Plenary, 19 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, June 19, 2003

Official Report 752KB pdf

---

Airport Investment (Glasgow and Edinburgh)

The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-31, in the name of Sandra White, on investment in Glasgow and Edinburgh airports.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the response by BAA plc to Her Majesty's Government's consultation document, The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: A National Consultation – Scotland, which states that the upgrading of Glasgow Airport to international hub status would cost £1.1 billion, £200 million less than government estimates, and that the cost of upgrading Edinburgh Airport would be £1.3 billion, £400 million more than previous estimates; further notes the massive investment planned for airport expansion in the south east of England; expresses its support for Scottish Airports Ltd's call on Her Majesty's Government not to put Scotland's long-term economical prospects at risk by opting to develop only one of the country's main airports, and believes that the Scottish Executive should make representations to Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the necessary investment is made available to ensure that both airports grow to their full potential.

I thank Pauline McNeill for tendering apologies to me—she has another meeting to attend, but I thank her for her support in today's debate.

We all know that since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament there have been a number of debates in which the transport infrastructure of Glasgow, the west of Scotland and Glasgow airport in particular have featured heavily. My first members' business debate, in the early months of the Parliament, was on that very subject. In that debate, I called for the creation of a Glasgow airport direct rail link in conjunction with a Glasgow north-south crossrail scheme.

It is correct that we are debating those issues again, as the contribution that our airports make to the economy is well established. Studies by the Fraser of Allander Institute revealed that Glasgow airport contributed £709 million to the economy and supported 15,000 jobs—a much larger contribution than that made by Edinburgh airport.

I do not believe that it would be productive to become involved in a sterile Glasgow versus Edinburgh debate—such a debate would not be productive in the long run for either of those great cities. That is why my motion calls for investment in both airports, to enable them to reach their full potential. However, as a Glasgow MSP and a native Glaswegian, I believe that it is my duty to argue Glasgow's case.

There has long been a perception that there is a bias in Government and official circles in favour of Edinburgh, at Glasgow's expense. BAA Scotland's response to the Government's consultation document "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom" only added fuel to the fire of that perception.

The BAA response revealed that officials of the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling—who is the new Secretary of State for Scotland—got their sums badly wrong when they calculated that the development of Glasgow airport to hub status would cost £1.3 billion. In fact, according to BAA figures, the cost would be £1.1 billion.

In his new position as Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr Darling has already warned officials at the Scotland Office to sharpen up their act. I say to Mr Darling that he still has a job to do with his officials at the Department for Transport. Apart from overestimating the figures for Glasgow, they underestimated the cost of developing Edinburgh airport. They said that the cost of upgrading Edinburgh airport would be a mere £900 million—a figure that BAA has shown to be underestimated by £400 million.

BAA's response identified several other areas in which the Department for Transport consultation got the figures badly wrong. On pavements and aprons, the department calculated £232 million for Glasgow and £159 million for Edinburgh. BAA assessed those figures and then produced its own figures of £190 million for Glasgow and £300 million for Edinburgh. On land costs for runway developments, BAA's response showed that significantly more expensive land around Edinburgh airport had not been taken into account. The department's consultants estimated £27 million for Glasgow and £18 million for Edinburgh, whereas BAA's figures were only £20 million for Glasgow and £110 million for Edinburgh.

In a similar way, estimates on road access costs, civil engineering and utilities were shown to be widely inaccurate. Glasgow airport's costs for civil engineering and utilities were overestimated by a whopping £143 million, and for road access by £96 million. Given the evidence that I have presented today, I believe that it is my duty, and that of other MSPs who represent the Glasgow area, to ensure that the case is made loud and clear for Glasgow to receive its fair share of investment.

A new factor has entered the equation. As I said, Alistair Darling has been appointed as Secretary of State for Scotland in addition to his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Transport. Mr Darling, an Edinburgh MP, is on record as saying that Scotland needed just one big airport; he is also the head of a Government department that has already dismissed the case for developing Glasgow airport as a hub. In its response, BAA concluded that both airports met the Government's test for sustainability and that expansion in the manner outlined would ensure that Scotland's vital national airport infrastructure was secure into the future.

Does Sandra White agree that the Executive's position is clear and that we all support it—Glasgow MSPs and Edinburgh MSPs? The Executive wants development of both airports—Glasgow and Edinburgh—to their full potential. Alistair Darling is on record as saying that he will be happy to liaise with the Scottish Executive in driving that wholly laudable aim forward.

My motion specifically mentions that both airports be utilised to their full potential. I hope that Bill Butler's question will be answered by Nicol Stephen when he winds up the debate. The Executive and the Secretary of State for Transport must liaise to ensure the best future for both airports and for Scotland's economy.

I mentioned securing infrastructure into the future. The Government and the Scottish Executive face the challenge of ensuring that the right balance between economic, social and environmental objectives is struck. That is why I ask the Executive at least to speak to the Secretary of State for Transport, who is also the new Secretary of State for Scotland.

I also call on the Scottish Executive to seek assurances that Mr Darling will listen favourably, as Bill Butler has suggested, to the case for both airports to be developed, and that he will have an open mind about both airports. I call on the Scottish Executive to support the view of BAA, which called on the Government not to put Scotland's long-term prospects at risk by developing one of the country's main airports in favour of the other. That would not be productive for Scotland in any way. Glasgow has never sought special favour to ensure a successful future for the airport. All that we have asked for is a level playing field to allow Glasgow airport to develop. I hope that that will be reflected both in discussions between ministers and in the white paper that I believe will be published in September.

Eleven members wish to speak so I ask them to keep their contributions to a strict three minutes.

My comments will be brief. I congratulate Sandra White on securing this members' business debate. This has been a cross-party issue among Glasgow and Edinburgh members.

I want to make it clear that, although I can be very parochial where Glasgow is concerned and have made no apologies for that in the past, it is important to acknowledge that we want Glasgow and Edinburgh airports to thrive in the interests of Glaswegians and people in the rest of Scotland.

The minister needs to answer two important questions. The first relates to progress on the Glasgow airport rail link. Significant progress has been made on that issue, for which the previous minister, Iain Gray, deserves a great deal of credit. I ask Nicol Stephen to provide a progress report on the Glasgow airport rail link. I would also like him to advise us when he will meet the Secretary of State for Tranport, Alistair Darling, who also is the new Secretary of State for Scotland, to discuss that issue and to clarify the statements that he has made about Glasgow and Edinburgh airports.

Other members want to speak, so I will conclude. It is important that those two questions are dealt with and that a report to the Parliament is given.

I, too, congratulate Sandra White on securing a very useful debate.

It would be wrong if we were to be too parochial by concentrating on the Glasgow/Edinburgh debate. We should view Glasgow and Edinburgh airports as a single economic entity. They should work together more, as they are only 45 miles apart, which is not a great distance in international terms. The idea of a direct rail link between the two airports should not be lost sight of. The notion of a central Scotland airport has been floated again recently, but the time for that would have been 30 years ago; now it is an unhelpful chimera. Surely Glasgow and Edinburgh airports can work together to act as that central Scotland airport.

Two principles apply to the issue. The first is that the Government should begin by examining the economic and environmental effects of transport policy. Frankly, it is not in the public interest of Scotland, or of the south-east of England, to develop more air facilities around London. London is, of course, the key United Kingdom hub and, in spite of people's grandiose visions of being able to fly directly from central Scotland to any destination, the reality is that many flights will continue to involve transfer in London.

However, it does not follow from that that UK Government policy should encourage centralisation in a hugely overheated and congested capital. A clear decision should be taken now that there should be no further airport development in and around London, and that UK airport strategy should be to encourage diversion of significant airport business from London to Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow/Edinburgh. If necessary, that should be reinforced by differential taxation regimes. In particular, we should build on the potential for growth of city breaks, which have been such a feature of the tourism industry in Glasgow.

The second principle is that there should be a level playing field for different modes of transport that gives proper recognition to their environmental implications. The proposed west coast high-speed rail link between London and Glasgow should make rail the most convenient, economic and environmentally friendly choice for travel between central Scotland and central London.

Air transport is growing at a rate of 5 per cent a year. If possible, we should rein back on unnecessary growth by diverting some of that growth on to rail, but the Glasgow/Edinburgh airport hub should have a greater share of existing air traffic. There should be more direct links that avoid having to go through London and the planned rail links to both airports should be completed urgently. I support Paul Martin's request for an update from the minister on that.

Although the Scottish Executive is not the main authority on the issue, it has a crucial job to do in ensuring that a UK, rather than a London-centred, view of airport policy is taken when decisions are made on the review. The debate is timely. It is important that we try to build up the Glasgow/Edinburgh airport hub. My final point is that we have had too many reviews that have had mince put into them and have produced mince at the other end. Sandra White went into some detail on that.

I, too, congratulate Sandra White on securing the debate. I have heard little with which I could disagree profoundly.

The future of air traffic will be a story of expansion. While September 11th, the war in Iraq and concerns about terrorism will disrupt the short-term growth in air transport, I have little doubt that the growth in air traffic will continue. In many respects, that is no bad thing.

I also agree that there is no point in carrying on the rivalry between Edinburgh and Glasgow airports. That causes no particular concern.

Will the member take an intervention?

I might well come to a point that will answer the member's question.

It is significant that both airports can cohabit and operate perfectly well in tandem, bearing in mind the fact that last year passenger traffic was 7.9 million from Glasgow and 7.1 million from Edinburgh. There is not a tremendous difference between them.

I agree with Robert Brown that the suggested central Scotland airport is not a runner. The capital investment in such a project would be massive. One need only consider the Maplin sands experience in the south-east of England and the considerable amount of understandable angst that that caused among the population to see that we could anticipate a similar reaction in Scotland.

To suggest that Glasgow or Edinburgh airport could become the hub for flights to Europe is, I suspect, a dream. However, Glasgow could and should become an important point of entry from north America. Bearing in mind the importance of tourism to the Scottish economy, it is clearly incumbent upon the Scottish Executive—acting in concert with other agencies—to ensure that Glasgow airport is as competitive as possible.

Fifteen thousand jobs in west central Scotland is an important consideration that must be borne in mind. It is important to consider Glasgow airport's potential for the growth of business and industry in the west central conurbation. We must therefore seek to ensure that Glasgow airport gets its fair share.

We are not suggesting that that should in any way be to the detriment of Edinburgh airport. The old rivalries between Glasgow and Edinburgh are thoroughly enjoyable and I have frequently participated in them, but the issue is important and, contrary to what I might normally say in the chamber, there is a case for fair shares for all. There is sufficient volume of traffic to ensure that both airports remain viable and successful.

I, too, welcome the chance to debate this issue. However, the BAA response to the consultation says, more or less, that the atmosphere belongs to BAA and it is up to BAA to decide how much pollution to dump in it. I suggest that we should be wary of supporting such a submission.

The idea of increased air travel goes against the Executive's declared commitment to the development of sustainable transport. The external costs of air travel include noise, the ruin of local air quality, and loss of ecology, habitat and biodiversity. Air travel also affects our heritage; there are several listed buildings that are in danger of damage from the pollution that is caused by it. It causes increased fuel use, climate change and resource depletion.

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report on transport and the environment said:

"The demand for air travel might not be growing at the present rate if airlines and their customers had to face the costs of the damage they are causing to the environment."

The air industry is tax-free at present. It is subsidised by the United Kingdom taxpayer to the tune of £10 billion in potential VAT and fuel tax and the profit from duty-free sales.

Government policy is currently fuelling the increase in air transport and that policy might well change. The German Government is already considering introducing VAT on its air industry. If the industry were fully charged for the costs of the environmental damage that it causes, that would add an estimated £30 to the cost of a return ticket from Glasgow to London. If that is fed into the Government's computer models for air traffic growth, the resulting figures show no need for any airport expansion in Scotland. The whole question of airport expansion is contingent on whether Governments introduce a polluter-pays policy.

Bill Aitken mentioned air travel and tourism. It is important to point out that air travel is a net drain on tourism in Scotland. The availability of easy air travel persuades more Scots to go away from Scotland to spend their money than it does visitors to come into Scotland.

The growth in air travel is purely in the leisure sector, not in the business sector. By 2007, it will be quicker to travel to London from Glasgow by rail. Forty per cent of European air journeys are of less than 500km. Changing from air to rail is easy. The crux of the matter is whether the wishes of the richest travel sector should prevail over the lives of those who live underneath.

First, I congratulate my colleague Sandra White on securing this debate. I intimate that my colleague Fiona Hyslop tenders her apologies. She is elsewhere.

I agree with much of what Robert Brown and Bill Aitken said. There are two important items that I wish to touch on. The first is the importance of aviation and the second is the importance of a national strategy for Scotland.

Aviation is not simply about leisure and pleasure, which is where I disagree with Chris Ballance. It is also about the economy. It is about inbound tourism and it is about outbound business. I am aware of representations that were made by him and by AirportWatch earlier today. I accept that unrestricted air traffic growth is not acceptable. It is simply unsustainable. We need to balance the needs and wants of our economy with the sustainability of our environment. I accept that that is what Chris Ballance said.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I cannot, because of the time.

The tragedy is that the debacle over the east coast main line has caused unmitigated growth in the number of flights to London. For example, easyJet has 106 flights per week to London from Edinburgh, 83 from Glasgow, and one to an international destination. We require to ensure not that it is a case of growth in any which operator to any which airport in London, but that flights to London are reduced, except where people are interlining, because the points that Robert Brown and Bill Aitken made are clear—we cannot expect flights to Rio de Janeiro, but we can expect flights to many major European cities.

We should offset the growth in direct flights by improving and enhancing the east coast and west coast main lines. We also accept the benefits of what has been announced with regard to the west coast main line.

Examples from the continent of what can be achieved are clear. Nobody in their right mind would take a flight from Brussels to Paris; they would go by train. There is no necessity to go to Charles de Gaulle airport or Beauvais airport to access Brussels national airport. People would think that someone who did that was stark raving bonkers. What people do is go by train.

We must remember that we are an island community, we have remote communities within our country, and we are on the periphery of Europe. For those reasons, and for those reasons alone, we require a major aviation network—not, as I said, simply to support more and ever-growing routes to London, but to support routes elsewhere.

A national strategy is important, as our route needs and wants are not the same as those of London. The important point to BAA is where Heathrow stands vis-à-vis Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol and Frankfurt. Our interest is not simply in ensuring that Heathrow remains number 1, as opposed to number 5. Our interest is in maintaining and enhancing access to each of those airports. That is why we need a national aviation strategy for Scotland that is distinct and separate from that south of the border. Of course, we will continue to interline mainly through major airports such as Heathrow, but we need direct access to airports other than Heathrow.

I will not go into the BAA monopoly—I have waxed lyrical about that before—but I support the motion.

I never thought that I would stand up in a debate in this chamber and say that I agree with most of what Kenny MacAskill said, but on this occasion I do.

This is an important debate, and it is important that the debate is not about Glasgow airport or Edinburgh airport, but about airports in Scotland, because it is important for the Scottish economy and the Scottish environment that we get the airports policy for Scotland right.

Clearly, tourism is of considerable importance. In my constituency, tourism is a very important industry, and overseas tourism plays a large part in that, in particular with tourists who come to play the excellent golf courses at St Andrews. At present, most of them come through London hub airports and catch connecting flights to Edinburgh. They then have to find some miraculous way of getting from Edinburgh airport to St Andrews. The American and Japanese tourist markets are important for the golf trade in Scotland, so we have to ensure that there are good transport links for those tourists.

There are opportunities for us to expand our tourism business through the budget airlines, which are flying to more destinations. Few of those flights are direct from Scotland, but the number is increasing. They do not just allow Scots to fly out; they allow overseas tourists to fly into Scotland. We should develop that market as part of our tourism strategy. We should make use of those budget flights to get more tourists to come to Scotland and take advantage of the excellent facilities that we have.

We also have to consider business and economic development. Our business suffers considerable additional costs through there not being direct flights to many European cities. There is the additional cost of extra flights into London and time is wasted in changing from one aircraft to another. People do not just have to leave a 30-minute gap between flights; they have to leave almost a two-hour gap to have any chance of getting a connecting flight, or even longer if they want to be sure of not missing the flight because of delays. There are major problems for our businesses.

We have to consider the environmental consequences. Emissions per passenger kilometre are much higher for aircraft than they are for any other mode of transport. Emissions from short-haul flights on take-off and landing are just as much an issue as are emissions from long-haul flights. It does not make environmental sense to make Scottish passengers catch a flight to London to catch another flight, which might come back in the same direction, rather than allow them to catch a direct flight to their overseas destination.

In developing our rail services to reduce the number of flights that we have to make to London and in developing our international routes we can start to make an impact on our economy and our environment. Robert Brown was right to emphasise the importance of the rail links to the airports and the high-speed rail links from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London are extremely important. We have to ensure that there is investment, because developing rail services is one way that we can reduce air traffic within the United Kingdom. That will allow us to develop more effectively the air traffic routes that we need to Europe and North America.

I will pick up from where Iain Smith left off because, just as he never thought that he would agree with Kenny MacAskill, I never thought that I would agree with him.

We have been talking about two airports, but we should be talking about three airports—three airports, one hub. We should be thinking about fast rail links from Glasgow Prestwick right through to Edinburgh, up the east coast and to London. I will not develop that point, because Iain Smith finished off on that, but he is absolutely right. If we are talking about a sensible airport policy in Scotland, it should start with the sensible use of our existing resources and the development of our rail services.

I agreed with much of what Robert Brown said, so I will not go over it again. We can start levelling the playing field between internal UK flights and rail travel. The fares could be examined to try to change the pattern of how we travel inside the UK. We can certainly change the pattern of how we transfer from transatlantic flights on to Europe. We could do that if we had a Scottish hub running from Prestwick through to Glasgow and Edinburgh. We have to start getting the pricing policy right for rail travel.

We should try to reduce the growth in air travel of anything between 4 and 5 per cent. We are being less ambitious than we might be if we just say that that is what the growth is and do not attempt to reduce it. We know perfectly well that it is desirable on environmental grounds to try to reduce that growth. I think that 10 per cent of CO2 emissions are from air transport. We are spending so much time discussing pan-European environmental concerns that, surely to goodness, reducing those emissions is something on which we can all agree. If we do, we have to start reducing the growth in air travel. That does not mean to say that we will have a smaller market for tourism or leisure in Scotland. It simply means that we might not need longer runways to accommodate the people whom we would like to come to visit Scotland, whether on business or on holiday. Perhaps what we need is much better organisation and use of the resources that we already have, starting with rail.

I draw attention to my entry in the register of members' interests, which shows that I am a member of the Edinburgh Flying Club and therefore dependent on the facilities there.

The BAA submission to the consultation mentions new runways at Edinburgh and Glasgow as well as an extension of the length of the runway at Aberdeen. We should start by saying that, whatever the long-term future of Scotland's airports, it is important that the Executive plays its role in protecting the space that those airports will require for such expansion should those proposals crystallise into reality at some point in the future. At the same time, we must ensure that the owners of property adjacent to airports, who might be affected by such expansion at some time, are adequately compensated.

Incidentally, airports are a great source of biodiversity, because they provide an oasis of relatively undisturbed habitat for a range of wildlife. Do members know, for example, that there is a pair of otters at Edinburgh airport? I believe that that is the only place in Edinburgh where otters can be found.

Twin or otherwise?

I do not know.

There is already a lot of air traffic in central Scotland, with Edinburgh and Glasgow airports between them handling some 200,000 movements a year, to such an extent that we actually have a one-way system for air traffic. The two airports are already operated as a single entity for air traffic approach purposes. Some of the constraints that will have to be addressed are outwith the power of the Parliament and indeed outwith what the BAA has said. Military flying constrains the routes into Scotland. There is no viable east coast route to the south or the continent that is equivalent to the west coast airway, alpha 1. There is limited capacity there, and that is something that must be considered.

Military flying generally across Scotland is an issue. Prestwick does not have protected airspace and therefore has to be included in the centre of Scotland. Edinburgh is a significant cargo airfield and is therefore important for business purposes, so it is important that we have the space and capacity to develop that further. In the short term, I hope that the Executive will support proposals to extend the taxiways at Edinburgh. At present, they do not go to the ends of the runway, which imposes a severe limitation on the capacity of that airport. Extending the taxiways would double the capacity of Edinburgh airport for very little cost and small on-the-ground environmental impact.

We also have to interlink the big operations with the small operations. It is a source of continuing regret that we still do not see public transport single-engine planes providing services in Scotland, although they actually have a better safety record than twin-engine planes of an equivalent size. There is a whole range of issues surrounding this complex issue and I am sure that the minister will take account of them. I am happy to support the motion.

My previous job involved health promotion and one of the unfortunate things that I have come to discover is that promoting the idea of sustainable development is much like promoting healthy behaviour. People know that they are supposed to have their five bits of fruit and vegetables a day, that they should be having safer sex and that they are not supposed to drink too much, but merely telling people that does not help. It is an unfortunate aspect of human behaviour that we like sometimes to do things that are bad for us, and it is an unfortunate aspect of Governments' behaviour that they quite like to do things that are not consistent with sustainable development.

The very meaning of sustainable development is too often polluted, and it is assumed that it is about economic viability first and foremost. It is not. First and foremost, it is about keeping the planet safe to live on. Secondly, it is about having a socially just world that we all want to live in. Finally, it is about making things add up and making the economics work so that the system can function.

Members all know—so I will not reel off the statistics—that air travel is the most polluting form of travel on the planet. The aviation industry is a highly polluting industry with externalised costs, and it makes the poor of our cities and the poor of the world suffer while those who can afford to do so jet off to wherever they want to enjoy themselves.

However, I want to mention some issues that have not been mentioned, such as the already poor local air quality and high volume of traffic in Glasgow. We are looking at a 40 per cent increase in traffic and the airport will generate more traffic.

I support some well-meaning and correct things that have been said about developing rail travel, but I have also heard a ludicrous attempt to provide an environmental argument in favour of a policy that would triple air traffic in Scotland, which cannot be defended in any way.

The member has one minute.

I am not going to use the full remaining minute. I will simply say that, while we tax people to have holidays in Scotland and Britain but do not tax people to fly to the other side of the world, I am not willing to listen to people who use words or phrases such as "environment", "sustainability" or "green thread" if they simply think that we are just not burning enough kerosene.

I, too, congratulate Sandra White on giving members the opportunity to have this debate. Margaret Smith, who is the local member for the constituency in which Edinburgh airport is located, has a family commitment, otherwise she would have been here to contribute to the debate.

Edinburgh's gateway status for Scotland's tourism industry, its growing economy and the continuing rise in the popularity of air travel mean that it is essential to have in place a long-term policy that safeguards and enhances the role of Scotland's airports. I welcome the consultation on the future development of air transport in the United Kingdom, which is being undertaken by the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. I appreciate that it is difficult to predict exactly what will happen to market demand in the next three decades, but it seems to me to be sensible that we try to do so.

My colleagues Margaret Smith and John Barrett will respond to the consultation in the next week. We all believe that there is no need for another runway at Edinburgh airport, but it is surely sensible to maintain the land in case another runway is needed in the future. We should not do anything to compromise the airport's ability to respond to the business, employment and tourism needs of the city and the country.

I agree with the BAA that we need continued investment in Edinburgh and Glasgow airports. As members have said, a central airport in Scotland would be an expensive white elephant.

I am pleased that the Scottish Executive has announced multimillion pound investment for heavy rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports. The Edinburgh option appears to be not only commercially viable, but environmentally viable; it would mean that the airport was linked to the main rail network north and south and should increase the number of passengers who arrive by public transport. The Executive's figures suggest that up to 20.3 per cent of passengers who travel to Edinburgh airport would travel by train if they could.

Edinburgh airport is one of the most rapidly growing airports in the country—passenger numbers have risen from 2.5 million in 1993 to the current level of 6.6 million. A £100 million terminal and stand development was completed last year and a multistorey car park is under construction.

One reason why I welcome the development of tram lines in Edinburgh is that they will also help access. The western line will stop at the airport and consultations are now under way about the best route option not only for the airport and its passengers, but for the future viability of the Royal Highland Showground, which plays a significant part in the local economy.

However, although we acknowledge the positive benefits that a thriving airport brings to the city, we should not forget that air transport is a growing source of CO2 emissions. Liberal Democrats want increased funding for the provision of high-speed rail links to encourage greater use of rail as an alternative to short-haul flights, and we are pushing at European level to put in place incentives for development of more fuel-efficient aircraft and measures that will see air transport carrying the full burden of its environmental costs in line with the polluter-pays principle.

Edinburgh and Glasgow airports can play an even greater role in the future of air transport in Britain. We must balance the needs of passengers, the economy, local residents and the environment to find a solution that delivers that role.

The minister has a tight seven minutes.

I thank Sandra White for raising such an important issue. I completely agree with her and others that the matter should never result in a sterile debate between Glasgow and Edinburgh.

The airport transport consultation was launched in July last year and will close at the end of June this year. The process is taking place throughout the United Kingdom. In Scotland, the consultation process is being conducted jointly by the UK Department for Transport and the Scottish Executive.

The regulatory framework under which air transport operates is reserved; the UK Government has responsibility for co-ordinating overall policy for UK airports. However, many of the key areas are devolved; land-use planning, surface access and the management of publicly owned airports are our responsibilities. Those are key issues in the development of air transport for the future.

The aviation industry is a vital component in Scotland's economy. The figure that I have is that it is worth £600 million per year and growing. It provides 15,000 jobs directly and at least as many again through multiplier effects. Airports and air services promote economic growth by increasing access to markets and suppliers and encouraging inward investment and tourism. Airports act as focuses for new business.

The aviation sector is growing—the success story in Scotland is one of dramatic growth and passenger numbers have doubled over the past decade. Our consultation document indicates that the current figure of 18 million passengers per annum passing through Scotland's airports might well double again.

As with the growth in passenger traffic, there are many considerations to be taken into account—not least environmental factors, to which members have referred. I am sure that some members in the debate will also have attended the lunch-time seminar on the environmental impact of air transport.

The Executive is not ignoring the issue. The consultation document rightly assesses the impacts at Scotland's airports of growth scenarios and environmental factors, including noise and air quality changes, as well as the potential impact on ecology and heritage. All those issues must be considered. We must recognise that there are issues relating to the growth in air transport in terms of resource use, pollution and congestion. The industry has made progress in adopting the principles of sustainability, but there is still much to do.

We can improve the situation in relation to the travel modes that passengers use to get to the airports in Scotland. The faster and improved rail links that are created by the improvements to the west coast line and the improvements that are needed on the east coast line have been mentioned. I would like to see people who go to London by air shifting to rail. They should be able to make such decisions based on the existence of high-quality high-speed links. The provision of better access to airports by rail is important and the provision of rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports will reduce congestion and widen choice. Those rail links are important and the Executive remains committed to both of them.

I was asked about the rail link to Glasgow airport. Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive has recently formed a steering group to progress the Glasgow airport rail link proposal, including preparatory work to acquire the relevant parliamentary powers because a private bill will be required to progress the work. I look forward to that work's being moved forward as swiftly as possible.

In the vicinity of our airports, local residents have legitimate concerns about the noise and congestion that result from air travel. Those views must also be considered in making decisions.

We have, during the consultation process, encouraged informed debate about the many key issues that face us. Those include: maintaining and developing services to remote areas; providing extra airport capacity; provision of adequate surface access to airports; development of new routes; and maintaining access to the hub airports in the south-east of England. Those are issues not only for Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick, but for all of Scotland's airports. I see today's debate as another contribution to the consultation process.

We are committed to ensuring that the rising demand for air transport brings maximum economic benefits to all Scottish airports and the communities that they serve, but at minimal environmental cost. We must plan for the long term to take best advantage of the opportunities that are associated with the anticipated growth. 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 for Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. Both will continue to grow significantly and we are determined to do everything that we can to realise their full potential.

I emphasise that the aim of the consultation process is to safeguard options for the longer term. No decisions on extra runways are required now and none will be required for at least 10 years. Continuing investment in terminals, aprons and taxiways, together with some runway extensions, will be sufficient for the current significant growth.

Safeguarding the future is key. The commitment by the Executive and the United Kingdom Government is to have an air transport policy for the next 30 years that safeguards the potential for growth. It is good that the consultation document stimulated the industry responses.

The BAA has now submitted responses at UK and Scottish levels and its Scottish proposals involve different options from those in the consultation document. They were also costed differently. The Scottish Executive and the UK Department for Transport believe that it is vital that we have clear and comparable costings and will be working closely with BAA to achieve that during the next few weeks.

The consultation process is heading towards the production of a UK white paper on air transport by the end of 2003. We will work closely with the UK Department for Transport and other devolved Administrations on the issues that should be addressed in the white paper. That will ensure that there is a consistent approach to the development of air transport throughout the United Kingdom. It will also recognise that responsibility for delivering sustainable air transport in Scotland is shared with our counterparts in the UK Government.

Meeting closed at 17:52.