Rail Infrastructure (Glasgow and West Coast)
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S1M-1236, in the name of Ms Sandra White, on rail infrastructure in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. The debate will be concluded, without any question being put, after 30 minutes.
Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak button now. Those who are not staying for the debate should leave as quickly and as quietly as possible—[Interruption.] I repeat my request to members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament agrees that the transport infrastructure of Glasgow and the West Coast of Scotland suffers from the lack of a direct rail link to Glasgow Airport and a Glasgow north/south rail link; notes that these interrelated schemes would bring benefits to all of Scotland, improving the rail accessibility of all parts of the country, and believes that the Scottish Executive should implement plans and make available the necessary funds for the development of these schemes.
I thank MSPs and members of the public who are staying to contribute and listen to the debate.
Although my motion is in two parts, it is about joining those parts together and, by doing so, regenerating vital areas of Glasgow and beyond—[Interruption.]
Order. Members who are leaving should do so without conversing, as a debate is being held.
I will not repeat my comments, other than to thank the MSPs and members of the public who have stayed behind to listen to the debate.
As I said, although the motion is in two parts, it is essentially about incorporating those two parts and devising a plan that will regenerate vital areas of Glasgow and beyond, ensuring economic progress for people and for the country.
I will begin by talking about the crossrail scheme and explaining what it entails. Crossrail is the collective name that is applied to the north-south rail route across Glasgow, to the Tron line, which is an existing freight line, and to a short section of new track from West Street to link up with the East Kilbride, Barrhead and Cathcart circle lines.
The link has been on the drawing board, believe it or not, since 1968. I shall give members a brief history. In 1968, the greater Glasgow transport study recommended completion of the line, which required 200 yd of new track at High Street-Bell Street, to connect with existing freight lines. In 1974, British Rail, in conjunction with the local authorities, applied to the Scottish Office to proceed with those recommended projects. In 1975, the Scottish Office refused to go ahead with the crossrail.
In 1991, the completion of Glasgow's north-south missing link was once again revived by Strathclyde Region, enhanced by an additional link from Paisley at West Street. A new Partick-style interchange was proposed for West Street and for Glasgow Cross. In 1995, a provisional parliamentary order was applied for for the crossrail scheme, indicating the seriousness of plans to proceed with the scheme. All members can count, so they will have worked out that it is more than 30 years since the crossrail was first mooted, yet nothing at all has been done about it.
More specific crossrail proposals are on the table, but various transport authorities seem to have put it on the back burner. The shadow strategic rail authority has already offered grant aid towards the £10 million cost. A similar offer has already been accepted for Edinburgh's £9 million crossrail project. Why was Glasgow not considered and why is it being left out?
Let us look at what the crossrail proposals would entail. There would be a connection between High Street-Bell Street and the existing freight lines. That could be up and running in 18 months and would allow all north Glasgow suburban electric trains to run directly on to Paisley, Ayr, Largs, Gourock and Wemyss Bay. The estimated cost of such a project is £10 million. That is a very small cost as far as I am concerned.
The second phase of the scheme would link up with Cathcart, Neilston, Kings Park, East Kilbride and Barrhead. Those places could also be linked into Glasgow airport, which I shall talk about in more detail later. The airport link could be completed as a third phase of the project. The latest figures for the whole crossrail project estimate the cost at £100 million. Compared with the £2 billion cost of the Jubilee line, I do not think that that is an awful lot of money.
What would the crossrail mean for us? Cross-city travel would be enhanced. New interchange stations would be constructed at West Street and High Street, which would increase the number of trips and involve only one simple interchange. It would also provide work for construction workers and help to regenerate the area. City centre access would be enhanced, with new stations providing easy access to High Street, Queen Street and Charing Cross. A new station at Glasgow Cross would provide enhanced access from the rail network. The Glasgow Cross building, which is very old, was offered to the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive in 1996 for the princely sum of £1 on condition that it be made into a rail station.
I have already mentioned social and economic regeneration. Much of the east and south of the city has become run down and neglected. In many areas, the buildings are derelict. I lodged the motion for this debate because many local residents and traders have written to me asking when the scheme is going to get off the ground. A new station at Glasgow Cross would regenerate the whole area, particularly the east end of Glasgow. It would open up the area not only to local travel but to long-distance travel.
Having covered the crossrail link, I shall go on to talk about what I call the missing link—the Glasgow airport link—which would complement the crossrail proposal. It would enable services to access the airport from the north and west of Glasgow via Springburn, and would link to Edinburgh, Stirling, Aberdeen and beyond. It is a fantastic project, but I do not understand why it never seems to get off the ground. It was first mooted in 1990, with serious proposals first being submitted in 1995. A site has been identified and Railtrack's 2000 network management statement for Scotland details that a rail link to Glasgow airport would cost around £60 million.
Strathclyde Passenger Transport and Railtrack have developed a feasibility study and the Scottish Executive has commissioned consultants to carry out a rail access study. We should favour this proposal. Why do we need the link? It is vital to the economic regeneration not only of Glasgow, but of the surrounding areas and, indeed, of the whole of Scotland.
A study carried out in 1997 by the Association of European Airlines indicated that any airport with 2 million passengers should consider a rail link and that any airport with 3 million passengers should have a rail link. Glasgow has 6.4 million passengers, but to date nothing has been done. In 1991, a rail link to Stansted airport was completed. At that time, Stansted had 1 million passengers. Now, it has 11 million. Last year its passenger lists rose by 17 per cent, while Glasgow's increased by just 2 per cent. It is vital that Glasgow is allowed to compete on equal terms. We want Glasgow to flourish.
I have put forward my arguments as well and as sincerely as I can. I hope that the Executive will take these plans on board and take all the necessary steps to ensure that they come to fruition. As I have already said, £2 billion was spent on the rail link down south. Why cannot we in Glasgow and Scotland access moneys? Like everyone else in Britain, we pay taxes. We should be entitled to get that money back.
This link is essential, as we do not want to be left behind. I ask the minister to consider the proposal carefully and to give me her answer.
There is much merit in what Sandra White is proposing today. A substantial capital cost is involved, but much of what she suggests is common sense.
We should consider experience elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The Heathrow rail link has proved a tremendous success. The same is true of the links to Gatwick, Stansted and Birmingham. Wherever a rail link has been introduced, there has been a considerable increase in passenger traffic, which provides a boost to the local economy. We should also look overseas—to Charles de Gaulle in Paris and to Köln/Bonn airport in Germany—to see the benefits of having a rail link.
This is not just about tourism. We are anxious to get as much traffic as possible off the roads—for environmental reasons, apart from anything else. If we can get freight travelling from Glasgow airport by rail, so much the better.
I have seldom been convinced by the argument that it would be tremendously expensive or impractical to have a spur from the Paisley canal area to Glasgow airport. It would not be beyond the powers of today's civil engineers to arrange that.
The proposal for crossrail is also common sense. As you will be aware, Presiding Officer, Glasgow Cross is now suffering from a lack of traffic and transport round about, and shops in the area are closing. The crossrail project would represent a significant step towards making that part of Glasgow attractive once again.
Internally, Glasgow's transport links are not that bad. However, as Sandra White has pointed out, there is a missing link. It is very easy to travel from the north-west of the city to the city centre, but it is not terribly easy to travel from the north-west to the south-east—which is what travelling to the airport amounts to. We must establish the link that is needed. When people go on holiday, they do not want inconvenience. When they come to Glasgow from abroad, the first question that confronts them is how to get from the airport to the city centre. We must make that easy for them. Commercially, it is important to ensure that business visitors to Glasgow get in with minimum hassle.
I believe that these projects are worthy of further examination although, inevitably, there is a serious cost implication. I have no doubt that the minister will address that issue in her response.
This is a timely and highly relevant debate on crossrail and the Glasgow airport link. It is timely against the background of the rail crisis we all suffer when we come through from Glasgow and the dithering that seems to have characterised Strathclyde Passenger Transport's behaviour on both issues in recent years.
Compared with several other areas, the west of Scotland has considerable transport advantages. The existence of SPT is one of them; the Glasgow underground, which was provided as a result of the foresight of our forefathers, is another. As Bill Aitken said, we should set the standard against the quality of public transport elsewhere, especially in Europe. The superb double-decker trains in Switzerland and the highly integrated transport system in Holland are two examples.
Many people have not wakened up to the sheer size of the task of renovating and modernising the rail system in Scotland to bring it into the modern age. I will deal with crossrail first as it is linked to the airport link. At a briefing that I had a while ago with SPT, we were given to understand that progress is dependent on the outcome of a study into the advantages and otherwise of crossrail—which consultants are carrying out—and on a further consultation that is being carried out under the aegis of the UK Government as part of the Scottish airports and air services study.
The trouble is that we have been here before. We can see the importance of connecting the two issues; what we want is a result to those consultations. Crossrail is important in its own right, but it is also a prerequisite for the Glasgow airport link because the economic advantages of that depend on the airport's ability to link to other parts of Scotland.
As Bill Aitken mentioned, it is important that the rail link should be a freight link as well as a passenger link. Imagine the advantages of being able to take off the M8 and the Kingston bridge all the tankers that come from Grangemouth to fuel the aeroplanes that take off from Glasgow airport. We are not considering this with a wide enough scope.
The minister has considerable commitment to the environmental aspects of transport policy and has been resistant to some of the wilder claims on the M74 argument. One of the arguments is that if we have the money to do what is suggested, we should also talk about the finance that would be necessary to provide the public transport links that would achieve many of the social and environmental benefits that the Government and the Executive seek to bring about.
The message that must go out from this chamber to SPT, the Executive and transport authorities generally is: cut the knot, shorten the timetable and make decisions. They should move ahead so that we can—belatedly—have a proper transport system in Glasgow that links the airport, the traffic arrangements in the city, the people who live in the city and those who wish to come to it. That is long overdue; let us get on with it.
I, too, note the contribution that Sandra White has made by bringing this issue to the chamber.
There is cross-party support among Glasgow members for raising another issue about the transport infrastructure of the great city of Glasgow. It is recognised that there is much unfinished business in relation to Glasgow's transport needs.
I echo Bill Aitken's comments that much of Glasgow's transport infrastructure is helpful. In some cases it works against the city's interest in retaining population, because of the relative speed with which people can move in and out of the city from the suburbs.
A fundamental issue is how we use transport developments to regenerate areas of disadvantage. I will speak about how such developments would generate substantial economic development opportunities for the constituency that I serve in the east end of Glasgow and the Gorbals.
A series of interconnections must be made, which have been ignored for a long time. They require the major agencies in the city and the major players such as Railtrack, SPT and the local authorities concerned to produce innovative plans to address the issues that have been raised.
The work of Ken Sutherland and others, who have been assiduous—as all members would testify—in giving information to members about the crossrail project is helpful to this debate. We have an opportunity with the Mercat building at Glasgow Cross, which when we were younger was the place for the Krazy House store. After the exchange that I had with Dorothy-Grace Elder, I think that that is where we should have been earlier in the afternoon.
The issue concerns how we can connect parts of Glasgow that have missed out on the economic prosperity that the city has enjoyed over the past 15 years. A year ago, people would have said that it would be unusual for three local authorities to have a serious debate with the Executive on the M74 project. That project is now progressing much more quickly than any of us thought possible. We now have the opportunity to bring together the consistent views on Glasgow crossrail. As Sandra White and other members have said, the outline for development already exists. So does the commitment to try to put together a package among transport service providers in the former regional authority area.
We need to bring all the agencies together so that we can match other great cities in the UK—especially Manchester, which made a choice about how it would use its airport link-up with its city-centre transport and rail infrastructure to make a difference. We have the opportunity to do the same in Glasgow. Folk at the ground level in Glasgow are committed to doing that. My former colleague, Alistair Watson, has been helpful in putting together information for this debate and he is one of the key figures who can work with the Executive to deliver that objective.
I welcome this debate. I hope that it is the beginning of a process that will make a difference for the crossrail project and for other projects in Glasgow's transport infrastructure.
Frank McAveety just mentioned Ken Sutherland, who has done an excellent job of keeping us informed and, rightly, prodding politicians across the board in fighting Glasgow's cause for improved public transport, especially the crossrail link and direct rail link to Glasgow airport. Ken sent me an article from which I shall quote; the headline is:
"Glasgow Airport looks in line for £27m direct railway link".
This great piece of journalism from The Herald informs us that:
"When linked with Crossrail, Glasgow Airport would be accessed easily by rail, not only from north and west of the city, but also from other parts of Scotland, including Edinburgh and Aberdeen.
The airport is fully supportive of the scheme and has stated it would be willing to pay for an element of it, including the costs of the station itself."
That opens up a vista of opportunity, in which Glasgow airport could be accessed not just from Glasgow, but from every other major city in Scotland. That would represent not just regeneration of Glasgow and its airport, but regeneration across the country. The problem is that the article is dated 16 September 1995. It says that the new link
"would not be open until the year 2000."
We have reached 2000 and the link is not there. I hope that the minister will comment on that.
Much has been said about the cross-party nature of the support for the developments, and I believe that there is genuine cross-party support for the direct rail link to the airport and the crossrail system. However, we have not yet heard what major funding is being made available for those projects. I hope that the minister will give us something tangible today on the delivery of those worthwhile and necessary projects.
I thank Sandra White for the labour that she has put into this debate and the excellent statistics that she has produced. While we are on the subject of rail, I am sure that many of us would like to pay tribute to the heroic work of the railway engineers who have been clearing the appalling landslide at Polmont. We may chafe and curse away when our trains are delayed, but those people are risking their lives: the landslide is almost perpendicular and there is heavy, earth-moving equipment on it.
I was lucky in being able to pounce on prospective rail deals when more of the money was going to the east coast. After a campaign, I was fortunate enough to obtain £30 million for new trains on the Glasgow-Aberdeen line.
The world in general is returning to rail; we all know that. French statistics—not ours, unfortunately—show that, despite some of the horrific accidents that have happened recently, people are still 28,000 times less likely to have an accident as a passenger on a train than they are on the roads.
It is quite ridiculous that a city the size of Glasgow does not even have a suburban station at Parkhead. I am pretty sure that there was a station there when I was a youngster, but that was before the years of axing started. We need a station in the east end more than ever, as well as a link to the airport. The situation is very like St Petersburg, where there are potholes on the runway and no rail link to the city's major airport.
Our cross-party Borders rail group was privileged to be visited by a speaker from the mayor's office of Portland, Oregon, who explained that, like San Francisco, the city has turned back to rail to the extent that a new highway was cancelled. Indeed, the places that were linked by the new suburban rail line have prospered. A little conurbation of cafés, shops and one or two light industries was created at every station and halt point, and now those areas are thriving. The city has grown in population and importance and jobs have boomed; people attribute the principal responsibility for that to the intelligent planning of the rail line. They thank the day that they denied themselves the opportunity of creating another highway.
We all know that there are many excellent suburban lines in France and so on; however, the mindset is different in such countries. I will end with a quick anecdote. We notice that many of the French limbo-dance under station barriers instead of paying their fares; that is part of a socialist mindset in France that believes that the rail belongs to the people. I was once at a Paris suburban station when I noticed that the red carpet had been rolled out. I asked the station master who was expected. "Well," he said, "either it's the President of France or it's the first person that we've caught this year paying their fare."
I call Jamie McGrigor, but I ask him to keep his speech brief.
I will be very brief.
I congratulate Sandra White on securing this debate and agree that a rail link from Glasgow airport would be enormously valuable to most of Scotland, and would open up the Highlands. As usual, I want to introduce a Highlands and Islands perspective. Although there is a good railway from Oban on the west coast to Glasgow, it is quite impossible to travel from west to east. At Crianlarich, the line veers to the right, whereas before the time of Dr Beeching, a line extended through Glenogle to Callander and on to Stirling. The reinstatement of that line would be very advantageous to residents and tourists alike.
I also want to mention Taynuilt railway station, which was the last wooden station on the Oban line and was due to be turned into a museum. Railtrack had promised money to a local trust to achieve that aim, but unfortunately the station was burned to the ground a month ago through arson. I ask the minister to encourage the rebuilding of a replica Taynuilt station, which would be a great tourist attraction in that area.
Will the Executive also give more thought to creating independent loading bays for loading forestry timber on to trains on railway lines in the west of Scotland, to reduce the amount of timber lorries on the roads? That would complement the excellent initiative of carrying timber by sea.
I appreciate the brevity of your speech, Mr McGrigor, but I remind members that speeches should stick a little more closely to the subject under discussion.
Along with other members, I congratulate Sandra White on securing today's debate. Although it might seem difficult to be positive about the opportunities for rail given the current crisis on the railway network, we need to think to the long term.
As Robert Brown observed, the rail industry has now been posed the huge challenge of restoring public confidence in the safety and reliability of rail travel. We are not talking about quick fixes; the problems are deep-seated and are a consequence of years of under-investment in and fragmentation of the industry. A root-and-branch review of the rail industry's structures and systems, which is now under way in the aftermath of Ladbroke Grove and Hatfield, will result in a railway that is much better equipped to handle progress and manage expansion.
Much is already in place that members should know about. The UK Government's 10-year plan will pump more than £28 billion into the railways over the next decade. The Scottish Executive has committed £150 million to the public transport fund in the next three years. An additional £36 million will be spent on freight facilities grants in the same period—I included that point especially for Mr Jamie McGrigor. We have already committed more than £30 million to the public transport fund—including the £10 million for new projects that I announced last week—and £19 million in freight facilities grants to rail projects in the past two years. We are turning the tide and beginning to invest in our railway network.
The Scottish Executive will take responsibility for the full cost of the ScotRail franchise, worth £200 million this financial year, which includes support for SPT rail services worth £79 million. Stronger regulation of the industry and devolution of important rail responsibilities to Scotland provide us with a much more effective basis on which to develop and implement strategies for growth. That is the context in which we must consider the Glasgow crossrail and links to the airport.
Last month, I outlined my thoughts on the future of Scotland's railways. I want rail to play a key role in an integrated transport system. I want a rail system that is safe and accessible, supports economic development, meets social needs and helps to relieve road congestion. I want to secure more investment in the railway network. I will publish a consultation paper later this month, which will help us to take people's views into account when we set out our guidance and instructions to the strategic rail authority on the Scottish franchise. We have a new strategic context in Scotland that is much more positive for railways; the north-south Glasgow rail links and airport links must be considered in that context. Our strategic priorities and our directions and guidance to the strategic rail authority will be our statement of how we plan to take forward Scotland's passenger rail system. As I said, Glasgow crossrail and the airport link need to be considered in that light.
Sandra White is absolutely right to say that both projects have been under consideration for at least the past 10 years. They are viewed by many as the missing links in Glasgow's and, by extension, Scotland's rail system. SPT has been the principal promoter of both projects and has commissioned studies to explore options. It has done a great deal of work with Railtrack, Scottish Airports and the British Airports Authority, and plans to do more. I understand that SPT wants to wait for the outcome of that work before it comes to a decision on how to proceed with promoting both projects.
I commend SPT on keeping both projects alive. In the past 10 years, promoting new railways was not an easy task. Many people think that the projects now need to be considered as one project. Indeed, it has been argued that they are much more viable if considered together. The costs are estimated at well in excess of £120 million. A project to link Glasgow Queen Street and Glasgow Central at an estimated cost of £500 million is also being considered. That project is at a much earlier stage of consideration, and many people believe that it will be overtaken by the crossrail airport link project.
A new context in which the Executive can promote railways exists not only in Scotland, but at national level, where national policy supports the need to improve transport links to our city centres and airports. That is why a strategic surface access study is being conducted as part of the Scottish airports and air services study, which is sponsored jointly by the Scottish Executive, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the shadow strategic rail authority. The study is examining the potential for rail links across Scotland at Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Inverness airports, but focuses primarily on the potential rail links from the city centres of Glasgow and Edinburgh, neither of which can be considered in isolation from the other. The study takes the approach that such links are of national significance and must be assessed at national level.
The points made by Robert Brown, Bill Aitken and Frank McAveety highlight the importance of such strategic links. It is right to compare ourselves with other European countries. Scotland and the UK cannot be under any illusion about the catching-up that must be delivered if we are to begin to match the quality and range of infrastructure available at comparable airports abroad. We are also doing multi-modal work on the M74, which I hope will consider road and rail connections in the round. That is vital, particularly in the context of freight.
Much work is continuing and will be completed shortly. The findings of the airport study will be published early next year, when we will conduct a formal consultation process. It is important that members know what our current time scales are. I share the frustration about past lack of progress on rail projects. They are major infrastructure projects and support will have to be considered alongside other rail and public transport priorities. We need to consider those much more positively.
There is an argument that links to airports might generate commercial returns for the private sector. It is important that we consider opportunities for the private sector to work in partnership with the public sector. Such a joint venture could be an effective way of developing crossrail as a complete and integrated package and might be a way in which to lever in private sector investment. The Scottish Executive has not yet been approached for financial support by SPT or the shadow strategic rail authority. It is important to place that fact on the record. Any future bids from the public transport fund or any other public sector programme will have to be considered against our eligibility criteria and will have to compete with other bids. Another opportunity for considering the projects is the replacement of the ScotRail franchise, on which we will consult later this month. We must consider the projects in the context of the range of choices and opportunities.
The rail projects that can demonstrate benefits and value for money will receive support. That does not mean that there are no tough decisions ahead. It means that the climate in which those decisions will be made has been transformed dramatically. That has been brought about by John Prescott's investment programmes for the rail industry, by the strategic rail authority that will be brought about through the UK Transport Bill, and by our public transport fund. There are now opportunities for real investment. That does not mean that every rail project that someone wants will go ahead; it means that the projects that can demonstrate economic opportunities, social inclusion benefits and environmental advantages are the sorts of projects that, provided with robust analysis and good appraisal, will be considered by the Executive.
The climate has changed. We are no longer managing decline; we are managing expansion of the railways. The challenge for the next few years is to find the best projects to work on. That is the context in which this debate needs to be placed.
Meeting closed at 17:42.