeline airports in the Highlands and Islands. HIAL has a crucial role. Some of the criticism that has been made of its charging structures is simply unfounded. The figures that I have seen show that Inverness's landing charges are on the median for airports of comparable size in the United Kingdom. HIAL is publicly owned precisely because it operates in a different environment from that in which Prestwick, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh operate. Because of that unique operating environment, we have provided heavy subsidy, which, as Iain Gray said, has trebled since 1997.
Does the minister recognise that, apart from the record subsidy that the Scottish Executive provides, decisions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer also benefit airports in the Highlands and Islands?
That is certainly the case. Both Governments recognise the particular situation of Highlands and Islands airports. Maureen Macmillan and Mary Scanlon mentioned the prospects for development of the smaller Highlands and Islands airports, which are lifeline services. In that context, we will examine proposals to enhance air travel through a continuing programme of investment in terminals and infrastructure. The consultation offers an opportunity for such proposals to be introduced. Bristow Muldoon mentioned some of the investment and support that has been given. The new terminals at Stornoway and Kirkwall airports are a tangible benefit of our increased support for HIAL.
The proposed PSO on the Inverness to Gatwick route has been mentioned. We support that proposal because we recognise the importance of routes to London as well as elsewhere. It is eminently sensible that the UK Government should respond to that proposal in the context of the consultation, which includes consultation on access to the south-east hubs and on PSOs. Fergus Ewing's suggestion that the UK-wide consultation is a device to postpone the decision is, frankly, bizarre.
In that case, will the minister say when the decision will be taken on the application that was submitted last autumn for a PSO for the Inverness to Gatwick route?
The decision lies with the Department for Transport and not with the Scottish Executive, which is why we continue to talk with our colleagues in the Department for Transport and to support the application in the context of the consultation.
HIAL has worked successfully with airlines to encourage and attract new services. For example, it has attracted low-cost easyJet flights to Inverness and has recently secured a new BMI service linking Stornoway and Edinburgh. As Iain Gray said—although one or two members might have missed it—yet another new service that HIAL has attracted to the Highlands of Scotland will be announced later this week. Given that at least Duncan Hamilton gave a mature response to one or two of the points in the debate, I look forward to the SNP's welcoming the establishment of that service.
We are committed to ensuring the development of an expanded network of routes for Scotland. We are mindful of the needs of low-cost operators and the freight industry. We have a clear remit and strategy for route development and we intend to act on it. This time next year, 1,000 delegates—representing every major airport and international airline in the world—will meet in Scotland to do business with one another and to agree the basis for new routes and services. The world routes development forum will come here because Scotland is where airlines want to be and because the Scottish Executive, Scottish Enterprise and VisitScotland have made the forum possible and welcome. The forum will come to Scotland because the Scottish Executive wants to encourage direct routes overseas as well as securing and enhancing existing routes to London.
We are in the midst of an extensive consultation process. With our colleagues in the Department for Transport, we are striving to ensure that all the issues are given a thorough airing, as many of them have been today. The resulting policy will say much about Scotland's place in the world. The consultation offers a platform for growing our air transport industry and our air route development networks over the next 30 years.