Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill: Preliminary Stage
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4809, in the name of Scott Barrie, that Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill, and that the bill should proceed as a private bill.
One of the tasks I have to perform in the Parliament is to cajole, threaten, persuade, sweet-talk and even blackmail Labour members into serving on private bill committees—not always the easiest task. On this occasion I have had a taste of my own medicine regarding the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee—not only serving on it, but convening it. If it is true that another member of the committee agreed to serve in exchange for a members' business debate, I think that that member probably sold themselves a bit cheaply. However, in spite of how we all got here, I thank the other members of the committee and, in particular, the clerking team, led by Jane Sutherland, for all their hard work over the past few months.
The committee published its preliminary stage report last week and agreed, by a majority, that the general principles of the EARL bill should be agreed to and that the bill should proceed as a private bill. That decision is reflected in the motion lodged in my name, which I hope that Parliament will agree to today. Two members of the committee dissented from the report, and I hope that during today's debate the chamber will be able to hear from both Jamie McGrigor and Christine Grahame why they were unable to support the recommendations in our report.
I remind the chamber that, for private bills, the process is quasi-judicial, and that members not only act impartially but are seen to act impartially. In essence, the committee has three tasks at preliminary stage: consideration of the general principles; consideration of whether the bill should proceed as a private bill; and preliminary consideration of objections. I will comment on all three in my speech this afternoon.
The bill was introduced on 16 March 2006 and, during the preliminary stage, 48 admissible objections were lodged. The bill seeks to provide the promoter, TIE Limited, with statutory authority to build a new railway station at Edinburgh airport and to construct 16km of new railways to connect the station to the national railway network, with connections at Winchburgh, Dalmeny, Gogar and Roddinglaw.
The general principles of the bill are: to stimulate economic growth not only in the Edinburgh city region but throughout Scotland; to assist in delivery of social inclusion to Scottish towns and cities through direct access to the airport; to assist with further growth of Scottish tourism through direct access; to offer a sustainable public transport alternative access to Edinburgh airport, which in turn will reduce congestion and provide environmental benefits; to assist towards providing a sustainable basis for growth at Edinburgh airport; and to facilitate a public transport interchange hub at the airport.
Given the limited time available, I will comment on the committee's views on two of those general principles—economic growth and social inclusion.
No one in this chamber would dispute that a link to the airport is a good thing—[Interruption.]
Order. Mr Crawford has the floor.
However, the committee's report says:
"The Committee therefore remains exasperated that at this stage it can only confirm that the Scottish Executive will provide funding but not at what level nor whether such funding will be sufficient to meet the estimated cost of construction."
There is then a sentence ending as follows:
"the Committee has major concerns that the Bill could be passed without the level of funding attributed to each source being identified."
The levels of funding have never been identified. In such circumstances, how on earth can the committee recommend to Parliament that the general principles of the bill be agreed to?
Mr Crawford should have waited. Further on in my speech I will turn to the issue of funding, and I will address the very points that he raises.
As regards economic growth, connectivity is the key. EARL will link 62 stations across Scotland directly with the airport. That offers a massive potential for growth in the Scottish economy, and I draw members' attention to the promoter's calculation that EARL could directly and indirectly create up to 3,600 jobs. It is further estimated that 1.7 million car journeys could be removed from the roads, which will benefit businesses and local communities through efficiency gains, increased productivity, shorter commuting times and shorter business travel times.
However, the amount of benefit that is delivered will depend on the frequency of EARL services, which will be vital in ensuring that benefits are spread throughout Scotland. It is envisaged that there will be eight trains an hour in each direction, serving Glasgow, Dunblane, the Fife circle and the north of Scotland. The committee is concerned that Network Rail will not be able to commit to the proposed timetabling until the RailSys modelling has been completed later this year. In evidence, Network Rail stated that it was reasonably confident that the operating timetable was viable, but the committee is deeply concerned about any doubts over the operating timetable because without full connectivity, the economic benefits of the project will not be spread throughout Scotland. In the light of those concerns, if the bill proceeds, the committee intends to take further evidence from Network Rail on the viability of the promoter's proposed operating timetable.
Will the member give us some idea of what impact that operating timetable would have on the east coast main line services than run from Aberdeen to the south of England? Will there be an effect on journey time? Will those services be able to go on the EARL route?
As I indicated, until the RailSys modelling has been completed later this year, we will not know such details. That is precisely why the committee wishes to take further evidence from Network Rail, which should address the points that Mr Adam made.
Although the committee agrees with the promoter that EARL is not a social inclusion project per se, it believes that the project can assist with the delivery of social inclusion through the connectivity that it will provide. Edinburgh airport predicts that the number of jobs at the airport will increase from 2,400 to around 9,000 by 2030. Many of those jobs have the potential to be filled by people who are socially excluded. Although we believe that the delivery of social inclusion will be assisted by EARL, we think that a more structured approach must be taken to ensure that the socially excluded are properly targeted for the new jobs that may be created at the airport.
Would those jobs be created if another solution to providing a rail link to the airport was adopted?
I will deal with alternatives to the scheme later in my speech.
As the House of Commons Transport Committee's report on ticketing and fares recognised, fare levels have important implications for wider transport strategy, environmental policy and regional development. Public transport fares have a crucial role to play in determining whether socially excluded people can afford to access jobs. The committee was worried that it received conflicting evidence on whether premium fares had been considered when the economic case for EARL was calculated.
The committee would strongly oppose the adoption of a premium fares policy for EARL because that would impact disproportionately on people travelling from outwith Edinburgh, would jeopardise the filling of jobs by the socially excluded and would not lead to the development of Edinburgh airport as a transport hub. The committee took some reassurance from the fact that both the Minister for Transport and Transport Scotland said that those factors will be considered before the fares policy is finalised, but I cannot stress strongly enough the committee's total opposition to the adoption of any premium fares policy.
I know that Charlie Gordon will cover tourism, air passenger growth and—crucially—rolling stock, as they relate to the bill's general principles, so I will not deal with them now.
Part of the committee's consideration of whether the bill should proceed as a private bill involved an assessment of whether the accompanying documents were adequate to allow for proper scrutiny of the bill. Parliament's standing orders require the promoter to set out whether alternative ways of meeting the bill's general principles have been considered and, if so, why the approach that is taken in the bill was adopted.
The committee is aware that there has been extensive debate about whether there should be a station at the airport or whether it would be preferable to put a station on an existing rail route, which would be served by a bus or another form of transport to the airport. I turn to Mr Davidson's point. The committee considered rigorously all the evidence that it received on alternative ways of meeting the bill's objectives before we reached our conclusions.
The promoter explained to us that Sinclair Knight Merz was commissioned to undertake a full review of the options for a heavy rail link. From an initial eight options, five were then progressed through a detailed Scottish transport appraisal guidance assessment. As a result, the runway tunnel option was selected. Central to that decision was the desire to avoid lengthy time delays on the Queen Street to Waverley service. The runway tunnel option, according to SKM, also offered the smallest environmental noise and vibration impact, only a small addition to some journey times and the highest net profit value.
Will Scott Barrie give way?
No. I think that I have taken enough interventions. I really need to get through my speech.
The committee examined a number of alternatives proposed by witnesses: the Gogar option; the Roddinglaw removal option; and the sacrificial spur option. However, it unanimously rejected those options, as they would result in reduced connectivity, reduced patronage, a significant increase in other rail journey times and, with the latter option, no direct access to the airport at all.
The Turnhouse option was also rejected by a majority of the committee for similar reasons—reduced patronage, fewer interchange opportunities, reduced decongestion benefits and inferior connectivity, particularly with Edinburgh Park.
You have one minute left.
On all the criteria, all those options were shown to be inferior to the benefits that would be gained from the runway tunnel option. It is calculated that for every £1 spent on the current EARL project, £2.16 would be returned. That is a much higher public benefit to cost ratio than in any other transport project considered by this Parliament to date.
It is clear that, in considering alternative ways of meeting the policy objectives of EARL, the committee went further than was needed, and not only agreed that the information provided met the requirements of standing orders but looked at and rejected the other alternatives. There is sufficient evidence, including the 105-page STAG appraisal and the 148-page SKM report, to show why the Turnhouse option is inferior to that which is being proposed. For the Conservative amendment to suggest that there is insufficient evidence is simply not true. Perhaps the Conservatives have not read all the evidence, but that does not mean that that evidence is not there.
As I have already indicated, our report covers alternative schemes at some length. To be fair, Jamie McGrigor has dissented from one of the paragraphs in the report; unfortunately, it is the paragraph that sets out the factual position arising from the STAG appraisal of the alternative that he supports.
You should be finishing now, Mr Barrie.
Okay, Presiding Officer.
The STAG appraisal showed that Jamie McGrigor's preferred option was inferior, with reduced patronage, reduced opportunities for a public transport interchange and reduced impact on congestion; it also precluded connections to Edinburgh Park, thereby reducing the economic benefits of the scheme.
Regarding the funding of EARL—
No, Mr Barrie. Regarding the end, maybe.
Presiding Officer, I took three interventions, and the funding—
I do not care how many interventions you have taken. You have now spoken for 12 minutes, and you were allowed to make an 11-minute speech.
It is unfortunate that I am unable to talk about funding, but perhaps I will be able to intervene on somebody who has intervened on me.
On the basis of what I have said, I ask that Parliament reject the amendment in the name of David McLetchie, and that the motion in my name be agreed to.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill and that the Bill should proceed as a Private Bill.
I remind members that, if I ask them to stop, that is exactly what I mean. A considerable number of members wish to speak in the debate, and I am trying hard to give them all six minutes, 11 minutes or seven minutes. If members have any argument about that, I suggest that they take up the matter with their business managers.
I call David McLetchie to speak to and move amendment S2M-4809.1. You have seven minutes, Mr McLetchie.
A visitor to Scotland from abroad would undoubtedly regard it as surprising that there are no rail links servicing the existing airports at Glasgow and Edinburgh. The same visitor might wonder why two international airports have been developed from the modest beginnings of Turnhouse and Abbotsinch—yes, I am that old—as opposed to building a single international airport approximately half way between our two major cities. However, those decisions were made in the past. In this Parliament, we do not start with a blank sheet of paper and we live with the consequences of such decisions. One consequence is the lack of rail connectivity, which the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill and its Glasgow equivalent, the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill seek to remedy. On that basis, both projects are welcome.
The principle and strategic importance of a rail link are not matters for debate—except of course to the flightless dodos of the Green party, who seem to object to anyone getting on a plane at all—but what are legitimate matters for debate and cause for concern are the cost of the project, how it is to be funded, the failure of the promoter, in my judgment, adequately to consider alternative routes to that prescribed in the bill, and a host of other issues identified by the committee in its excellent report. Indeed, I congratulate the committee on the robust scepticism that permeates virtually every paragraph of its report. That should be seen as a reprimand, not only of the promoter but of the other public agencies and bodies that have been, or should have been, involved in the presentation of the project to Parliament for approval.
Having read the committee's report and the STAG assessment, I am far from convinced that the Turnhouse option has been properly explored. In pure funding terms, the cost to the taxpayer would be barely a quarter of the cost of the runway tunnel option, which is the route set out in the bill and which is presently costed at between £550 million and £650 million. The Turnhouse option was not considered at all by the Scottish Executive when it announced that it favoured the runway tunnel option back in March 2003. The Turnhouse option was subsequently the subject of a STAG 1 assessment that was commissioned by the promoter. In my opinion, the assessment is based on some highly dubious assumptions. In particular, the figures relating to journey times and consequently the projections of passenger numbers and passenger revenues, are based on an assumption that a lengthy, circuitous bus journey would be required from a station at Turnhouse rather than a direct transfer from the station to the airport terminal. I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of man to devise a safe and secure manner in which that could be done—such things are features of virtually every other international airport in the world, where people get on and off buses all the time. If that could be achieved here, it would transform the comparative figures and analysis in the STAG report.
I suggest that David McLetchie speak to BAA about buses because its position is clear: it will not allow buses to flow through the airport to his proposed station. Will he accept that what we are seeking to achieve is a transport interchange and that a bus journey to a train station some hundreds of yards away is a very different thing from what happens in other capital cities, where one can go straight into a train station under the airport?
I do not dispute that there are projects that are desirable. We can have the full monty—the expensive, extravagant option—or we can have a more modest project that fits the bill and the pockets of the taxpayer. The Turnhouse option that has been so dismissed does not depend on optimistic assumptions about rolling stock replacement, which underpin the whole runway tunnel proposal. The committee was right to seek further information on the issue, which has been complacently brushed under the carpet by the promoter.
Let us bear it in mind that the Edinburgh airport rail link is but one of a number of major rail projects that have been approved in principle by the Scottish Executive and will be funded substantially by the taxpayer. The committee was right to draw attention to the number of those projects, their cost and congestion in terms of timescales for completion. Let us not forget that, apart from those rail projects, there are significant demands on the public purse arising from major transport projects such as the M74 extension, the Edinburgh tramlines and the Aberdeen bypass, as well as the dark financial cloud hanging over us all in the possible requirement for a second Forth road crossing, which would have truly enormous public expenditure implications.
The Scottish National Party also supports an alternative rail link from the airport to the city, but not the Turnhouse link. Does Mr McLetchie agree that the flaw in his amendment is that he is asking the promoter—which has already considered and rejected alternatives—to start afresh and consider alternatives? Would it not be better for Network Rail to be given that task, working with BAA?
That would certainly be a possibility, but if Mr Ewing looks at my amendment, he will see that I ask the promoter and the Scottish Executive to collaborate in providing the Parliament with further information before we take a final decision.
We have been spending money like there is no tomorrow, but the truth is that tomorrow always comes and it could be a day of reckoning. I said in the final stage debate on the Edinburgh Tram (Line 2) Bill that there was little justification for having both a tram service and a rail link to Edinburgh airport, particularly in light of the excellent bus service that Lothian Buses provides. I remain of that view, but I also believe that we need to consider whether there is a more economical option—such as the Turnhouse option—for the rail link. If we do not ca cannie with such expenditure, other projects might come under threat when budgetary constraints eventually force the Scottish Executive to prioritise its spending. On the face of it, the Turnhouse option would cost £400 million less than the runway tunnel option, and that could make all the difference as to whether other important projects, such as the Borders railway, ever see the light of day.
As the minister pointed out in his intervention, the runway tunnel option is the best design for giving travellers access directly to the terminal, but sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. We need to consider the wider implications, which is why I commend to the Parliament my amendment, which calls for further evidence on those important considerations before we reach a final decision on the bill.
I move amendment S2M-4809.1, to insert at end:
"but, in doing so, considers that inadequate information has been provided to the Parliament on the funding of the project and on alternative methods of establishing a rail link to Edinburgh Airport, and requests that further information is provided by the promoter and the Scottish Executive on these matters in the course of the Consideration Stage."
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill this afternoon. I thank Scott Barrie, the committee and all who were and continue to be involved in the process on the Parliament's behalf and to its benefit.
It is good to have a lively debate on a project that is extremely important for all of Scotland, not just our capital or the area around it. The bill is about our vision for a Scotland in which the nation's airports have good public transport links and Glasgow and Edinburgh have rail connections from their airport terminals into the rail network. With the EARL project, Edinburgh, a great European city, will have a rail service like those of Oslo, Helsinki, Copenhagen and Stockholm. Ireland—a country that we all watch—is following our lead in planning a rail link for Dublin. I am disappointed that the Opposition does not follow our drive and vision for Scotland.
The Edinburgh airport rail link will connect the airport with 62 stations throughout Scotland, from Fife to the Highlands. Highlands and Islands Enterprise considers the link to be so vital that it has planned its rail strategy around the fact that Inverness businesses will have direct access to a major airport. Moreover, business at Edinburgh airport is predicted to grow over the next 25 years from 8 million passengers in 2004 to up to 23 million by 2030, so viable and sustainable public transport alternatives are a must. I find it extraordinary that the Opposition parties do not recognise that reality and are opposing our public transport proposals.
The Edinburgh airport rail link will provide a sustainable alternative. The committee has found that the 78 per cent of people who used a car or taxi in 2003 will reduce to 56 per cent in 2026, by which time 22 per cent of travellers will use the rail link, according to the conservative modelling that has already been done.
I draw the Parliament's attention to an entry in my register of interests.
Is the minister aware that runway 30/12 is little used and that the long-term plans are that it be sold and at least half the land sold off for commercial purposes? Is he aware of the key opportunity that that provides to create a terminal-based link to the rail network without the substantial cost of a tunnel? Should we not seriously consider that as a key option?
The Scottish National Party tries to say that it is not against the bill, but it is, and that intervention proves it. Yes, I have read the master plan—that is the point of Stewart Stevenson's question—and, yes, we could delay and delay, which is the SNP's and the Conservatives' position. That is an option for the Opposition, but not for the Government. The rail link will remove 1.7 million car trips from the roads, reduce traffic congestion around the airport and the west of Edinburgh and tackle the environmental and negative economic impact of congestion, but the Opposition is against investing in public transport links to Scotland's airports.
The runway tunnel is the only rail option for the airport that represents value for money and meets our transport objectives of promoting economic growth and social inclusion and creating sustainable transport alternatives. The Opposition can oppose them, but those are the Government's objectives.
Let me tackle the issues that the committee has raised. On rolling stock, Transport Scotland will introduce a new fleet of modern trains to the Scottish network. I would have thought that that was something to applaud in our vision for rail, but again the Conservatives find it a negative factor. The trains will deliver new and improved services from 2009 as Scotland's major rail investments are delivered. The rolling stock programme will also take into account the issues raised by the committee on the internal cabin layout of the new trains that will serve the airport. They will have luggage space and be easy to access.
I accept that tunnelling is a vital part of the project, but let me give two vital facts in dealing with the nonsense spoken by the Scottish National Party. First, the gradient of the tunnel will be no steeper than at Glasgow Queen Street station, despite what the SNP said this morning.
Will the minister give way?
No. That is the answer. Mr Ewing said this morning that the gradient will be steeper, but he is factually wrong. I am putting on the record what the position is, and if he does not like it, he can take it up with someone else.
Secondly, BAA tunnelled successfully under a live taxiway at Heathrow in building terminal 5 and under the runway in producing the Piccadilly line extension. Such projects happen. They are complex in engineering and design terms, but they can be done—and so can the Edinburgh airport rail link.
The decision on fares will be made by Government and delivered through the ScotRail franchise. Before the devolution of rail powers last year, fares policy sat with the Strategic Rail Authority. Its work was often based on data from the rail network across Britain. We want to ensure that decisions about future fares are made on the basis of the most relevant and robust Scottish data. We will look at fares policy across Scotland, meeting rail passenger needs.
Mr Barrie did not quite have time to deal with costs and funding. The Edinburgh airport rail link has a positive economic case and a developing and positive business case. The benefit cost ratio is 2.16 and the benefits are estimated at £1.35 billion over the 60-year programme. Those are facts that the Opposition dismisses in lazy soundbites.
As with all major projects, Transport Scotland must ensure that the project is on time and on budget. The release of Government money is dependent on a robust business case, now and in the future. As I laid out in a statement on 16 March, the Edinburgh airport rail link will cost £497 million in 2004 prices and between £550 million and £650 million in outturn prices, depending on the rate of industry inflation. I reiterate the point. As with other major capital transport projects, the airport rail link must remain within its budget. It will not be another Holyrood, and I despise the SNP scaremongering to that effect. The form of contract will be completely different from the one used for Holyrood.
We are the major funder of the project. Transport Scotland is in discussions with BAA about its contributions to both the Edinburgh airport rail link and the Glasgow airport rail link. Those commercial discussions will conclude shortly, and we will inform Parliament of their outcome.
On 16 March, the SNP front-bench members did not oppose the project. They called it an important investment. Indeed, Kenny MacAskill has said that the proposed rail link—[Interruption.] He was transport spokesman at the time, so Mr Crawford might want to pay attention. Kenny MacAskill said:
"the proposed rail link to Edinburgh airport is of fundamental importance and must be delivered … It opens up endless opportunities for improved rail services that are long overdue. That's why the project must proceed and, moreover, why the most radical and visionary option must be pursued."
And the SNP is against it today.
The Government will have nothing to do with the hypocrisy, U-turns and spin of the SNP. Today is the day to support the project, and I encourage members to do so.
I have the distinct feeling that the minister doth protest a little too much. There are four reasons why the SNP believes that the scheme is wrong for Edinburgh, for the rail network, and for Scotland.
First, the costs of the project are currently estimated at more than £600 million, which is a rise of 20 per cent. In truth, the costs are unknown, rising and excessive. Secondly, in our view, the scale of expenditure on transport projects would be much more effectively invested in other means in our transport network. The SNP has committed its support for proceeding with the necessary works—formally called Waverley 2—that would increase the number of paths per hour in Waverley station from 28 to 32. The Executive toyed with that proposal before ditching it. Unless that increase is ordered and happens soon, the rail network may face gridlock within a few short years.
Secondly, we believe that the proposals that Network Rail made recently in its rail utilisation strategy offer a far better and more prudent investment for the whole rail network in Scotland. Network Rail has identified 44 gaps, bottlenecks, pinchpoints, infrastructure works and improvements to signalling and platforms all over Scotland and 44 options for sorting them out, at a price tag of £300 million.
For one half of the colossal sum of £609 million that the Executive proposes to spend on the Edinburgh airport rail link—[Interruption.] I know that the minister does not like what I have to say, but he will have to listen. For half that sum, we could have an improved network for the whole of Scotland, including longer trains for the Glasgow to Edinburgh link that would cut that journey by eight minutes. We could cut the time from Inverness to Perth, Glasgow and Edinburgh by 45 minutes through an investment of £50 million. We could make improvements throughout Scotland as identified in the rail utilisation strategy. That would deliver what we believe is needed for the whole of Scotland and for all rail users throughout Scotland, who are frustrated by delays, cancellations and problems because our rail network is at or close to capacity.
Thirdly, BAA runs Scotland's busiest airport. It will require indemnities and guarantees to be built into the bill against the possibility that its runway will have to be closed. Will the minister give those indemnities? In any event, how could he? The cost to the nation of the loss of our major airport would be incalculable. We know from the Prestonpans experience that Network Rail considered just the potential risk of subsidence through mine workings to be such that it required to spend £50 million.
The fourth reason is that we do not believe that the alternatives to the EARL scheme have been considered. We want Network Rail to consider those proposals with BAA. Network Rail is the licence operator; it has the expertise and it knows best how to deliver a new route from A to B.
I will deal with three main flaws in the EARL proposal. The first is the tunnel. The key reason why the project is so expensive is that it requires the construction of a tunnel under a live runway. That is simply a colossal risk. According to one source who was involved in the preliminary investigation, disused mine workings are thought to be in the vicinity of the airport. Can the minister, Transport Scotland and the Scottish Executive give a cast-iron guarantee that the risks that are involved in constructing the tunnel—and in the whole project—will not lead to further cost hikes?
Secondly, we know from the evidence that the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee heard from Ron McAulay of Network Rail that the rolling stock—diesel multiple units—that is required for EARL to work does not exist. He said:
"As far as I am aware, there is no version of this train running on the network yet."—[Official Report, Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, 20 June 2006; c 173.]
The trains do not exist. I will ask the minister a question and I will take an intervention from him, although he did not take one from me. If the trains do not exist, how can he say—as he did on the radio this morning—that the costs are capped at £497 million? We do not know how much the trains cost, because they do not exist.
Come on then—the member said that he would give way.
Fergus Ewing keeps his promises.
I am grateful to Mr Ewing for giving way. If he has talked to Ron McAulay and Transport Scotland, which he says he has, he will know that we are procuring new rolling stock throughout the rail network. That is part of the 2009 exercise. He should know that and I am sure that he will be prepared to share his knowledge with the chamber.
I have discussed the matter with Network Rail. The rolling stock strategy has not yet been rolled out, so we have no idea what it will cost.
My colleague Bruce Crawford will put the case for the urgent requirement to order an additional crossing of the Forth, given that the Forth road bridge may be closed to lorries by 2013.
If over the past seven years we MSPs have learned anything about public sector projects, it is that it is imperative to have proper management of risk and a prudent and cautious approach to the expenditure of vast amounts of public money. Tavish, we will not be lavish with public money. We will pursue a prudent, frugal and sensible approach for all Scotland, with an alternative rail link to Edinburgh airport and a modernised, upgraded rail network for everyone in Scotland.
Like previous speakers, I welcome today's debate and the committee's work. It has produced an excellent report that considers the extent to which the proposal will meet the objectives of the EARL project. I will devote most of my speech to those objectives and to the extent to which the project potentially contributes to the development of a rail network in Scotland that will meet our future needs.
I strongly support the committee asking difficult questions. Its job is to do that and to identify the issues on which it wants more information. I refer in particular to finance, assurances on operation throughout the Network Rail system, rolling stock, the frequency of services to the airport station and, crucially, fares.
Fares are central to the vision of the project. The first time that I heard a presentation on the project, I asked why it was called the Edinburgh airport rail link, because it is so much more than that. EARL gives 62 stations in Scotland access to Edinburgh airport, but it also gives rail travellers greater access across the central belt. Crucially, it provides us with the opportunity to relieve congestion in and around Edinburgh, the city region and central Scotland generally. It provides an interchange in an area that will be one of the most congested parts of Scotland over the next two decades. That is already evident. There are no reliable journey times for people travelling through the area to the airport by car, and we must provide a better alternative.
The project will not be dedicated only to the airport. For that reason—and because the service will be affordable, as Scott Barrie pointed out—it is not comparable to the Heathrow express or the Gatwick express. It is not an exclusive service, but brings the rest of the rail network into Edinburgh airport and provides a transport hub and interchange. There should not be exclusive fares for the service.
Today's debate should be about how the project relates to our overall national vision and how we build on the investment that there has been over the past few years. We can see the benefits that have come since the Parliament was established. New stations have been opened and new routes have been opened or are planned. I refer to the Larkhall to Milngavie line, the Airdrie to Bathgate line, the Waverley line and the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line. Longer platforms have been built and there are more trains. Over the past decade, the number of trains passing through Waverley station has increased by 50 per cent. Crucially, the number of passengers is on the up and is continuing to grow. We know that wherever we open new rail services, people will use them far more than those making the preliminary calculations expected.
This is an on-going debate, but I despair at the approach that the SNP is taking today. It was appropriate for the minister to quote Kenny MacAskill, because from day 1 of the Parliament, the SNP has changed its mind on transport every six months. The lesson from everywhere else in the world is that we need first to get our strategy and ambition right, then to have a political debate about top priorities and then to get on with things. We cannot swing about on every project or be opportunistic.
When we debated the Transport (Scotland) Bill in 2000, the SNP did not want buses, which were a mode of transport for the last century, but more trains and trams. We then put trams on to the agenda, because that was the right thing to do, but the SNP decided that it wanted heavy rail rather than trams. Now that we are proposing heavy rail access to the airport, it does not want that project either. That is no way of engaging in political debate. It is not good enough, because we need to get on with things. We are catching up with other European countries.
I welcome the support that the First Minister gave to the project in the chamber today. Jack McConnell acknowledged the project's importance to the development of the economy, not only in Edinburgh, but in the whole of Scotland. We cannot achieve sustainable economic development only through the car. We must think about the long-term implications of projects. The committee report's analysis of carbon emissions is particularly good. We must bring such methods into our normal thinking.
I agree with Mr Ewing that we need to expand Waverley station. We also need faster and more frequent trains on the east coast main line; increased capacity on our key commuter routes; and probably new services between Edinburgh and Glasgow. The committee report points out that the Edinburgh to Glasgow line is nearly at capacity. The project is not the only one that we need, but it is part of the revolution in the Scottish railway network that the Parliament is leading and overseeing.
The project will make an important difference. Why are we even thinking about building thousands more car parking spaces at Edinburgh airport when the area is already overcongested? We know that people need to get to the airport from Fife and the rest of Scotland. I hope that Bruce Crawford will mention the potential alleviation of congestion on the Forth bridge as a result of the project. The rail link is not an alternative to proper road access over the Forth, but it is one way in which to relieve the pressure there.
Edinburgh airport will be a key part of Scotland's future, so we must ensure that people can get there sustainably. I strongly support the links to the airport by bus and tram, but the project will provide accessibility for people throughout Scotland. Now that we have a new transport agency, we must give political direction, ask tough questions and ensure democratic accountability. We need TIE, the transport agency and Network Rail to do their job as the technical experts and to ensure that the project works. The debate is crucial. We must go ahead with such projects, particularly this one.
We all agree that the process for dealing with such projects is daft. My heart goes out to the private bill committee members. I am glad that we will have to oversee only a few projects but, at present, we must scrutinise them. We will have to return to the finance and operational issues that the committee has raised. However, it is utterly rich of David McLetchie to criticise us for a radical set of transport infrastructure proposals when, for 18 years under the Tories, nothing happened and we fell behind the rest of Europe. The bill is a chance to catch up and we should take it.
I thank my colleagues on the private bill committee, which turned out to be not so bad after all, and Scott Barrie for his light chairing. I make it plain that I speak as a member of that committee, which, as Scott Barrie said, is quasi-judicial. I am therefore constrained to consider and take a view on the specific proposal in the bill and not to compare the required investment with that required for other rail or other transport projects. That is a policy matter for the current Minister for Transport and the next one—it is not for me.
I will try to bring a little more light to the matter and a little less heat by referring to the committee's report. The evidence to the committee led me to conclude that the project is a bad one that is ill thought out, with funding that is not guaranteed and a lot of ifs and buts. The committee shared those concerns. We really must go back and think again, because public money cannot go into the project as it stands.
I will quote some terribly important comments that the committee made. The committee commented on the importance of the timetable to the delivery of the project. However, the report states:
"Given the confidence of the promoter that the proposed timetable could be delivered it was with some alarm that the Committee heard from Network Rail that it was ‘reasonably confident that it might be a possibility'."
Damned by faint praise. On the economic benefits, paragraph 32 states:
"The Committee therefore remains at present uncertain as to whether the potential economic benefits will be distributed across the whole of Scotland at the scale indicated by the promoter."
Other paragraphs of the report deserve to be quoted. On the fares policy, the committee found many contradictions on whether there is to be a premium fare and that issue is still not resolved. Such a fare would hit on the head the social inclusion aim, among others. One key point about the Edinburgh airport rail link—I agree with Sarah Boyack that the name is strange—is whether the trains will run early in the morning and late at night. Paragraph 68 states:
"The Committee expressed concern regarding the way in which EARL will meet the needs of those business tourists travelling either early in the morning or late at night, particularly given some trains do not begin operating until 7 am".
What did Network Rail say about that? The committee's report tells us that it said that any extension of these operating hours would prove to be "extremely challenging". I think that that means that it cannot do it.
When the committee has such views in front of it, it has an obligation to be straightforward. I am interested not in policies, but in what was put before me as a member of the committee that was taking the evidence. I will give you further examples from the report. Paragraph 72 says:
"The Committee agreed that it had some concerns about the ability of the EARL scheme to deliver each of the components of reliability, journey time and quality identified by the promoter as benefits of EARL."
On rolling stock, paragraph 78 says:
"the Committee is extremely concerned that the best intentions of the promoter may be undermined by decisions on rolling stock made with other considerations in mind."
Paragraph 81 says:
"The Committee is disappointed that key decisions on the rolling stock for EARL are still some way off … In addition, the Committee has serious concerns as to whether, given the number of decisions to be made prior to procuring rolling stock, the timescales for decision taking can be achieved."
Those are not light words and they are the unanimous view of the committee. Serious concerns have been expressed by the committee.
Is this the same Christine Grahame who went over the top to support the case for a railway station for Stow, which might serve a few dozen passengers? Is she now nitpicking through the committee's report in an attempt to deny passengers who want to access Edinburgh airport a direct rail link?
That is an extremely insulting intervention. I sat as an objective member of the committee. The statements that I am reading out are from the report and are supported unanimously by the committee; they are not my words. If we add up the statements, we can see that substantial concerns are being expressed.
The submission by VisitScotland was slight; to call it tepid would be too kind. The report says that VisitScotland declined to give oral evidence, which meant that we could not even question it about its evidence. Paragraph 84 says:
"The Committee is astonished at the lack of engagement by VisitScotland in what, the promoter contends, is a rail link which would bring tourism benefits to the whole of Scotland"
and paragraph 85 continues:
"In considering the promoter's assertion that EARL will assist in tourism growth across Scotland, the Committee remains unconvinced whether this policy objective will be achieved."
Does Christine Grahame accept that, although the points that she makes might be valid, it would be best to let the bill continue to the next stage, given that the committee has said that it will re-examine the points that she is raising?
Having heard the evidence and listened carefully to the questions of members who know much more about railways than I do, I am of the opinion that the problems that I have mentioned, particularly those relating to rolling stock, cannot be remedied. The flaws are so substantial and fundamental that, on behalf of the Parliament and the public purse—remember, the projected cost is £608 million—I believe that the project should not proceed. We have to be straight about this. [Interruption.] If Labour members think that I have no integrity on that committee, they should report me to the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. I assure them that I sat and listened to the evidence—which they did not do—and I came to an objective view. I am expressing my view, for what it is worth. If they are not listening, that is not my problem. Further, if the project goes ahead, that is not my problem either and it is not my party's problem.
The issue is whether this particular bill represents the appropriate way in which to proceed. That is what I have to consider. My impression, based on the concerns that I have mentioned—which were extreme and unanimous—is that the bill should proceed no further.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats and as the member for Edinburgh West, which includes Edinburgh airport and is one of the most congested areas—if not the most congested area—in Scotland.
I thank Scott Barrie and the committee for producing this excellent and thought-provoking report. I have to say that I agree with some of Christine Grahame's points of concern. However, I take issue with her solution, as I think that we should allow the committee to continue with the robust job that it is doing on our behalf and on behalf of the people of Scotland.
From day one, there have been misconceptions about the scheme, not least because of its name. The name—Edinburgh airport rail link—focuses on only one of 62 stations that are linked by the project. I wonder whether we would be able to count on the SNP's support if we started to call the project the Montrose to Edinburgh airport rail link, the Aviemore to Edinburgh airport rail link or the Perth to Edinburgh airport rail link.
We should consider what the project offers. The rail link will connect 64 per cent of the Scottish population to Edinburgh airport. It offers estimated economic efficiency benefits of nearly £920 million over 30 years; improved employment opportunities; reduced congestion; the removal by 2026 of 1.7 million car journeys; better air quality; and, crucially, an interchange opportunity for rail, bus, coach, taxi and aeroplane passengers, which will increase the demand for public transport and represent real opportunities for my constituents to use the airport hub, even if they are not getting on a plane.
The project is good for Edinburgh but it is also good for Scotland. It is good for tourism, for the environment and for business. That is why business wants it. The project includes a connection to Edinburgh Park in my constituency, which has a railway station but does not have a connection on the Glasgow to Edinburgh line, which is a concern that I have taken up in the past.
We should make no mistake—Edinburgh airport will continue to grow even if there is no rail link. I have queried the passenger numbers, but without the link passengers will still come in their millions. They will come in their cars, on already congested roads. Even if I am right—that has been known occasionally—and the passenger numbers are not as high as predicted, they would have to drop by 55 per cent to take the project's benefit cost ratio from 2.16 to 1.
We have to set the project in context. The Executive is delivering rail and other public transport projects the length and breadth of the country, many of which have the Parliament's support. I compare that with the negativity, lack of vision and breathtaking hypocrisy that the SNP displays on the issue. As Christine Grahame said in her speech, she dissented, partly on the ground of cost, from supporting the progression of a project with a benefit cost ratio of 2.16—that is, there are benefits worth £2.16 for every £1 that is spent. We can compare the project with another project that is close to both our hearts. The Borders railway has a benefit cost ratio of 1.21—that is, there are benefits worth £1.21 for every £1 that is spent. If the Parliament had turned down the Borders railway on that basis, who would have been shouting the loudest?
Yes, but my role with the Borders railway is completely different. I had to sit on the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee as an objective member. Is the member disputing that the conclusions that I quoted—and others—are the committee's unanimous conclusions? Are they not, cumulatively, serious reservations?
Just wait.
The project is challenging and the committee rightly said that it wants to hear more evidence on a number of issues. It also highlighted the importance of decisions that are not in the promoter's hands, including the provision of rolling stock that is fit for purpose. I applaud the committee's views on ticket prices and its intention to take further evidence on a range of issues, including evidence from Network Rail on the timetabling issues that Christine Grahame mentioned. I raised a number of those concerns in several meetings with local community groups, TIE and BAA, and in correspondence with the committee.
Time constraints do not allow me to go into detail on the concerns about routes that many of my constituents in Ratho, Carlowrie and Roddinglaw have raised, but I will raise on their behalf some concerns about the consultation that the promoter undertook. Some of the promoter's practices were identified as the result of a freedom of information inquiry. The committee made some robust comments on the consultation. It said that mistakes were made and that some of the practices were "misjudged", including the lack of engagement with seven community councils. I ask the minister to take on board the issue of consultation in the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill.
My other major concerns are covered, to some extent, in the report. I take a great deal of comfort from the committee's scrutiny to date on rolling stock, alternative routes, tunnelling under the airport and the funding of the project. The runway tunnel option meets all the policy objectives but it remains a source of concern for people. I note that Her Majesty's railway inspectorate and Network Rail are working with the promoter to ensure that the tunnelling is safe and does not have an adverse impact on the operation of Edinburgh's international airport. I note, too, that the committee says that it has no greater concern about safety there than anywhere else on the network. However, I put it to the minister that it would be prudent to have the maximum possible involvement from BAA, given its experience of delivering airport projects and its clear and direct interest. It is reasonable and necessary for there to be an agreement between BAA and TIE on the matter.
BAA has a key role to play in the financing of the project, given that it stands to gain a great deal from the link. Although I understand the need for commercial confidentiality, we need to be clear on that as soon as possible.
On a different issue, I have sought and been given assurances from BAA that decisions about funding support will be taken in Scotland and not in Spain.
This project can deliver real benefits for Edinburgh and Scotland and I hope that the Parliament will allow the committee and the assessor to make progress with their scrutiny. I hope that the Parliament has the vision—sadly lacking in the SNP—to continue the project.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill, having spent the past few months as deputy convener of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee. As members will have seen from the committee's report, I am unable to endorse the project as it stands. I say that with some regret, because I believe that there is a strong case for connecting Edinburgh airport to the national rail network.
As the report explains, Edinburgh airport is becoming an increasingly important transport hub. It is predicted that, by 2030, between 21 million and 23 million people will be using the airport—up from 8 million in 2004. It is therefore essential that we invest now to ensure that public transport links are in place to cope with future demand.
Unfortunately, the fact that the case for a rail link is so strong makes it all the more tragic that the tunnel option that is being presented to us today is not the correct one. I do not make that statement lightly; I do so for several reasons, some of which are highlighted in the committee's report. The chief reason is the committee's concern over funding. Paragraphs 268 and 269 of our report say that
"The Committee therefore remains exasperated that at this stage it can only confirm that the Scottish Executive will provide funding but not at what level nor whether such funding will be sufficient to meet the estimated cost of construction",
and that
"the Committee has major concerns that the Bill could be passed without the level of funding attributed to each source being identified."
I have to ask how we, the Parliament, can lend our support to the bill as it stands when we cannot be confident about how the project will be funded. That is doubly significant in the light of the plethora of heavy infrastructure projects on the Executive's books, meaning that cost overruns and delays are a real possibility if the funding is not 100 per cent robust. As our report makes clear,
"a delay in any one of these … projects could have a major impact on the ability of EARL to begin operating in 2011."
Ultimately, with the cost of the tunnel already estimated at up to £650 million, even a slight cost overrun could put the whole project or other projects in jeopardy. Members may call me pessimistic, but I cannot help feeling—based on the Executive's past record and in the light of the scale of the project—that the final bill for the tunnel could well exceed the figure that the promoter has been circulating in recent days.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not just at the moment.
We should not fall into the trap of believing that an Edinburgh airport rail link means that we have to have the massive project that is being debated today—the rail link need not equate with the tunnel option. Having sat on the committee, I do not believe that the Executive or the promoter have done sufficient work on considering alternative schemes, in particular on what has come to be called the Turnhouse option. I simply cannot accept paragraph 144 of the committee's report, which states:
"on the basis of this appraisal the Turnhouse option does not offer superior benefits to that proposed within the Bill."
The appraisal being referred to is the Scottish transport appraisal guidance 1 appraisal that the promoter carried out on the Turnhouse option. That document is flawed, so it is not, I regret to say, credible for the committee to dismiss the Turnhouse option purely on the basis of that appraisal. The appraisal is flawed on several grounds; David McLetchie spoke about that in detail. It is sufficient for me to say that it is all but impossible to read the appraisal and not be struck by the fact that it is less the objective assessment of the options that it should be and more a deliberate shooting-down of the Turnhouse option, based on some extremely dubious assumptions.
Those assumptions include the claim that it would take 41 minutes to get from the city centre to the airport terminal if there were to be a station at Turnhouse that was connected to the terminal by shuttle bus. That claim is ridiculous. Given that trains currently take only 9 minutes to get from Waverley to South Gyle, it is safe to say that a train could get to Turnhouse in 10 minutes. If a shuttle bus could use a designated bus lane around the perimeter of the airport, it could easily get to the terminal in 10 minutes, which means that the total journey time for the Turnhouse option would be about 20 minutes—a mere four minutes more than using the tunnel option.
The promoter claims that a shuttle bus would need to use public roads because the airport is a restricted area—hence the claim about the 41 minute journey time—but I simply do not accept that a designated bus route could not be created around the airport's perimeter. To do so would certainly not be as difficult as constructing a tunnel under the runway. Even if the bus had to use the A8, it would not take as long as the promoter claims. A total journey time of 25 minutes—not the 41 minutes that is claimed in the appraisal—would be more realistic.
It has been suggested that the Turnhouse option would mean that there was less connectivity than the tunnel option. However, if we constructed a small chord between the Fife line and the Winchburgh to Dalmeny branch, the Turnhouse option would provide direct connections to all the stations that would be connected by the tunnel option, with the exception of nearby Edinburgh Park station, which will be served by the tram anyway. If connectivity to the rest of Scotland is the point of the project, why are we getting so worked up about a slightly longer journey time into the centre of Edinburgh?
The Turnhouse option could be up and running within a very short time; the tunnel is five years away at best and I believe that even that timescale is optimistic. Therefore, I urge members not to endorse this flawed, massively disruptive and very expensive scheme, so that we can instead refocus our efforts on developing a better alternative.
I congratulate the committee on its work to date and welcome the progress that has been made in consideration of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill. When the link is completed, it will represent a major and ambitious development and enhancement of the rail network in Scotland.
Edinburgh and Glasgow airports are the main airports that serve the majority of the Scottish population but, unlike most major airports in England and—the First Minister highlighted this during question time—airports in many European cities, Edinburgh and Glasgow airports currently have no direct rail links. The limited availability of public transport options not only puts more pressure on the roads around the airports but acts as a disincentive to tourists and businesspeople who travel to those airports.
The Edinburgh airport rail link is an ambitious project. It aims not only to provide a connection to the city of Edinburgh—as other members, including Sarah Boyack, highlighted—but to link Edinburgh airport to all Scotland's cities. The project will provide people in each of our cities with the opportunity to access flights from Edinburgh airport, but it will also allow tourists from all over the United Kingdom and Europe to access direct rail services from Edinburgh airport to other tourist destinations. Dundee, Stirling and Glasgow are among the total of 62 rail stations that will have direct services to and from the airport.
In many of our previous debates on transport issues, broad agreement has been reached about the need to improve Scotland's connectivity to the rest of the UK, to European cities and to destinations further afield. Therefore, it is surprising that the Scottish National Party has chosen to oppose the progress of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill to consideration stage. If the Executive parties had abandoned support for the rail link, I can just imagine the wails that we would hear from the nationalist benches. We would be accused of lack of ambition and it would be said that we were not able to undertake such projects because we do not have the powers of an independent nation or because we do not have the resources. However, we are using the powers and resources that are available to the Scottish Parliament to progress the most ambitious project that has been seen in Scotland for decades, but the party that lacks the ambition to back it is the Scottish National Party. The so-called National Party lacks the ambition to provide Scotland's capital with the sort of connectivity that other capitals take for granted. Given that that comes on top of the SNP's opposition to the Edinburgh trams, it is clear that the nationalists have no interest whatever in equipping Edinburgh with a 21st century transport system.
Such opposition is even more bizarre because the project will benefit not just Edinburgh but a huge swathe of Scotland, including the 62 stations to which I referred. Having strongly supported the establishment of a station at Stow, where there is a community of 600 people and where patronage levels will be 10 people per day, the SNP will now oppose connecting 62 stations across Scotland to Edinburgh airport. The airport already serves 8 million passengers a year—that number will grow considerably in the decades to come. The SNP's position would deny further inward investment opportunities to Scotland via Edinburgh airport.
Unless they defy the SNP whip today, Bruce Crawford will vote against a rail link from Stirling to Edinburgh airport, Fiona Hyslop will vote against a rail link from Linlithgow to Edinburgh airport and Tricia Marwick will vote against a rail link from Fife to Edinburgh airport because they lack the ambition and vision that would take this country forward. The SNP has badly miscalculated on this occasion and I expect each of those communities to ask serious and hard questions of the nationalists.
A point that has been missed in the debate is that this is preliminary stage consideration of the bill. Committee members have rightly raised concerns that must be addressed by the minister, the promoter and professionals in the industry. Those questions can be addressed and will be returned to at subsequent stages of the bill process.
We should support the bill today because of the general principles that it will introduce. We should support it because of the contribution that the link could make to increasing the number and proportion of passengers who access Edinburgh airport by public transport, because of the opportunities that it provides to air passengers to access direct rail links to all of Scotland's cities as well as many major towns, and because of the contribution that it can make to economic growth not only in Edinburgh, the Lothians and Fife but the whole of Scotland.
Of course, some stakeholders have expressed legitimate concerns, the most significant probably being those that were expressed by BAA, which is the operator and owner of the airport. Its concerns are important, but instead of killing the bill at this stage, we should allow it to continue. I know that the promoter is confident that it can apply the necessary technical and engineering expertise to ensure that BAA's concerns are taken fully on board.
The rolling stock issue is also important. The minister has already stated that a major programme of rolling stock renewal and procurement is under way. The minister, Transport Scotland and the railway industry have co-operated on that programme. We must be given more detail on the situation at the subsequent stages of the bill, but the fact is that that programme is under way.
Some members have expressed concerns about cost, but Margaret Smith made the important point that the project is not only about cost. It is also about the benefits that it will produce for the Scottish economy. As Margaret correctly pointed out, the project has the best benefit to cost ratio of any public transport project that Parliament has considered. Members who reject the project on the basis of cost should also have rejected every single previous project.
Parliament should endorse the motion in Scott Barrie's name, which will allow the bill to complete the first stage of the parliamentary process. The bill will equip Scotland with a transport project that it fit for the 21st century and it will equip Edinburgh airport and the Edinburgh economy with a 21st century transport interchange. We should reject the lack of ambition and the opportunism of the Tories and their tartan cousins.
I am in the strange situation of being a Green who agreed, in a transport debate, with almost everything that Fergus Ewing said. The strength of the case against the proposal is demonstrated by the fact that it has provoked opposition from around the chamber and from such different political perspectives.
The debate is not about airport expansion—I will have that argument with David McLetchie on another occasion. I do not believe the projection that there will be 23 million passengers using Edinburgh airport—that will never happen, but we will always need an airport.
Members would expect me, as a Green, to argue in favour of enhancement of the rail network and another public transport option for travellers to and from Edinburgh airport, but the project does not represent value for money and it should not be a priority for public transport spending.
As has been outlined, several cheaper alternatives have not been adequately appraised. There is already a bus service, and there will be a tram link, to serve the people of north and west Edinburgh as well as the airport, but EARL will not do so. As the committee states clearly in its report, major costs are associated with EARL, not only in monetary terms but for the rail network. It will increase journey times for the Aberdeen service by up to six and a half minutes. We cannot let that happen but, as can be seen from the committee's report, the promoter has not convinced the committee that it will not happen. We have received weak promises from Network Rail about the impact of the EARL proposal, with the diversion of the major lines from Edinburgh through a tunnel under Edinburgh airport and the wider impact that that will have on everybody else who travels across Edinburgh.
My intervention will be brief. I accept Mr Ballard's point about the marginal increase in journey time. However, does he accept that there will be a significant benefit for passengers travelling between Fife and Glasgow of 15 minutes less travel time, which could encourage more people to use the train?
My dear friend Fergus Ewing referred to pinchpoints and the cheap alternative. When line repairs were being done, I travelled on the existing line from the Forth rail bridge towards Glasgow, which is currently not being used. If we want direct services between Fife and Glasgow, we should re-open that line for a few million pounds instead of spending £600 million on the EARL project.
The potential benefits of EARL to the Scottish economy have always seemed to me to have been vastly overstated—that view is backed up by the committee report. The proposed frequency of services to the north of Scotland will be inadequate, as the report says, for realising the kind of benefits that TIE talked about. Furthermore, claims that EARL will attract inward investment also appear to have been overstated.
It seems to me that EARL is very much an Edinburgh project that is being dressed up to appear to be of benefit to the whole of Scotland. There are public transport priorities in Edinburgh that are much more pressing than EARL: for example, there is the Waverley station upgrade, which members have mentioned; the proper funding of the Edinburgh tram scheme to include a tramline 3; and the re-opening of the south suburban railway. If those priorities were realised, they would meet the needs of people in east-central Scotland much more effectively than will EARL.
That does not mean that we do not need to improve public transport to Edinburgh airport. There will be the trams, which will bring a light rail service to the airport. However, like many members, I have travelled on the train from Edinburgh to the Forth rail bridge and have passed Edinburgh airport and its runway, travelling a few metres away from the boundary. We should put a cheaper alternative to EARL in that location.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I have already taken one intervention and the Greens get only one speech in this debate.
A Turnhouse rail stop would be a cheaper alternative. That proposal is considered in the committee report and it is argued that it would have fewer benefits than the EARL proposal. However, given that the Executive cannot find up to £500 million to upgrade Edinburgh Waverley and that TIE costed a Turnhouse station at £114 million, the benefits of having a Turnhouse station and a full upgrade of Waverley would vastly outweigh the benefits of an expensive tunnel beneath the airport. Let us consider the priorities and what will deliver value for money.
Similarly, there is discussion in the report of the Gogar interchange with tramline 2. I welcome the fact that Parliament has made a commitment to tramline 2, which will connect the centre of Edinburgh with the airport. Let us integrate a system with tramline 2, which would allow money to be released for the Waverley upgrade, create a station at Gogar and reduce delays in other rail journeys. It would also, as I said, integrate with the tram scheme and the existing systems of transport out to the airport, and be preferable to the expensive vanity project that is EARL.
Despite my normal inclination to support public transport and to regard everything that Fergus Ewing says with extreme scepticism, I actually find myself in agreement with him because in value-for-money terms the EARL project does not stack up. Let us not spend millions on this scheme while better projects go unfunded. I urge Parliament to reject the EARL proposal.
Not for one moment do I underestimate the scale and complexity of the task that faced the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee. I think that it produced a good report, despite the fact that it was faced with a considerable task in attempting to draw together all the different strands of technical information and environmental, social, economic and funding matters. From my reading of the report, the committee seems to have been faced at times with a rather confusing and contradictory picture.
Although I respect absolutely the decision that the committee members have reached in supporting the proposals that are before us, I cannot honestly say that I feel the same as they do. In asking Parliament to support the bill, they are asking us to take a leap of faith into crucial unresolved matters. Worse still, they are asking us to leap into an information void.
I believe that our job, as parliamentarians, is to scrutinise things properly and give them rigorous examination, especially the legislation that is brought before us. The proposals in the bill simply do not stand up to scrutiny. To Sarah Boyack, I say that we should not lower the bar of examination and scrutiny just because a proposal seems on the face of it to be attractive and has support.
There are many questions that remain unanswered. Is the promoter's proposed timetable deliverable within the current network constraints? Is the proposal to extend the rail network's operating hours realistic? Can rolling stock of the required quantity and quality be deployed? I heard what the minister said about that earlier. Will the fares structure that is being considered attract customers and ensure greater social inclusion? The committee explored all those questions and it can take further evidence on them. I accept that. Nevertheless, there are two aspects that should have set the alarm bells ringing and on which no firm conclusion was reached.
First, the project will disrupt Edinburgh airport during construction and in the long term to such an extent that the proposal is unsustainable—as was made clear by the managing director of Edinburgh Airport Ltd during his oral evidence when he said that he objects to the proposals. The written evidence from Edinburgh Airport Ltd is also salutary. It states:
"Regrettably, contrary to any impression which may be created by the Promoter's Memorandum, there is a lack of agreement between the parties on many of the substantive issues contained in the Bill. In EAL's view this increases the financial, technical, safety and operational risk to both the Promoter and EAL. EAL consequently has serious concerns that the Promoter has failed to appreciate the interface issues and project risks associated with constructing and operating Edinburgh Airport Rail Link ("EARL") within an operational airport."
That is pretty fundamental. That is not an issue that we can go on discussing; it is fundamental to the project.
Given such serious concerns, unless the minister can tell us different—as he seemed to hint earlier in an aside to me across the chamber—I cannot see why today, in the current environment, BAA would want to invest additional resources in this development.
In effect, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque—something that I, for one, am not prepared to do. There is no firm funding line. The Executive may say that there is an overall budget, but no one knows who is going to fund that budget.
Does Mr Crawford think that it would be prudent management of public resources for the minister to commit to an amount of investment when financial negotiations are still going on with potential contributors to the scheme? Would not that be the minister showing all his cards at once?
The standing orders of Parliament state that promoters are supposed to provide all the financial details before a project even gets to stage 1. With that in mind, I am surprised that the project has managed to get this far.
Yesterday, I attended a meeting of a Fife alliance of businesspeople and Fife Chamber of Commerce at which we discussed the future of the Forth road bridge. At that meeting, the bridge master made it absolutely clear that, regardless of what happens now, the bridge will close to heavy goods vehicles in 2013. There is no doubt in my mind that that is the direction in which we are going. Many of the businesspeople who were at the meeting said that, if that happened, it would be a catastrophe for the Fife economy—I think that we all know that that is a fact. Businesses are already deciding not to locate in Fife and to relocate elsewhere.
If Scott Barrie asked the businesspeople to whom I spoke yesterday where the money should be spent as a priority for Fifers, they would say that it should be committed to a new Forth bridge instead of to a project that has shown itself not to provide value for money.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have only 10 seconds left. Otherwise, I would have taken an intervention.
My position is clear: I will not support a project that does not offer value for money. I support the idea of a link to Edinburgh airport, but I want Scotland's money to be used on priority projects. We have to sort things out now, before Fife and the east of Scotland suffer an economic catastrophe with the closure of the Forth road bridge.
I support the general principles of the bill and I will enthusiastically support Scott Barrie's motion this evening. I congratulate everyone who has brought us to this point in this exciting and ambitious project.
When the project was first announced, I could scarcely believe my ears. I have dreamed about this link—as have other Fifers—for many years. I was at the meeting yesterday with Fife Chamber of Commerce, and the views that Bruce Crawford expressed were not the views of Fife Chamber of Commerce, which is on the record as wanting the Edinburgh airport rail link, as it has for many years. The Fife people want it too, but Bruce Crawford has not represented the views of the Fife people today. People in Fife have campaigned for decades to have an airport link.
Will the member give way?
I say to Mark Ballard, who has left the chamber, that people from Fife pass the end of the runway in trains and ask why they have to go into the centre of Edinburgh and then get a bus back out to catch a plane. It is nonsense. Edinburgh is suffering from congestion, and the bridge is suffering from congestion. The way to reduce that congestion will be to provide a rail link directly to the airport. That rail link will provide for the whole of Scotland and not only for Edinburgh. That is where Mark Ballard is so fundamentally wrong.
Will the member give way?
This is not an Edinburgh project—it is an all-Scotland project. The SNP simply wants to divide Scotland. In The Herald today, Rob Robertson wrote:
"An executive led by the SNP would scrap the current proposals for the Edinburgh airport rail link and instead focus investment on improvement to Scotland's existing railway network, the party said yesterday."
The SNP is silent on what it would do regarding the Glasgow airport rail link. Is its policy for Scotland's future social and economic development about dividing west coast people from east coast people? That is what the SNP's move today is about. That is what the party is trying to do. Bruce Crawford pretends to be a Fifer, but he is never a Fifer. The views that he has expressed would never be supported in Fife.
Fergus Ewing, on Talk107 news this morning, said that he wants everyone to travel into Edinburgh as well—he wants people to go to Waverley and then back out to Turnhouse. That is bizarre logic. Thousands of people will think that politicians have gone mad today if we vote for the SNP's solution.
By developing the Edinburgh airport rail link, we will immediately slash the number of cars that head over the Forth. Not only that, we will slash the number of people who go into the city centre, which has been badly congested for a long time.
The Conservatives' hypocrisy about cost is breathtaking. It is preposterous for the Tories to suggest a shuttle bus. When the Tories were in Government, the area that Scott Barrie and I now represent in Rosyth had the biggest hole in the ground at the dockyard. It is still there, and it is the most expensive hole in the ground ever built by any Government. It cost £20 million and it does nothing for anyone. It is a reminder of the Tory legacy of decay, degeneration and disappointment.
We will not take lectures from the Tories. We asked them to develop the A8000 link to the airport and they refused. It took this Government—the Scottish Executive—to get that link. The Tory legacy was absolute standstill in Scotland's economy. Businesspeople across Scotland will judge us all today on whether or not we support the optimum solution and provide a direct link to the airport.
It is tremendous that the new station will be the hub at the centre of the spokes. It will mean much easier access to jobs—and not just to those at the airport. People in Fife will be able to go from Inverkeithing station to the airport and then on to Linlithgow or Falkirk. It will provide great opportunities for everyone in Fife.
I am delighted by the positive measures that the Executive has taken on transport. The EARL project will be a major development and I applaud the work that is being done by the numerous people throughout the country who are connected with the bill to enable Scotland to become a leader in the provision of intermodal connections, which will offer efficient travel to businesses and to the people of Scotland.
Like other members, I have campaigned for the link over many years, both as a councillor and as an MSP. I have also served on a private bill committee, so I know that concerns are raised—we have heard about some of them today—and solutions are found. In general, everyone works constructively, if they have the political will to do so. Bruce Crawford needs to take a leap of faith because it is obvious that he has no faith in the people of Scotland. It is time that the SNP had faith in the people of Scotland. Today the SNP is demonstrating astonishing paucity of ambition on behalf of Scotland and, in failing to support Scotland's future economic development, is acting as a destructive force. The EARL project is an ambitious, wonderful and exciting development, and I cannot praise enough everyone who is involved in it. I will support Scott Barrie's motion.
I was one of the people who tried to get a central Scotland airport in the early 1970s. The idea got very little support among any of the parties because of the habitual parochialism of the Scottish people. That was sad, and the proposal has gone.
At one time, it would have been a sensible idea to have an airport beside the Fife railway line, but once the airport was built where it was, that idea became daft because there is no point in dropping people off at the edge of the airport, on the other side of the runway from where everyone else is.
There needs to be consistency in the study of transport infrastructure; unlike other Government policies, it cannot be changed every six months or every year. We must try to get better cross-party support for an agreed policy. The Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee has produced a good report and has tried extremely hard, but people are opposing the proposal on the wrong basis. The opponents of the project are arguing as if the vote on the bill's general principles is a vote on whether to allocate the money to build the scheme, which is not what we are discussing.
If we agree to the bill's general principles, we can go on to improve the proposal in ways that I will discuss shortly. EARL will be one possible way of spending our money in the future because we will have a proper scheme. The alternative is to scrub the scheme, in which case it will go down the plughole and that will be it—we will not be able to consider the idea for years and years. The whole argument is based on the total misapprehension that we are voting today on whether to invest our money in the EARL scheme, when we are voting on whether to progress with it and refine it.
I hope that the bill can be improved in a number of ways. For example, the committee said that it supported the idea of a train link from Edinburgh airport to Glasgow airport, which seems to have got lost at some stage. That is a great idea. I will again bore the minister on the subject of Glasgow crossrail, which I think should be built and would fit in very well with EARL.
As other members have mentioned, a good aspect of the scheme is that it would create a proper transport interchange; it would not just provide a railway to the airport. People would be able to go all over the shop. The advocates of the Turnhouse option ignore the fact that people find attractive transport that means that they do not have to change too often. Under the EARL proposals, people would get off the train and go straight on to an escalator, which would take them to the aeroplane. It is a big disincentive to be dropped off at a bus stop that is a mile away from the terminal—people simply will not use such a scheme. In addition, the Turnhouse option would not allow people from Edinburgh Park and elsewhere to get to the airport and would ruin the interchange idea.
We want to progress with examining the proposal carefully, as there are still many unanswered questions. We are not signing blank cheques; we are trying to conduct a real study of the funding, the costs and the benefits. Are the benefits realistic? Much of that future stuff is open to argument, and I am sure that the committee will examine the costs and the benefits. The question of frequency of service must also be examined. If we are to make good use of the infrastructure, a frequent service must be provided. The hours of operation, the delays to other travellers and the rolling stock and luggage must be considered. Even the practicality of getting bicycles on the train—something that annoys many people—must be examined. There must be a proper way of carrying bicycles, perhaps by bringing back the luggage van.
How the rail link integrates with trams must also be considered. I know that the two modes are supposed to have a different public, but we must examine that question carefully. We must also scrutinise the engineering efforts and find out whether the tunnel has hidden problems. If Scotland, with its history of engineering, cannot build a fairly short tunnel, we are in big trouble. I would have thought that we could surely do that, but the committee should examine that question and all the other points that have arisen.
The committee has done a good job, but we should insist that there is really good co-operation and exchange of information. The performance of bodies such as VisitScotland, as outlined in the report, seems to be poor, and we must really put the squeeze on those organisations, as well as on BAA and Network Rail. We should support the bill at this stage and put our faith in the committee to strengthen its sinews and to get stuck into all those difficult questions. Then we can decide whether or not to go ahead with the proposal.
I commend the proposal for a strategic air link at Edinburgh airport. I also express my astonishment and disappointment at the small thinking on the Opposition benches. When the First Minister coined the phrase "the best small country in the world", I told him that it would get him into trouble, but, to his credit, he put the emphasis on best, not small.
The air link development proposal represents big thinking and a determination to act on it. What Donald Gorrie said is absolutely common sense. We do not have to go for every jot and tittle in the committee report just now; we will adapt and amend the proposal, so the fact that there are queries about details such as luggage racks should not rule it out. The debate on the development has also shown the Tory benches to be full of skinflints. They talk the talk on financial autonomy, they think big, but they do not walk the walk. Everything that they said was about the cost of the project; they said nothing about the benefit or the bravery of it. The faint hearts on the SNP benches timidly say that there should be a link, but not the one proposed, and that we need a cheaper option because we do not have the money. Sadly, the last point is true. We probably do not have all the money that we need, but the money is there; it is just that we do not have it.
I address these remarks to colleagues on the Labour benches. Just yesterday, it was announced that the oil and gas sector in the North sea has produced a £20.6 billion turnover—an increase from £8.7 billion in 1998. Somebody is getting the money, so why should the windfall that is going to the Westminster Treasury not come here? It should represent a windfall for us, for investment capital that is needed for strategic projects such as the Edinburgh airport rail link. If this Parliament—not a party in it, but the Parliament itself—demanded even a twentieth of that windfall, we could pay for the Edinburgh airport rail link project and for all the other projects that Fergus Ewing and Mark Ballard mentioned, because we all know that those schemes need attention as well. The money is there and I bet that, if we set out to get it, we would.
I was surprised that the SNP spokespeople accepted the constraints of devolution. I was not surprised, I suppose, that they thought that we could not manage the project better than the Parliament project was managed, but I think that we could. We have learned a lesson. I echo what Donald Gorrie said about not being able to tunnel, after all the experience that Scottish engineers have had of tunnelling all over the world, so I discount that objection and believe that the tunnelling difficulties could be overcome. As I mentioned, the change from the £1 billion windfall would also pay for all the other projects.
Bristow Muldoon said that the SNP lacked ambition and that the link could be done—he is wrong. It's the election, stupid! It has nothing to do with luggage rails, tunnelling or project management and everything to do with where constituency seats might be picked up. I hate saying it, but it is true, so we should just accept it. I look forward to picking up the project again once we have passed that wee hurdle.
As members know, I am determined that Edinburgh's position as the capital should be recognised by everyone in the Parliament. I came here today in case there was puir-moothed talk about Edinburgh having loads of money and not needing any more. This is not about Edinburgh. What Helen Eadie said is true: this is about Scotland. It is about our future, our ambition, and our confidence, so act on it.
For the avoidance of doubt, my colleague lodged his reasoned amendment, which I whole-heartedly support, because we believe not that Edinburgh airport should not be connected to Scotland's railway system—the Conservatives have said for years that it should—but that there are different ways of doing it. The infrastructure investment required is critical. Work has not even started on a new Forth crossing and if we could save the £400 million that would appear to be available if we used the Turnhouse option, we would have a good chunk to get the bridge started. The bridge and the railways are strategically important not just for the east coast of Scotland but for the Highlands through Inverness. If we are to consider the big picture, we must be responsible. It is simple.
The report is full of questions. The language of the report says, "We haven't had enough information." Even those that support the report agree that that is what it says. In his introduction, Scott Barrie went on about questions having to be answered. All the Conservatives' amendment says is, "For goodness' sake, if we're going to go on, let's make sure the questions are brought to the chamber and answered." What has never been mentioned is the potential for a second runway at Edinburgh. Is the tunnel priced to go under one or two runways? We do not know. If it goes under two, the engineers have already acknowledged that there will be another problem of gradient.
I have been on site several times. Many members talked as if they have never been to the airport site and seen how simple it would be to make a bus link to the Turnhouse site, which is already inside the airport perimeter. It is not as if we would be sticking something on the outside. According to BAA, the site is a redundant area of its airport facility. Why can we not build a guided busway or whatever? It does not have to be in a tunnel. People do that in other parts of the world. There is an overhead railway to get to the railway station from Miami airport and nobody minds moving baggage to it. It is amazing: we are talking about only a few hundred metres and a properly designed, low-level entry/exit bus, which would save millions to put into something else. Moreover, if we had the short little link, the railway would still connect to the same 62 stations.
The STAG 1 report was a cursory dismissal, without proper content and proper analysis—which is what the Conservatives are talking about—to ensure that we get an airport link. However, we also have to connect up. Fergus Ewing was right to talk about other projects around Scotland. Many people in my area, the north-east of Scotland, use Edinburgh airport, as do many other people. We have to go into town and come back out again, which is not convenient. We are told that a tram system will deal with Edinburgh Park. That hints at a blank cheque. From the way in which the minister spoke earlier, I suspect that he has information that the rest of us do not have. He was so committed in advance of the introduction of the bill that he must have information. Will he tell us where the money will come from? Will it stop something else? Does he have a blank cheque or a hidden funder somewhere that we do not know about? Is it a Gordon Brown gift? We do not know.
The rolling stock issue has only been touched on, but it is a serious issue. According to those in the railway industry who know best, the necessary rolling stock is not even designed, never mind available, and nobody knows how much it will cost. Of course, the bill's proposal excludes some of the current rolling stock that could be used at Turnhouse as long as a better baggage-handling facility was added to it.
We must consider the runway disruption, the airport disruption and the security that would be necessary at the airport during construction. That is not to mention the fact that there was a partial collapse of the runway tunnel at Heathrow. It had to be repaired, which meant that a runway had to be shut down. That is never even mentioned.
We need to have all the agencies on side and to have all the facts. A bus link would work. I ask the minister to open up his heart and tell us the truth. Does he have the money? Does he know what the design will be? Will there be a second runway at Turnhouse? Will the design as currently priced work? He does not know, and if he does not know, why does he appear to support the proposal?
The Conservatives want an Edinburgh airport rail link; we have always argued for one. The debate is about how we can provide it affordably, quickly, sensibly and without risk. If the minister is so good at planning, I ask him to tell me whether there is capacity in the construction industry to deliver all the projects that the Executive is supposed to deliver by 2011 or 2012. Are there enough people around to do it? Will any local jobs come out of the projects? Will they all be funded at exactly the same time? Those are the questions to which the people want answers. We will not prevent the bill from going ahead at this stage, but we will prevent it if we do not get the answers that the Parliament deserves.
It has been an interesting and robust debate. We had a robust report placed before us—in fact, it is probably among the most robust reports that we have seen. Having read the report, I agree with my colleague Christine Grahame, who arrived at a different set of conclusions from those reached by the majority of the committee. I find it difficult to understand how that majority arrived at the conclusions it did after drawing up the report, as there are so many reservations throughout. Indeed, the committee agreed to make its recommendation only with a series of caveats. I am glad that it has included them, but those caveats and the specific parts of the report where concerns are raised have led me to the conclusion that the bill does not deserve support.
Will Brian Adam give way?
I will give way in just a minute, but I ask Scott Barrie to let me develop my argument.
It is clear that all parties recognise the need for an Edinburgh airport rail link. We are debating whether, in the light of the report, the rail link that is proposed in the bill is worthy of support. The report's evidence is clear that it is not. The proposal has been drawn up without getting the main players' whole-hearted endorsement. There is no whole-hearted endorsement from Network Rail, which will have to deliver the railway. There is no endorsement from the airport's owners—in fact there is an objection from them. As the rail link is intended to provide for improved access and connectivity for tourism, whether business or otherwise, it is significant that there is no endorsement from VisitScotland. The committee makes most of those points.
I have some sympathy with the Conservative amendment, but my reservation is that it continues to ask the promoter to come up with alternatives. As the promoter has dismissed the alternatives and arrived at the conclusion that the current proposal is worthy of support, I find it hard to understand why involving it would lead to a different conclusion.
To put it simply, we suggest that all the information should be provided. The matter will have to return to the Parliament, where the decision will ultimately be made, but we all need the information to make that decision. Brian Adam could still stop the bill if he did not like it and the information did not stack up, but we do not have the information at the moment.
I whole-heartedly accept that we do not have the information. It is clear from the report and from what has been said by the minister and other supporters of the proposal that they do not have the information. Network Rail is charged with the responsibility, so I believe that the minister can engage with it and ask it to come up with plans. For example, how does the rail link fit in with Network Rail's proposals for the rest of the network? It has to deliver for the whole of Scotland.
It is interesting that the promoter is anxious to tell us that the project will serve all of Scotland. How will the project help to develop services for Aberdeen? Aberdeen also has an international airport. Will the link draw people away from that airport? Is it designed to do so? We have four significant international airports in Scotland. Edinburgh is one of them and it is probably going to be the most important, but we should not put all our eggs in one basket. I hear Mr Rumbles making his usual rumblings in the background, but the price that we will have to pay in the north-east is in increased journey times. That will not encourage people in the north-east out of their cars and on to the trains.
I accept that there will be benefits to other parts of Scotland, but the position that the promoter presents to us is not substantiated. That is precisely what Scott Barrie and his committee have told us.
I will give way to Mr Rumbles.
Just for clarification, is Brian Adam really saying that the Edinburgh airport rail link would have a detrimental effect on Aberdeen and the north-east?
Absolutely, precisely because evidence from the committee and the promoter shows that journey times will be longer. Indeed, the catchment area for the airport will be expanded to cover 3.2 million people as opposed to the current figure if the rail link is built as planned. It is not just about one issue.
You should finish quickly, Mr Adam.
In that case, I am happy to draw my remarks to a close by saying that Margaret Smith got it wrong in suggesting that the SNP does not have a vision. Fergus Ewing explained clearly our vision of the future, and we do not have the tunnel vision that she has.
After Brian Adam's summing up, the one point on which I am sure we can all agree is that the debate is about which parties have a vision for Scotland. Which parties believe that the rail link is a strategic investment for the country and that a direct rail investment for the entire country is the right project at the right time? The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties and Margo MacDonald articulated fairly the arguments in favour of the project. The arguments that we have heard from the Opposition parties against the project do not pass muster.
In many ways, Helen Eadie reflected my views and the core of the argument about why the project is the right one. She said that that it needed to be the hub at the centre of the spokes. That was an eloquent expression to describe why the Edinburgh airport rail link is so important not just for Edinburgh—despite the SNP turning its back on our capital—but for the north-east and, indeed, for the whole country. That is why, when we vote on the general principles of the bill, we should vote in favour of the project.
Let me pick up a couple of important points on particular aspects of the proposal. Members were right to ask about the rolling stock, and I hope that everyone will welcome the introduction of new rolling stock to the Scottish network. There will be a new fleet of modern, high-specification trains that can deliver our future timetable aspirations and provide the opportunity for enhanced services to other routes in the network. That should be a good thing for Scotland. It is astonishing that some oppose that and make fun of it, as Mr Ewing did.
I respect members who raised serious issues about the runway tunnel option, but I hope that they recognise that the evidence that was given to Mr Barrie's committee showed that that option would ensure that the highest number of trains could serve the airport—eight to 10 per hour in each direction—and that a higher percentage of passengers would access the airport by train if we used that option rather than any other. Crucially, the option would offer interchange opportunities that would produce quicker journeys between Fife and Glasgow, easier commuting to business centres in west Edinburgh and an increase in rail connections throughout Scotland.
I am happy to give way, but those are important matters that Mr McLetchie will want to consider.
Those considerations are important. However, will the minister acknowledge that although the benefit cost ratio of 2.16 cited for the project with the runway tunnel option was described as the highest of any project considered, the STAG assessment of the Turnhouse option gave no benefit cost ratio? If we are to appraise the alternatives, it might be an idea to have a benefit cost ratio for Turnhouse, which would allow us to compare the true value for money of those two options.
As we discussed at question time this morning, the STAG assessment includes not just the cost benefit ratio but the other factors that I have described, which it is important to recognise.
I was surprised by David McLetchie's speech. He is after all a conviction politician, and I expected utter clarity from him and his party about whether they support the general principle of providing the airport rail link—they cannot have it both ways. It would be astonishing if David Cameron came up to Scotland during the election campaign and apologised for a lack of clarity from the Tories, but perhaps we will hear that.
I was particularly astonished that the Conservatives were not clear about their position. After the statement on the capital programme on 16 March, Murdo Fraser said:
"we are falling behind with our infrastructure"—[Official Report, 16 March 2006; c 24055.]
He went on to say how important this project is. I simply do not understand why the Conservatives do not support the bill's general principles.
Members made fair points about timetabling not just for EARL but throughout Scotland. The opening of the airport rail link provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to review Scotland's rail timetable and to ensure that it meets needs throughout Scotland for the next 10 years. The rail link is a positive potential development in achieving the outcome that we all want.
I listened carefully to Christine Grahame's arguments, but I say gently to her that she did not pick up the one argument that someone in Galashiels would surely put to her. If she supports the Borders railway line and wants people to use the new Waverley line between Galashiels and Edinburgh Waverley, why does she want to prevent people from catching a train to the airport after that?
I made it plain that I was talking about the particular project and solution that are before us. The debate is not about whether a rail link should exist between Edinburgh and its airport, but about whether the particular proposed link should proceed. We must have clarity, because we are dealing with public funds.
The debate is about the link to Edinburgh airport—it is about the general principles. I would have thought that that was pretty obvious, even to the SNP.
We heard a fascinating speech from the Green nationalist behind me and saw his cosiness with Mr Ewing. Mr Ewing must welcome Mark Ballard being such a good close personal friend. The political pact that is being formed must be of great importance to Mr Ewing. The logic of Mark Ballard's argument was bizarre. We want to invest in the tram, which the SNP opposes, and in the heavy rail link, which the SNP and the Greens oppose, because the link will be not just for Edinburgh, as Mark Ballard argued that it should be, but for the whole of Scotland. That is the overriding argument that we want to make.
I will finish with some bad news for Mr Ewing from the leadership election manifesto of his leader—the one down in London. Mr Ewing trotted out many figures in his speech and said that we need to be very careful with money, which is a new policy for the Scottish National Party. In his leadership election manifesto, Mr Salmond called for £4 billion to £6 billion of investment in rail, including
"a train link between all three central belt airports".
I am not sure how Mr Salmond's position sits with Mr Ewing's speech. I fear that Mr Ewing may not be the SNP's transport spokesman for long. We may get Mr MacAskill, which would be a good thing for us all.
I support the motion.
Scott Barrie opened the debate by confessing that he has to cajole, threaten, persuade, sweet-talk and blackmail Labour members into serving on private bill committees. I leave members to guess which method was deployed in my case. I have suffered while serving on the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, and now it is members' turn.
I will focus on a couple of general principles and address some of the detailed issues that were raised in the debate. On the general issue of tourism, the Executive's white paper "Scotland's transport future" notes that tourism is due to expand by 50 per cent in the next decade. For every 1,000 tourists who used the Edinburgh airport rail link, up to eight full-time equivalent jobs would be supported in the tourism sector. The value of tourism to Scotland is due to be about £13 billion by 2030. The promoter asserts that EARL will unlock several tourism markets, including business tourism for conferences and the short-break market, which is growing strongly. However, the key for that market is that people should be able to access destinations within three hours' travel of the airport. The promoter contends that improved reliability, journey time and the quality of the project will assist us to meet the needs of the short-break market.
The committee was astonished by VisitScotland's lack of engagement with EARL. According to VisitScotland's written evidence, it is the
"lead public sector agency for tourism"
in Scotland and its role is
"to provide leadership and direction for the development of Scottish tourism to ensure we leverage the maximum possible economic benefit".
However, it chose not to give oral evidence and belatedly submitted written evidence on the general principles of the scheme, which is supposed to bring tourism benefits to the whole country. The committee will bring its concerns to the attention of the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, with a view to encouraging more joined-up working between the operator of EARL and VisitScotland.
The committee has concerns about whether the operating times of the scheme will serve the needs of business travellers. For example, the first train from Fife is scheduled for 7 am. We acknowledge that the promoter has analysed peaks of demand at Edinburgh airport and is confident that EARL's operating hours—between 5 am and midnight—will meet demand. As has been said, Network Rail explained that expanding those hours would be extremely challenging.
The committee agreed that the potential to enhance the business case for EARL through extended operating hours may have been missed, given the current operating timetable. If Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill, we will return to the issue at consideration stage and seek evidence from Network Rail and the promoter on the ability of the rail timetable for the scheme to meet the needs of all airport passengers. The frequency of services could also have an impact on the potential short-break market and, combined with the reduction in reliability that will be experienced on some services, it could limit the market to Lothians and Fife.
On the quality of trains, we remain concerned that rolling stock for EARL has yet to be procured or even specified. Transport Scotland acknowledges that the operation of EARL could be delayed if additional rolling stock is not procured timeously. A number of issues relating to EARL rolling stock have not been resolved. They include the need for additional luggage capacity, the ability of rolling stock to tackle steep gradients, through a tunnel, at the proposed airport station and the fact that the tender for procurement of additional rolling stock will not be completed until the end of 2007. We remain concerned that, in balancing the competing demands for additional capacity on services such as Edinburgh to Glasgow with providing more luggage space on EARL services, there is a danger of having inappropriate or inferior rolling stock.
We heard evidence that the view in the United Kingdom Government's white paper "The Future of Air Transport" and Edinburgh airport's view is that passenger numbers at the airport could rise to between 20 million and 26 million by 2030. That is double the growth that could be predicated using the gross domestic product figures. It was not within the committee's remit to examine the sustainability of or the predictions on future air travel, but we were reassured by the promoter's modelling, which suggested that the predicted growth in passenger numbers would need to fall by 55 per cent before EARL's benefit to cost ratio was seriously hindered.
The committee agrees that, although EARL will facilitate a public transport hub interchange at Edinburgh airport, it will not in itself deliver that. I could make several other points on the scheme, but colleagues, including the minister, have touched on them. Therefore, in my remaining time, I will address some points that were made during the debate.
David McLetchie, in speaking to his amendment, said that he would not have started from here, with two central Scottish airports. That is certainly what was said to the man who was lost—"I wouldn't have started from here." We might add that we would not have started from here procedurally. In essence, we are administering the fag end of a parliamentary procedure that was introduced into the 19th century Westminster Parliament by the Tory landowning class to prevent railways being built. Doesn't it show?
Mr McLetchie was complimentary enough to say that the committee was made up of sceptics. We showed a healthy scepticism and gave the promoter a severe examination. We should be allowed to continue that important work. I do not understand Mr McLetchie's amendment, which asks for information that the committee has made clear it must have before it in the next stage of its deliberations. In essence, David McLetchie has said that there is not enough information. However, on the desk beside me, there are a couple of thousand pages of information. Mr McLetchie does not think that that is enough, which leads me to speculate that Edinburgh lawyers must have a system of payment that is based on piece-work.
Fergus Ewing said that the costs of £620 million are excessive and unknown—of course, they cannot be both. I gather that he thinks that the scheme is too dear. He does not want Edinburgh airport to be connected to 62 other stations in Scotland; he wants it to be connected only to the city of Edinburgh by a cheap and cheerful scheme, so that other cheap and cheerful schemes can be built in other parts of the country. He identified issues that the committee has already identified, such as the fact, to which I referred, that the required rolling stock for the scheme does not yet exist.
Christine Grahame quoted extensively from the committee's report, which is fine but, in view of the fact that the benefit to cost ratio for the Borders rail line is not particularly strong, it was imprudent of her politically to go in so hard against the Edinburgh airport rail link. Jamie McGrigor said that we did not get enough information about the Turnhouse alternative, but there are 105 pages of information on that—I do not know whether he read them and what he quoted from.
When it comes to the Greens, I could not eat a whole one, but if their opposition to the scheme was successful, they would ensure that the pre-eminent means of access to Edinburgh airport would be the motor car. I rather thought that that might be a pity.
Bruce Crawford said, correctly, that we have to make a leap of faith on the scheme at this stage. He was right that we are early on in the life of the scheme. However, he was wrong when he said that our standing orders do not allow the fairly basic financial detail to be acceptable at this stage.
Donald Gorrie was right—that is a first for me. Margo MacDonald was right as well. It would not be the first time that Gordon Brown has hit the oil producers with a windfall tax, so we do not have a problem with that in principle.
To break out of my quasi-judicial shackles for a moment, I point out that the big political story of the day is the coup d'état in the SNP, carried out by Fergus Ewing against Kenny MacAskill, which saw the SNP turn its back, in a parochial, pork-barrel way, on the development of Edinburgh and Glasgow city regions as the twin engines of economic development in Scotland.