Plenary, 19 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 19, 2002

Official Report 405KB pdf

---

Glasgow Airport (Rail Link)

The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3062, in the name of Robert Brown, on the Glasgow airport rail link.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the importance of Glasgow Airport to the economy of west central Scotland, growing congestion on the M8, M74 and M77, the economic and employment opportunities that would be opened up by establishing a rail link to Glasgow Airport and the urgent need to enhance public transport facilities serving the airport; is concerned at the lack of progress on agreeing and proceeding with this key project, and believes that the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning should convene an urgent meeting of Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority, British Airports Authority, Railtrack, Glasgow City Council, Renfrewshire Council, Glasgow Chamber of Commerce and other interested parties in order to agree a timetabled action plan for delivery of the Glasgow Airport rail link at the earliest possible date.

I thought that I would look important with the lectern in front of me for today's debate on this extremely important issue.

The Parliament's business bulletin of Monday of this week contained a five-page item entitled "Private Bill Procedure: Determinations by the Presiding Officer". That might be a somewhat obscure item to most of us and to the general public, but it is crucial to the debate, because it lays down procedures for private legislation to go through the Scottish Parliament, authorising—among other things—the construction of new railway lines and tramways, which is a power that we acquired from Westminster just a few weeks ago.

It is my fervent wish—and, I hope, the fervent wish of many in the chamber—

I invite those members who have yet to leave the chamber to do so now. I am sorry, Mr Brown. I thought that when I called you we were well ahead in that operation. It seems to get more complicated by the week.

I have spoken about the private legislation powers that are available to the Parliament. It is my fervent wish, and the wish of members who have stayed to hear tonight's debate, that those new powers should be exercised—before the end of the first session of the Scottish Parliament, if possible—in the construction of a rail link to Glasgow airport. That is also the wish of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority, Glasgow City Council, the British Airports Authority, Glasgow and Renfrewshire Chambers of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and most other such bodies in the west of Scotland. They believe that there are strong economic, social and employment cases for the project.

The cost of the project is said to be about £60 million, which compares with nearly £300 million for the short stretch of the M74 extension. The rail link would take traffic off the M8, the M74 and the M77. According to Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive's study, the rail link alone should have a positive net present value of between £5 million and £10 million. That indicates that the project is economically worth while.

Rail links normally lead to an increase in use of the airport concerned. It is quite obvious that a rail link to Glasgow airport would improve the image of the airport and be an attractive feature for overseas visitors, as well as domestic travellers who are going abroad.

The airport rail link would also be likely to connect to Paisley Gilmour Street, the third-busiest railway station in Scotland, which operates as a junction for rail traffic to Inverclyde and the Ayrshire coast. When the costs of the airport rail link are shared with the costs of improving the lines that feed into the system—the Paisley to Glasgow track and the potential Glasgow crossrail link—the project's positive economic rating rises even more.

Glasgow airport is Scotland's premier airport. In the year to May 2002, it handled 7.42 million passengers, as compared with 6.42 million at Edinburgh airport. However, fuelled by the presence of the Parliament in Edinburgh and by the most buoyant local economy in Scotland, Edinburgh airport is catching up fast. We need rail links to both city airports and a partnership in selling Scotland to the world, but Glasgow and the west of Scotland increasingly need a rail link. Airports exist in a highly competitive market, particularly after 11 September last year. We need to enable business people from the crucial Glasgow and Renfrewshire areas to get to European destinations more easily, and to continue to support Glasgow as a highly attractive city destination for visitors.

Stagnation has descended on this and other key railway projects. Even though the west of Scotland has the only passenger transport executive in Scotland, there is no proposal for a Glasgow airport rail link on the tables of the Scottish Executive or the Strategic Rail Authority. Although the project has the support of all the key local bodies to which I referred, the strategic rail plan suggests that it might get the go-ahead by 2010.

The SPTE is currently engaged in yet another study of the proposal, following the BAA study of UK airport issues and innumerable other studies over the years. The Glasgow airport rail link is suffering death on the Clyde—death by a thousand studies. It is high time that the stagnation ended.

I can almost write the minister's response to today's debate. He will say that we "have to await the outcome of the current study", which is "expected in the autumn", and that he "cannot commit the Executive until we see the detailed position". He might also say, "The Executive hopes, depending on the outcome of the studies, that the relevant local authorities will be keen to progress the requirement for parliamentary powers."

My criticism is not directed particularly at Lewis Macdonald or at the former transport ministers to whom I, along with others, have written on the issue of the Glasgow airport rail link since the Parliament's inception. One of those former ministers is sitting next to Lewis Macdonald. I am sure that all ministers would prefer to announce goodies to the Parliament, but we still do not have a Glasgow airport link under construction. There is no agreed route and we have no parliamentary powers to proceed. Despite sympathetic noises, the Executive has not even made a clear political commitment to proceed urgently with the project.

One of the main problems is that responsibilities in the matter are divided. The local councils, the SPTE, Glasgow airport and Railtrack cannot do the job by themselves. SPT has committed £500,000 to a feasibility study to prepare it. Glasgow airport rail link is a project of national importance for Scotland; the Scottish Executive should lead it, because only the Executive can bring the key players together, provide the parliamentary powers, clear the bureaucratic obstacles and access the funding. Decisions must be made on the route, the ancillary arrangements for tracks, station capacity and rolling stock, powers and funding methods, recruitment and training of railway engineers and a host of other issues.

I call on the minister to tell members specifically that the Executive is committed irrevocably to the project, that it is prepared to insist on an urgent timetable and that it is prepared to give us a target date for the project to start. Will the minister consider paying a deposit on the project as earnest of commitment, by supporting the immediate upgrading of the Glasgow railway line and increasing line capacity? That is one of a number of necessary preliminaries for an effective and reliable Glasgow airport rail link.

Will the minister ensure that consideration is given to the potential to link the project to Braehead, in respect of which a major mistake was made in allowing such a facility to go ahead without a rail connection? Will he take on board the possibility of a freight link?

I began by mentioning the economic case, but commitment to the Glasgow airport rail link is more important and pivotal than that. It would be a symbol of the vision that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament have for Glasgow and Scotland, with our largest city as a European centre that is connected to Europe and with modern transport facilities to match European standards. That is not to be determined only by the constrained and rather constipated doodlings of the railway cost accountants. Like the Glasgow underground and the Scottish railway system, the rail link should be built on the belief of our political leaders that it represents the way forward.

The Glasgow airport rail link should be decided on value, not just on cost, and that value should be measured in economic, social and environmental terms, not least as a lever to rejuvenate what was once the second city of the empire.

I have an unusually long list of members who wish to speak, so I would be grateful if members would restrict their comments to four minutes.

I thank Robert Brown for the opportunity to debate this subject once again. I have a sense of déjà vu. I think that we have debated this subject in members' business four times. That is why I proposed an amendment to Robert Brown's motion. I hope that he accepts the amendment in the spirit in which it was intended—to try to hurry the project along. We are concerned and I am angry that we have debated the rail link so many times, yet nothing has come to fruition. I could go on and on about all the debates that we have had and reiterate the information, but I hope that the minister will take on board the new information about legislation that Robert Brown mentioned.

I said that I was angry. My reason for being so is that, although other airports are coming up, Glasgow airport is coming down. Flights are losing passengers because of the inaction of this Government and past Governments. Stansted airport was opened in 1991. Let us not forget that the Glasgow rail link was first mooted in the early 1990s. We are nearly in 2003 and there has been no movement whatsoever. In the early 1990s Stansted had 1,127,000 passengers and Glasgow had 4 million passengers, but Stansted got a rail link and we did not. Stansted's passenger numbers have risen by 17 per cent, but Glasgow's passenger numbers have risen by only 2.2 per cent.

Robert Brown mentioned regeneration, which was mentioned in the debate on local government earlier. If we want regeneration in not only the west of Scotland but the whole of Scotland, we have to push forward with the rail link. I would like the minister to clarify in his summing-up the statement that he made on 28 February. He said:

"I know that recent press reports have suggested that the Executive has already decided to express a preference for the construction of a link to Edinburgh airport rather than to Glasgow airport. I will take the opportunity that this debate offers me to say that that is not the case."—[Official Report, 28 February 2002; c 9898.]

A leaked report on the cities review states that

"there is no commitment in the review to either the vital cross-rail link or Glasgow airport links."

I would like that to be clarified. Although the cities review might contain some good news, if that is true, it is bad news. As the story has already been leaked to the press, I am sure that the minister will be able to give us an honest answer about whether the airport link will go ahead.

Many members want to speak in the debate, so I will not take long. The lack of action by the Executive and by previous Governments will eventually result in the demise of Glasgow airport and the demise of the west of Scotland. The SNP and, indeed, the Government cannot let that happen. The Scottish Parliament was elected by the Scottish people to represent the Scottish people and to show that we care for them. We must show that we care about all our cities.

As a Glasgow MSP, I am pushing Glasgow's case. I ask the minister to take on board our arguments and to act as quickly as possible—by the end of the Parliament's first session, as Robert Brown indicated—to ensure that the airport link will be implemented and that Glasgow will be able to look forward to the regeneration that it rightly deserves.

I have a small aside. We know that the BAA is spending £38 billion on terminal 5 at Heathrow airport. What did Glasgow airport get? A car park. I rest my case.

I warmly congratulate Robert Brown on securing an important members' business debate on an issue that is vital to the prosperity of west central Scotland and to the economic prospects of Scotland as a whole.

There is no doubt that the continuing development of Glasgow airport is an important element of a growing, successful economy. According to my information, Glasgow airport has achieved an average growth rate this year of between 5 per cent and 7 per cent, in spite of 11 September. Indeed, last month, because of the European Champions League final, the growth rate was 11 per cent. Such growth is to be welcomed.

My figure for the number of passengers using Glasgow airport stands at 7.33 million, which is 1 million above the figure of its nearest Scottish rival. That figure differs slightly from the figure that Robert Brown mentioned, but we will not argue about that, as both figures are good news for business and tourism.

Last week, the Evening Times carried good news about the forging of an alliance between Glasgow City Council and airport bosses to market Glasgow in the European cities that they believe would most welcome direct air links to Scotland. That news followed on from news earlier in the month from the BAA that it would offer £60 million-worth of discounts to encourage airlines to develop direct services to its airports over the next five years.

Those facts and developments are all positive and they help to make the case for an early announcement of a timetable for the construction and completion of the Glasgow airport rail link. Such a surface link will not solve the damaging effects of the growing congestion that is mentioned in Robert Brown's motion, but it will greatly alleviate the situation until the completion of the M74.

At question time last week, I indicated to the minister that the early construction of such a rail link has overwhelming support within Glasgow and west central Scotland. In the present debate, we have already heard—and we will no doubt hear again—that the proposal has cross-party support.

I was reasonably happy with the answer that the minister gave on 13 June in which he recognised

"the economic arguments for the rail link"

and stated that the Executive has identified such a rail link

"as a priority in our transport policy."

I was also glad that he acknowledged that the construction of such a rail link would not

"have a negative effect on any other airport in Scotland."—[Official Report, 13 June 2002; c 12692.]

The logic of the development of the rail link should receive support not only from Glasgow and west central Scotland members, but from members from all over Scotland. Although members can take comfort from the minister's words, I hope that in his wind-up speech he will be even more encouraging than he was last week.

I hope that a timetable will be drawn up speedily when the minister receives the consultants' final report in the autumn, so that construction can take place. Glasgow City Council and the BAA stand ready to play their respective roles. Last week, airport management announced their decision to spend up to £5 million to build a state-of-the-art terminal for the link.

The rail link is not a parochial concern. As Robert Brown said, it is of national significance. Positive words are good; positive action is better. Positive action is needed and Glasgow—and Scotland—deserve no less.

The deputy minister could be forgiven for thinking that today's debate is of the groundhog day type, but the support for the motion is merely a manifestation of the determination of the Glasgow members of all parties to ensure that some movement on the rail link project at last takes place.

Let me say in the strongest possible terms that the project must not be delayed for consultation after consultation and for reconsideration after reconsideration until the issue eventually withers on the vine. The Glasgow members will not accept that. They will not do so for the simple reason that the lack of an airport link would have considerable economic consequences for Glasgow.

I congratulate Robert Brown on securing today's debate on his motion. Robert Brown also highlighted the economic aspects of the rail link, which could provide the economy of the Glasgow area with an input of £10 million and perhaps much more. The rail link would undoubtedly increase the usage of the airport.

We should hardly be surprised that we are falling behind other areas. Sandra White mentioned Stansted, which I passed through a couple of weeks ago. I was amazed at the amount of money that has gone into that airport's construction and into its rail link to London, which has enabled it to become highly competitive.

Airports everywhere now have rail links. Heathrow has the Paddington link and Manchester and Birmingham each have a rail link. Overseas, Charles de Gaulle and Orly have rail links to Paris city centre. Amsterdam's Schiphol airport and the airports in Brussels and Frankfurt have all realised the essential value of such links. Glasgow continues to be the cinderella airport that is disregarded.

One depressing aspect of the debate is that an Edinburgh-Glasgow rivalry comes into play. The issue is far too serious to dwell upon that. When my colleague Lord James Douglas-Hamilton made his powerful case for the Edinburgh rail link, he stated that the need for a Glasgow rail link was equally compelling. That is the reality of the situation. If we do not increase the usage of Glasgow airport, we will not enjoy the economic benefits, which are entirely predictable.

When we as individuals go on holiday, we do not want hassle. No one coming to Scotland should be expected to take hassle. For people who come here on business, time is money. They cannot afford to sit in a queue of wall-to-wall metal all the way from Abbotsinch to Glasgow city centre. Quite frequently, that journey can take 45 minutes to one hour. People cannot be expected to tolerate that.

We must realise that Glasgow airport could have value as a hub. Scotland is an attractive place to visit. For many people visiting Europe, a two-week stay in Scotland might be too long, but if they were prepared to use Glasgow airport as a hub, they could fly in and stay for three or four days. That kind of situation would be extremely advantageous to our economy.

In conclusion, I tell the deputy minister that we speak more in sorrow than in anger, but the issue has existed for far too long. It is essential that a decision be taken. The matter cannot be allowed to drag on much longer.

Bill Aitken said that he speaks more in sorrow than in anger. I understand what he is saying, but I do not agree. A lot of anger needs to be reflected today. It is customary to congratulate Robert Brown on securing today's much-needed debate, but the fact is that we still do not have one iota of a commitment to the airport rail link. It is time that the Labour members of the Executive talked a lot tougher. Labour has been in power for five years in London; Labour has been in the driving seat for more than three years in Edinburgh; and Labour is in power in Glasgow. There is no excuse for delay in establishing an airport rail link that has been assessed, reassessed, studied and restudied for a minimum of 20 years. That is how far back the initial studies go.

I have been involved in a number of discussions with aviation and tourism experts and analysts who tell me that if we were to start from scratch and consider where to put Scotland's principal airport, we would probably not put it in Edinburgh or Glasgow, but somewhere in central Scotland. We are not starting from scratch; we are starting from the reality of having two busy airports. What those aviation and tourism experts suggest is that Glasgow airport may not survive if an airport rail link is developed in Edinburgh. Because of the booming Edinburgh economy, Glasgow airport would not be able to compete and would decline even further.

That is why, when questions are raised on airport rail links, I say, "Yes, I would like to see airport rail links in airports across Scotland and, yes, I would like to see an airport rail link in Edinburgh." However, speaking as a Glasgow MSP, I say that this is not a case of seeking equality; it is a case of prioritising, and Glasgow must be the priority. I therefore invite members of new Labour to join me in calling on the Executive not to treat the two cases as equal. They are not equal. Glasgow must have priority because, at this stage of our economic and social development, we need it much more than Edinburgh does.

It is customary for members' business debates to be quite consensual, but this matter has gone beyond consensus. All we have had is talk and talk and talk, but not one new rail line has been laid and not one penny has been committed—despite the fact that the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive has now had to commit £500,000 to the programme. It would surely be a symbol of this Parliament's development if, before the end of its first session, it signed the contract that would allow the construction of an airport rail link for Glasgow airport to begin. If we do not sign anything to make that commitment before the end of the session, we will have failed the city of Glasgow. In particular, members of new Labour will have failed the city of Glasgow.

Like others, I am grateful to Robert Brown for securing this debate. As Sandra White said, this is the fourth members' business debate that we have had on the topic of a rail link to Glasgow airport. That point, and the point that has been made throughout all our debates on the issue—that we have not made one iota of progress—should not be lost on the minister when he speaks at the end of this debate.

Many of the key points have been made, so I will be brief. We must stress that the lack of a rail link to Glasgow airport is more than just a lost opportunity for the airport—although it is certainly that. Glasgow airport is suffering because it does not have that link. Listening to Bill Butler, I was struck by the fact that, yes, the BAA is bragging about investing £12 million in Glasgow airport over a five-year period, but £38 billion was spent on Heathrow 5. That gives us some indication of the extent to which Glasgow has lost out and continues to lose out.

Robert Brown rightly said that Glasgow is Scotland's premier airport. The city of Glasgow should be proud of that, but, if current trends continue, it will not be the premier airport for much longer. Edinburgh airport's passenger numbers are increasing at a much faster rate than are Glasgow's—no doubt because Edinburgh has a booming economy, the Parliament is here, the city is home to one of the world's biggest cultural festivals, and the city is a thriving financial centre. All those factors are important. Edinburgh airport now has some 6 million passengers every year, compared with Glasgow's 7 million. The gap is closing and, if action is not taken to remedy the situation, it will not be long before Edinburgh overtakes Glasgow as Scotland's premier airport.

I make that point not to introduce east coast-west coast rivalry—this debate is not the place for that—but because it is a serious issue. The number of passengers that go through an airport every year says a lot about a city's ability to attract tourists, major events and economic investment. We know what the current problems with Glasgow airport are that there are major access problems, the airport is on the wrong side of the city for many people who want to use it and the public transport links are dire. The case for the rail link has been made and is indisputable and overwhelming.

The comparison with Stansted has been made by several members. It is important to emphasise that the Stansted rail link was constructed using public money. Sandra White's point is worth repeating: 10 years ago, Stansted had fewer passengers than either Glasgow or Edinburgh, but since the construction of the rail link it has more passengers than both Scottish airports put together. That is the sort of benefit that a rail link can bring and such a benefit is overdue for Glasgow.

As other members have said, we are awaiting the latest consultants' report, which is due in the autumn. Robert Brown is right to say that there is a growing sense of frustration in Glasgow that all we are getting is study after study and consultants' report after consultants' report, when what we need is action—and quickly. There is also frustration and concern about the continuing rumours that Edinburgh will get priority over Glasgow. I am not against a rail link to Edinburgh airport, but if it gets priority over Glasgow there will be a real sense of anger and injustice in Glasgow. That must not happen.

We do not need more warm words, but we need a clear indication that a decision will be forthcoming soon and a clear timetable for action set down. Glasgow deserves nothing less.

I commend Robert Brown, not just for securing the debate, but for the excellent speech that he gave. I can support all that he said.

People want more opportunity to fly out of the west of Scotland from Glasgow airport. That is not just because of the economic benefit that it would bring to Glasgow, but because of the convenience for members of the public. There is demand for more flights from Glasgow—domestic or international—and we must ensure that the infrastructure is in place to make that possible. Only last week, Glasgow Labour MSPs met the BAA to raise some of their concerns about the growth rates in Glasgow. We were satisfied that the records from May show that 750,000 passengers went through Glasgow and that Air Canada and American Airlines have returned following 11 September. We intend to monitor the situation because all the issues are interlinked. We must attract passengers who will see an easy way of getting from where they live to the airport, by rail or car. That is why the rail link is important to attract growth. The argument is about not just economic benefits, but convenience.

It seems that the opinions on the rail link to Glasgow airport have come to a head. There must be quick action in moving to a feasibility study that will demonstrate the beneficial aspect of a rail link, not just to Glasgow's economy, but to that of Scotland.

I have an interest in the matter, because one of the key proposals is that the crossrail loop would have a railway station at Trongate. That is important, not just as part of the link, but because it will add to the regeneration of Trongate, which is an area of Glasgow's city centre that is in desperate need of regeneration. I can see great advantages in that.

It is important that we recognise that Glasgow airport has gone from strength to strength. We should not talk the airport down—rather we should talk it up, because that is the point of the argument. Glasgow airport is our number 1 airport and we should build on that success by ensuring that people can get there. We should recognise that only last Friday there was a £15 million investment in the car park at Glasgow airport. The issue is all about getting traffic to Glasgow airport, and providing parking is one of the ways to do that. I understand that the BAA is in discussion with three new airline operators—low-cost airlines—to ensure that more flights go out of Glasgow.

It is my understanding—perhaps the minister can clarify this—that the Executive has made air links to Edinburgh and Glasgow the top two priorities in its transport plan, but that needs further clarification. I know that the minister will say that we cannot wish away the planning process, because it is part of the issue.

There is cross-party consensus on this matter. It is sad that Tommy Sheridan is unable to cope with the fact that there is some basis for cross-party consensus among the Glasgow MSPs. It does not help for him to have a go at new Labour, because the Scottish Socialist Party cannot hold up its head and say that it has argued for the link for the past 20 years.

The time is right to act. I hope that the Executive will confirm that it recognises that Glasgow is a stand-alone case. It makes its own case: the time is right for a rail link, and steps should be taken immediately. We know that a rail link is in the transport plan, but we need the minister to tell us that the realisation of the plan is in sight. Glasgow MSPs need to hear from the minister that Glasgow has made its own case. The case is so overwhelming that the Executive cannot deny that it must act.

I call Tavish Scott, the member for Glasgow Shetland.

I hope that Glasgow members will allow me a brief word on this subject. Like all members, I am one of the statistics to whom Bill Butler referred. I fly in and out of either Glasgow or Edinburgh every week in pursuit of this extraordinary job that we all do. I will share a couple of thoughts on the importance of the arguments that Glasgow members have made today, which I find extremely compelling. I agree with the points that Bill Butler, Bill Aitken and Robert Brown made on the compelling case for rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports. Lewis Macdonald might share my aspirations with regard to Dyce, because the rail link is on the wrong side of the runway from the terminal.

I will concentrate on the international competitiveness of the airline and airport markets, which a number of members have raised. Transport links are one of the most important factors. As Nicola Sturgeon said, in the United Kingdom there is significant competition with Stansted for the low-cost-carrier market. An important aspect to Stansted is that it is a centre for a number of low-cost carriers. As Nicola Sturgeon said, Glasgow and other Scottish airports aspire to that position. The market is extremely competitive. The BAA must reflect on that in deciding how to make Glasgow airport and others as competitive as possible.

It is important to recognise where traffic goes in terms of passengers coming to and from our cities. I understand that about 30 per cent of the passengers who travel into Edinburgh airport go into the city, whereas the figure for Glasgow is around 13 per cent. That must be borne in mind, as should the points that were made by members who have more knowledge than I have on the importance of an integrated network of rail services in Glasgow that can link to the rest of Scotland.

At lunch time today, at a meeting of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on international trade and investment, we heard from David Field from the BAA and Kathryn Munro from Ryanair. Mr Field was keen to emphasise that the BAA's single and most important objective was to build better air links to Europe. Bill Butler has already mentioned the BAA's £60 million development fund. The speakers were keen to emphasise the importance of all the public sector agencies, including the Government of the day, pulling together the factors that can help air travel and make passengers' lives that little bit easier when they arrive in Scotland. Rail links were mentioned in that context by VisitScotland and Scottish Enterprise to improve the competitiveness of Scottish airports.

The inbound-outbound figures for the new routes to Oslo and Ireland that Ryanair have opened up illustrate the importance of transport links to passengers, which can also be seen from passenger surveys. An important point is that the cheaper the ticket, the more the individual passenger will spend at his or her destination. If Scotland can get the balance right between attracting people here because we offer cheap, good-value services—whether people fly into Glasgow or our other cities—and offering a destination with our country's natural abilities and features, it will be a winning formula that I will endorse and advance.

I hope that the minister can respond positively to the compelling case that the members who represent Glasgow, led by Robert Brown, have made.

I thank Tavish Scott for his supportive remarks about Glasgow. I hope that he will join us in Glasgow when the rail link is in place in the near future. That will make his journey more effective and much shorter. It is not often that cross-party support is given to issues that relate to Glasgow, but we have achieved that for this issue. I congratulate Robert Brown on his motion, because it is important to focus on the matter.

I share some of the frustrations that members have amplified. Tommy Sheridan, Sandra White and others raised concerns about the time scale. All Labour members share those frustrations, because we want to improve our constituencies and Glasgow's economy. Let us share those frustrations and ensure that the minister responds to them.

Most issues have been covered, but I will touch on two matters. The rail link would be effective at improving and developing tourism in the Glasgow economy. Tourism is an important part of Glasgow city's economy and it attacks the chronic unemployment in Glasgow. In my constituency of Glasgow Springburn, the number of people who are unemployed is 140 per cent above the Scottish average. The continued development of tourism in Glasgow city is important in tackling that statistic. The airport rail link would have a positive impact in dealing with that.

As several members said, people have no difficulties with the development of the Edinburgh airport link, but that should not be to the detriment of, or ahead of, the Glasgow airport link. I know of no MSP who represents Glasgow who has said that the Edinburgh rail link should not be developed, but as several members have said, it should not be to the detriment of Glasgow.

The airport link would have an effect on land value in Glasgow. Glasgow faces difficulties in tackling and improving land values and we must examine ways of dealing with that. Airport links have proven to be an effective method of dealing with land values. Edinburgh does not face that issue.

I will finish by making several clear points that I would like the minister to deal with. I would like the minister to clarify that no priority is being given to the Edinburgh railway link. We must make that point. The possibility of exploring further Edinburgh's link, rather than Glasgow's, has been well publicised. I would like to be clear about the process that will be followed for assessing the rail links in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Does the minister accept that a clear economic argument exists for Glasgow's rail link, which is based on its ability to tackle deprivation?

In view of the time and the fact that I must fit in two members before I call the minister to respond to the debate, I have ascertained that the minister can wait a few minutes longer and I would be happy to entertain a motion without notice to extend the debate to 6 o'clock.

I am happy to move such a motion.

I move,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 6.00 pm.

Motion agreed to.

Strathclyde Passenger Transport awaits the consultants' report, which is due in the autumn. An airport link was discussed by Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive as far back as 1995, when I was a member. Tommy Sheridan mentioned studies that go back to the 1980s. In a moment or two, I will tell him about something that goes back even further.

No matter what is said, I suspect that unless action is taken the consultants' report will be shelved for the next decade. There will always be genuine problems when a rail link is being established. That is understandable when one considers the concerns of the various local authorities involved and the fact that residents, companies and others will want information about the proposed route.

Recent figures show a decline in passenger usage of Glasgow airport, although a good part of the reason for that could be to do with the lack of a rail link and ease of accessibility. It is crucial that the minister gives us an assurance about time scales.

I understand that, in the 1840s, the Westminster Parliament faced not dissimilar problems in respect of the building of railways in England. The Government of the time had to introduce special legislation to overcome difficulties with landowners and others. I have grave doubts that our successors will not be debating the same subject in 10 years' time. I hope that that does not happen, but it is a worry. Glasgow is not the only part of Scotland to be affected by the lack of a rail link; the whole of Scotland is affected. Tavish Scott mentioned that.

One of the problems that Robert Brown mentioned is the lack of a unique, overall controlling body designated to establish a rail link. The lack of such a body is the crux of the matter—too many different bodies are involved. We need one overall body that is given some sort of punch through legislation.

Curiously enough, back in the 1960s, the council was the municipal authority for Glasgow airport. Indeed, I was vice-chair of the committee until the airport was transferred around 1969. At that time, there was a feeling that improvement was needed but there was a genuine excitement about the airport. I clearly remember one elderly member of the council—he was even older that I am—who mentioned that a railway might be needed for the airport. Churchill's phrase from 1940 was "Action This Day" but we cannot act.

I reiterate that not only Glasgow but the west of Scotland is affected by the absence of a rail link. Some people have suggested that Glasgow airport should be renamed the west of Scotland airport. That would be a big mistake. "Glasgow" should remain in the title of the airport. I will close with a version of the city of Glasgow's motto, "Let Glasgow flourish." We should use the motto, "Let Glasgow airport flourish" and get the establishment of a rail link.

I should declare an interest. I used to be the member of Parliament for the constituency that included Edinburgh airport. I also go back far enough to be able to say that I was one of the few people who argued in the early 1970s for a central Scottish airport, possibly at Slamannan, instead of the rebuilding of Turnhouse, which was Edinburgh's airport at that time. However, that is water under the bridge.

A rail link should be built from Glasgow to Glasgow airport and the rail network should be developed so that people from other parts of the country are enabled to travel by train to Glasgow airport. It is difficult to get from Edinburgh to Glasgow airport. That is a serious deterrent for people who want to get to Glasgow airport from Edinburgh, Falkirk, Cumbernauld and Croy station. It is vital that there is a through connection from Queen Street station and that Motherwell and other stations in Lanarkshire are given through connections. That would enable people in a large area of central Scotland to get directly to Glasgow airport.

Unlike many activities, which are less successful than people think, railways are more successful than people think. In a small way I can testify to that. In the old days of Lothian Region, when I briefly had some political muscle, I got a railway station built at South Gyle. I did so against great opposition, but the station has been so successful that it is possible that none of the local citizens ever pays a fare—the trains are so full that fares cannot be collected. On the back of that development, the council revived the railway line from Bathgate to Edinburgh. The line has been such an amazing success that an extension is proposed to Airdrie.

It pays to invest in the railways. Passenger activity is greater than people allow for. It is essential that we make an all-party effort to get a railway line to Glasgow airport. It is also essential that we view the wider picture of people all over central Scotland being able to catch a train at their local station and ending up at Glasgow airport. That would be a huge advance. Many more people would use Glasgow airport if that were possible.

I thank Robert Brown for securing this important debate and providing us with an opportunity further to clarify our position on rail links to Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport. Although I disagree with one or two points that have been raised, the discussion has been positive in the main and reflects the fact that the project's importance is accepted across the board.

The Executive is committed to implementing a transport policy that creates a safe and accessible railway system. It forms part of an approach that is focused as much on social, economic and environmental benefits as on direct benefits to the transport network. We recognise that the construction of rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports is an important part of such an approach, which is why, as members have mentioned, we have commissioned a major study to consider what can best be done at each airport and to indicate the best means of taking the project forward.

I want to stress that there is no question of any delay or inaction by the Scottish ministers. Since the study was commissioned, we have always been very clear about the timetable and about the need for a project of such importance to be rigorously tested to ensure that the right link is constructed in the right place to deliver value for money. The study does not focus on the case for rail links, but on identifying the best solution.

It is true that SPT, the BAA and others have carried out previous studies on rail links to Glasgow airport, but those studies have not succeeded in identifying an agreed and preferred option that should be carried forward. Members have claimed that no progress has been made, but the study that we have commissioned will bring together the findings of other studies to achieve what they failed to achieve: identification of a single option that is technically feasible and achievable and commands the broad support of all the actual and potential partners. That is critical if we want to deliver on our objective.

The study is part of a wider process to evaluate the continuing and anticipated growth in the demand for air transport across the UK over the next 30 years, and will contribute to our Scottish air transport consultation paper and to next year's proposed UK white paper on the future of air transport. That white paper will be informed by the need to meet demand for expansion in the aviation sector and for any such expansion to make the best possible contribution to local and national economies. As a result, it will require to recognise the need to reduce surface journeys by road in order to obtain the maximum benefit from the growth in aviation demand.

Members have made great play of the various studies. Will the minister assure us that the current study on Glasgow airport will not disappear into the other study that he has mentioned and be delayed until the outcome of that?

I certainly will. We hope that the two studies will dovetail comfortably together. In any case, we do not intend one study to overtake the other.

Pauline McNeill asked about our strategic priorities. Our transport delivery report clearly identifies the airport rail links as among our most important strategic transport priorities. As Bill Butler pointed out, they could contribute not only to the economy of their respective local areas, but to the economy of Scotland as a whole. We commissioned the study to ensure that we have an objective basis for making decisions on what we do.

The consultants undertaking the study, Sinclair Knight Merz, will examine the economic and engineering costs and benefits of the proposed rail links. They will report not only to us, but to a steering group that includes the BAA, which owns both airports, Scottish Enterprise, the Strategic Rail Authority and the UK Department for Transport. All stakeholders must work together if we are to reach a common understanding of the problems and how they can be overcome.

The final report should be ready in the autumn and will allow us to proceed with detailed development studies and to outline a likely timetable. I assure members that the progress of the study is indeed progress. Although I do not want to detail all the criteria that are being employed, I am keen to ensure that the process that we are undertaking is more fully understood than I suspect it may be. I should therefore point out that phase 2 of the report will be received by ministers during the summer recess and will narrow down the options for each airport to two or three. That will provide the basis for proceeding to the third and final stage in September. That stage will identify a single preferred route, timetable, design and construction option for Edinburgh and Glasgow.

To improve understanding of the process, I will ask the consultants and my civil servants to organise a briefing session between phase 2 and phase 3, perhaps with the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on strategic rail services for Scotland, a number of whose members are present. That will provide an opportunity for members to come to terms with the process.

Members will be glad that I do not accept Tommy Sheridan's assertion that Glasgow airport would not survive if Edinburgh airport had the benefit of a rail link. In addition, there is no foundation to the claim that the Executive has decided that there can be only one rail link or the claim that we have a preferred option between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Neither assertion has any foundation. Our objective is to see links to both airports, subject to a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis for each proposal and subject to satisfying ourselves that the necessary criteria will be met.

The analysis will focus on the benefits of the rail links to the airports, but other benefits will also be considered. Paul Martin mentioned economic benefits and Robert Brown identified other opportunities through linking airport links to the wider Scottish railway and transport network. That is essential. The pros and cons of some specific issues, such as a link to Braehead, should also be identified. The consultants are considering those.

Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport are growing and successful and both will benefit in future from the creation of rail links. It is in our wider economic and environmental interests that the growth of those airports be accompanied by the creation of public transport options for those who use them and job opportunities that rail links can create.

I invite members to support the work that we are undertaking. As I said, we will seek to organise a briefing session to explain matters more fully to members in the early autumn, before the final phase of the study is under way. I look forward to receiving the Parliament's support for carrying the project forward as we intend.

Meeting closed at 17:57.