Edinburgh Airport (Rail Link)
The final item of business is the members' business debate on motion S1M-2647, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, on the rail link to Edinburgh airport. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that the Strategic Rail Authority's 10-year plan includes a study into potential improvements in rail access to Scottish airports and that in Edinburgh options range from a new airport station on the nearby main rail route, with a shuttle into the airport, to a new tunnelled main line and station under the heart of the airport; further notes that either station could provide for further integration and stimulate economic activity, and, in the light of the recent decision by Her Majesty's Government to place Railtrack into administration which has cast considerable doubt and uncertainty on the willingness of the private sector to fund such investment, calls upon the Scottish Executive to outline how such a link could be financed in the best interests of Edinburgh and Scotland.
I am glad that both the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning and the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning are here for the debate. It is an indication of the high priority that the subject is given.
Edinburgh is one of the great capitals of Europe. Through its international festival, it attracts visitors from all over the world. As one of Europe's great cities, it makes sense that Edinburgh should have an effective, high-quality rail link to its airport. If I were an MSP for the West of Scotland, I would make exactly the same case for Glasgow—indeed that case is extremely persuasive.
In today's Glasgow Evening Times, Dr Malcolm Reed, the director general of Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive, made a plea for the Glasgow link to be brought forward and Glasgow City Council transport supremo, Councillor Alistair Watson, was quoted as saying:
"I welcome support for a rail link … a rail link to the airport is essential".
Tonight I speak as an unrepentant Edinburgh patriot. I lament the lack of a high-quality rail link to the capital's airport, especially when almost every other European centre of population appears to be better served than our own. Copenhagen, Zurich, Amsterdam, Barcelona and Munich all have superb public transport facilities to and from their airports—and so should Edinburgh. Support for the provision of a rail link is broadly based. The Confederation of British Industry and the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce support the principle. VisitScotland has said that such infrastructure fits with its
"core concern of value for money and quality of the experience."
Edinburgh is one of the fastest-growing capitals in Europe, with a population approaching 500,000. The enlarged airport carries almost 7 million passengers per year. The increase in passenger numbers last year was not far off 10 per cent. First impressions can count and for many people, Edinburgh airport is their first experience of Scotland. Therefore, the airport is vital for our economy, inward investment, tourism and jobs. It will be a lasting memory for those who come for the first time and those who will return.
Recently, the airport underwent redevelopment worth more than £100 million. The facilities offered to passengers were expanded and improved. As I mentioned, that investment has led to a steady and sustained increase in passenger numbers in the past four years.
The growing importance of Edinburgh and its airport must be matched with the pursuit of excellence in establishing the best possible rail infrastructure from the airport to the city centre. A rail link would increase passenger choice and could allow a real reduction in car congestion on the western perimeter of Edinburgh. Indeed, a rail link could have a far greater influence on reducing traffic congestion in Edinburgh than any city entry tolls.
Current plans are insufficient. The west of Edinburgh guided busways scheme—WEBS—stops short at Edinburgh Park and does not offer a congestion-free alternative for access to the airport or for other employers in the west of Edinburgh. The Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan promises no new funds in the short to medium term. The significant effort and expense put into the city of Edinburgh rapid transit scheme has ended in disappointment.
In February, the Executive claimed that it was too early to say how the abandonment of CERT would affect a link to the airport. However, in June 1998, I received a letter from Henry McLeish stating that CERT
"further reduces the viability of a rail link".
Now that the CERT scheme will not proceed, the case for a rail link to the airport is much stronger. I request that the Executive should act as a catalyst to draw in the private sector, with a view to solving the problem. New funding possibilities undoubtedly exist.
The Heathrow express from London Heathrow to Paddington is an example of a rail link being provided and causing an immense uplift in land value for companies, businesses, owners and others around railway lines and rail stations. Speed of access transformed in a substantially upward direction the value of employment and property in close proximity to the link—that is not to mention economies of scale. The uplift in value has been enormous. The uplift in land value around the 10 stations on the Jubilee line extension in London has been estimated at £13.5 billion, which is more than three times the capital value of the project.
I welcome the fact that the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, Wendy Alexander, is reported in today's Edinburgh Evening News as saying that she regards links to Edinburgh and Glasgow as a high priority. I appeal to both ministers, as fair-minded people with a capacity to absorb radical, new ideas, to recognise the importance to our nation of the Administration's taking a lead in working with interested parties—including key transport users—to find a way forward for Edinburgh and Glasgow. That would be to the advantage of employment prospects in Scotland, business competitiveness and tourist convenience and would be of maximum assistance to employees in the public sector and the private sector.
I invite the minister, in a few minutes, to speak and act for Scotland.
As is customary, I congratulate Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on securing the debate. The issue is fundamental, not just for the city of Edinburgh and the east of Scotland, but for all Scotland. Passenger statistics show that 12.5 per cent of passengers at Edinburgh airport come from Fife and 25 per cent of passengers come from north of the Forth. Everybody is aware that Glasgow airport is—unfortunately—situated on the wrong side of the city for many who seek to use it. Perhaps by accident rather than by design, Edinburgh is becoming Scotland's national airport. Cognisance must be taken of that.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is right to say that we need less sympathy and more action and that, although we have had an indication of movement from the minister, we need to know when, how and by whom. Investment in a rail link to the airport would not just add to the airport's position as an international gateway, but would help to take business from the north of England.
Only 10 years ago, Stansted had a rail link built at public expense—it was paid for in the old British Rail days. When the link was built, Stansted had fewer passengers than Edinburgh or Glasgow. Now, Stansted airport almost has more passengers than Edinburgh and Glasgow airports put together. That shows what can be achieved by building a rail link.
A rail link is fundamental to boosting the airport, but it is also about infrastructure investment for the whole of Scotland. As I mentioned, it is not just about Edinburgh or the east of Scotland; it is about what else can be done. If we take the visionary view that has been proposed by some within ScotRail and others to loop the current Edinburgh to Glasgow line through Dalmeny and into the Fife line, not only would there be the opportunity—albeit with the requirement to build a tunnel—to link the airport terminal to the line, but there would be other knock-on effects. It would prevent the perennial difficulties that ScotRail and Railtrack have at the Winchburgh tunnel and the Newbridge viaduct, where there is either perpetual flooding or a speed restriction. By looping the line we would open up access to the airport not simply from the east, but from the north, west and south. There would be an add-on benefit for the existing Edinburgh to Bathgate line, because if the line was looped in that way, more trains and more capacity would be available for the Bathgate to Edinburgh line, and the service could go from two trains an hour to four trains an hour. We must consider that visionary loop.
It should also be made clear that building a rail link to Edinburgh airport would not necessarily be at the cost of building a rail link to Glasgow airport. Both must go together. If, as a society, we seek to be considerably visionary, we should build both links. Building both links should not mean that we cannot have a direct connection from Edinburgh airport to Glasgow airport. If a rail link was built, and if the relevant steps were taken to make cross-Glasgow traffic possible, it should be possible to go from Glasgow airport to Edinburgh airport without requiring to change train. That would benefit not just Edinburgh airport but Glasgow airport. Indeed, it could be argued that coming into Glasgow airport on an intercontinental flight then going on an outbound flight, whether to Scandinavia or elsewhere, from Edinburgh airport, would be no more difficult—and may be quicker and less hassle—than going from Heathrow terminal 1 to Heathrow terminal 4.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is quite correct to raise this issue, but at the end of the day we need less spin and sympathy from the Executive. We need a commitment to build the rail link, which would be a fundamental factor not just in growing Edinburgh airport and the economy of the city of Edinburgh, but in boosting the economy of the whole of Scotland in the 21st century.
There is much that I agree with in Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's motion. I congratulate him on bringing the issue before the Parliament today. There was also much in Kenny MacAskill's speech with which I agree. The one issue in the motion on which I do not agree with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton—I note that he did not address it in his speech—is the reference to Railtrack. I suspect that that reference has more to do with satisfying some of the ideologues in his group—such as David McLetchie, Murdo Fraser and Brian Monteith, who were surrounding him when he delivered his speech—than with representing what Lord James really believes.
The common ground is that the development of a rail link to Edinburgh airport would be welcome and would assist not only the economy of Edinburgh, but the economies of West Lothian and many other parts of Scotland, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Kenny MacAskill mentioned. The link would ease congestion in and out of Edinburgh, in particular around the Gyle and Maybury areas.
Before I expand on that point, I will address the part of the motion that Lord James did not address, and that is the question of Railtrack. If Railtrack had continued to operate in the manner in which it was operating, there would have been no possibility of developing a rail link to Edinburgh airport unless the Government had been prepared to provide a blank cheque to Railtrack. In future rail debates, it would be helpful if Conservative members acknowledged what a complete failure Railtrack was, whether we are talking about investment to expand the industry, investment in maintenance and safety, or Railtrack's operation as a financially sound organisation.
I will now address the rail link. A rail link is back on the agenda because of the Strategic Rail Authority, which was established by the UK Labour Government, and the work that the Scottish Executive is doing in partnership with the SRA to develop the proposal. I give credit to the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, Wendy Alexander, for the role that she has played in placing the issue high up the political agenda. I am sure that Lewis Macdonald, when he responds to the debate, will reiterate that fact.
As many members have acknowledged, the proposal would have many benefits. It would reduce congestion in and around Edinburgh, give an economic boost to the airport and many of the communities that surround it and contribute to the Executive's environmental aims by reducing reliance on private cars for travel to and from Edinburgh. We must recognise—as Kenny MacAskill did—that Edinburgh airport has made considerable investments in recent years and has increased flight options. Its importance to central Scotland's economy has increased and the link would boost the airport's role further.
We must look beyond links with Edinburgh and consider the whole of central Scotland's transport network. If I may be so bold, I suggest that we should consider ensuring a rail link between Livingston and the airport, as well as between Edinburgh and the airport. That would ease Livingston Football Club's transport arrangements for the European adventures on which I hope it will embark next season.
We should take full advantage of the proximity of Edinburgh airport to the main Glasgow to Edinburgh rail line. Developments involving that could link Edinburgh airport by rail to Fife, Glasgow, Falkirk and West Lothian, as well as Edinburgh, by the construction of a loop that links with the main line or by the establishment of a station on the current line, which would be linked to the terminal through a shuttle service similar to those that operate at other airports, such as that linking Gatwick airport's terminals.
I give my full and unequivocal support to the proposal to provide a rail link between Edinburgh airport and the city of Edinburgh. I congratulate the Executive on the work that it has done and I hope that the project will come to fruition in due course.
I apologise to my colleagues for entering the debate late.
I welcome the debate and the Executive's recent announcement of a feasibility study into airport links, following the publication of the Strategic Rail Authority's 10-year plan. The study, led by the Executive in partnership with Scottish Enterprise, BAA and the SRA, will investigate options for direct rail links and is due in September.
That approach highlights the fact that links to Edinburgh airport and to Glasgow airport are strategic matters that are of interest to the whole of Scotland. Statistics show that 66 per cent of passengers who leave Edinburgh airport do not travel to central Edinburgh. They travel elsewhere in Scotland, which stresses the city's gateway status.
It is worth noting that Edinburgh airport has enjoyed a 50 per cent growth in passenger numbers in the past five years. Edinburgh—particularly its western edge—is enjoying a period of great economic growth. We could be said to be victims of that success, because traffic congestion and the level of car ownership have increased greatly. It is essential that several approaches are taken to reduce that congestion and to give my constituents and others choices between modern public transport systems. That would encourage a shift from the private car.
Any discussion about support for a heavy rail option is premature in advance of the feasibility study, which will be published in September, but we can scope out the options that should be covered. I raised the matter several times with Sarah Boyack when she was the minister responsible for transport and I will meet Lewis Macdonald soon to discuss it and a range of transport issues that affect Edinburgh. I have also discussed the issue with the City of Edinburgh Council, Edinburgh airport's management, BAA and the Edinburgh and Lothians Tourist Board. Everyone supports the general principle, particularly as we are all keen on the continued expansion of routes into Edinburgh airport and on the city's economic growth.
Until recently, it was planned that the CERT light rail option would have a terminus at the airport, and people's comments were partly based on that plan. The fall of those proposals means that other options must be considered. Several options exist, but the status quo is not one of them. The motion covers two other options. An underground station at the airport would be the most attractive for integration into the existing network and would take passengers into the heart of the airport, but it could cost up to £300 million and would involve tunnelling under runways. Taking a spur from the east coast main line to Turnhouse for a bus link would be less expensive and is also possible. The reopening of Ratho station, which was closed in the 1960s, has also been suggested. Bristow Muldoon covered the loop suggestion.
I am delighted that we will shortly have a new station at Edinburgh Park, which is successful but highly congested. I have called for ScotRail to stop some Edinburgh-Glasgow trains there, to ease congestion and to serve the 15,000 people who work there and the thousands who drive to Glasgow each day from the west of Edinburgh.
Another option that should be examined is some kind of high-speed, light-rail link to Edinburgh Park. That would form a link to the new station and to the proposed west of Edinburgh guided busways scheme, or WEBS, which has just been given £6.5 million from the Executive's public transport fund.
It is essential that the study examine the engineering feasibility of all of those and other options as well as the financial viability and the opportunity costs of any scheme. If a scheme were to be funded by the Executive, the SRA or other sources, we would have to be sure that it represented the best use of scarce public resources in a way that improved the economic, environmental and transport situation for Edinburgh. Benefits of that nature could come from other potential schemes, including the electrification of the east coast line and the Borders rail link. All those options need to be examined to find the best-value option. Some of the suggestions that I have heard this evening need to be examined.
I am sure that, having had experience of Government, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton cannot expect the Executive to declare its intent tonight. That brings me to my final point, which is a question to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, who has been the local MP for Edinburgh West for more than two decades, in which we have had 18 years of Tory Government. If he is so supportive of the issue, and he believes that the option is the best use of anything up to £200 million of taxpayers' money, will he explain why Edinburgh has no rail link to its airport and why the city has no integrated transport system?
I thank Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for raising such an important issue. I also want to thank him on a personal level. In view of the fact that the chronic pain patients could not attend a debate on a Thursday evening, Lord James swapped with me. That was a gracious, consensual gesture on his part, for which I thank him.
In Edinburgh, and indeed in Glasgow, passengers arrive on the latest jets. They see the airport strewn with other beautiful jet-liners. They enter modern terminal buildings, of which we are proud. Suddenly, they emerge from the terminal buildings and it is as if they have left behind the jet set and find themselves back in the days of the Tiger Moth set. They search for a bus or they queue, very often in the rain and in very long queues, for a taxi. That is utterly and completely unacceptable, given that other small, regional airports in countries such as Canada and Ireland are well served by rail links. Everyone sees that the one essential link is a rail link and that without one we do down our tourist and business trade.
The subject of tonight's debate is one on which my colleague Sandra White has worked hard. She would have loved to be in the chamber for the debate, but could not, as she has a prior engagement.
From comments that I read in this afternoon's papers, I am glad that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton supports the case that is made by Glasgow for a rail link. Both cities need such a link, and they need it quite desperately. In Glasgow, we are trying to implement the north-south crossrail link. However, that scheme is approaching its 23rd anniversary—not an anniversary to celebrate—since it was first proposed in the greater Glasgow transportation study of the late 1960s. We are tired of talking—something should be implemented.
The Association of European Airlines study of 1997 agreed that rail links should be planned when an airport reached 2 million passengers and that one should be in operation by the time that an airport reached 3 million passengers. Glasgow airport has 6.84 million passengers—more than double the agreed figure, but still no rail link. When Stansted airport opened in 1991 it had 1.1 million passengers and Glasgow airport had over 4 million passengers. Over the past year or so, Stansted's passenger numbers have increased by 17 per cent, whereas Glasgow airport's figures have increased by only 2.2 per cent. We are shutting people out of our two major cities because of a lack of modern, town-to-airport transportation.
The £200 million for the Edinburgh rail link is peanuts in the railways business, particularly when we remember that billions, not millions, were spent to extend the rail link out to Greenwich so that people could go and admire that greater example of waste of taxpayers' money—the dome. Towards the end of construction, electricians were being paid £30 an hour to get it finished. I am afraid that the whole pattern shows, as usual, that the south is spoilt and that the north suffers unnecessary deprivation.
I congratulate Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on securing the debate. It would be a little churlish to follow Margaret Smith's example and wonder why he did not secure the rail link when he was the minister with responsibility for transport all those years ago.
I am slightly surprised to find that I am the only Fife member present for the debate, because the rail link has been the subject of discussion in Fife for many years and would be considerably important to the area. A direct rail link to the airport would have incredible economic benefits for Fife.
I find the absence of a station at the airport incomprehensible. I cannot think of any other country in the world that would allow a rail line to run past the end of a runway without building a station to let people get off and get on the planes. I pass that runway three or four times a week in both directions and find the situation amazing. Although I sometimes feel that I could touch the planes as they come down over the top of the trains, still the trains will not stop and let us off to use the planes.
It is absolute nonsense that, in order to get to the airport, people from Fife and other parts of the furth have to come all the way into Edinburgh and go all the way back out again. Moreover, that approach is not environmentally sensible, as it forces many people to drive to the airport instead of using public transport. For example, in a few weeks' time, I will be travelling to Dublin to represent the Parliament at a meeting of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body—indeed, you will be doing the same, Presiding Officer. As I will probably get an 8.50 am flight, I could leave my home and catch a train at Ladybank at about 7 o'clock. I might pass the airport at half-past 7 or a quarter to 8, but by the time I reach Haymarket and catch a bus back to the airport, I will be too late to check in. As a result, I will have to drive through—or someone will have to drive me through—from Fife that morning in order to catch an 8.50 am flight. That is absolute nonsense in this day and age. Why on earth does the train not simply stop at the airport to let me get off and catch my flight, which I would have plenty of time to do if there were a station? Environmentally, it makes more sense to have rail halts. I make a very strong plea that that halt should be on the Fife line, as it would benefit the east coast of Scotland, which does not have such a link.
Fife Regional Council called for a rail link for many years, and now Fife Council is doing the same. As I said, it would have strong economic benefits for us. Our growing financial sector needs those links to the international business sectors, and direct access to those links would greatly benefit Fife. For example, the electronics industry is based in the area, but has an international element that would benefit from access to those links.
Furthermore, tourism is very important to the Fife economy, particularly to my constituency, which is the home of golf. Many people want to fly to Scotland to play golf at St Andrews, and quite rightly so; however, they have to hire cars at the airport or travel into Edinburgh to travel back out to Fife. The St Andrews Bay golf resort and spa is a fabulous new facility that caters to the international conference market. It wants to attract people from all over the world to Scotland to hold their conferences. However, the lack of straightforward rail transport links from Edinburgh airport to St Andrews does not assist that process.
Of course, we must consider other issues. It is not a simple matter of building a platform at the end of the runway and saying, "That's our rail link". I accept that we have to bear in mind issues such as the routing of the service, the possible need for loops, line capacity and new signalling. However, surely in this day and age we can have a rail halt at the end of a runway and allow people to get to the airport.
There is increased availability of budget flights from Edinburgh airport—that is a growing market. Ryanair, easyJet and others are considering increasing the number of budget flights to a larger number of international destinations. Surely that should be backed by having good, cheap, efficient public transport links to the airport, so that all of us can take advantage of those budget flights, and not just those who have the time and money either to drive to the airport or to go into Edinburgh and out again. Let us get on with this—we have been waiting for many years for a rail link and it is time that one was in place.
I congratulate Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on securing the debate. He has lobbied weekly to ensure that members attended and I wanted to support him. Like Margaret Smith and Iain Smith, I find that when I listen to Lord James not only do I forget that he was transport minister and part of the Government in Scotland, I sometimes forget that he is a Tory party member. Perhaps David McLetchie will balance up the Tory benches tonight and remind us of the true face of the Conservative party in Scotland.
I agree with Bristow Muldoon that the motion is a good one. However, like other members on the Labour benches, I disagree with what it says about Railtrack. I watched the progress of the west coast main line project, and as every month went by we could add another billion pounds to the price tag. Something had to be done to ensure that we sorted out the problem of rail investment in the UK. The Government was committed to ploughing billions into the railways. We needed to ensure that we got value for money. I have that minor disagreement with the motion, but I strongly agree with its sentiment and spirit.
A mix of public and private investment is critical. I would disagree with ruling out the possibility of funding from the City of Edinburgh Council's plans for congestion charging. It is early days yet, and politicians throughout Edinburgh must consider and debate that when the city council introduces congestion charging. It is premature to rule out such funding at this stage. We are playing catch-up on railway investment in Scotland. We have moved a long way from a Government that avoided investment, kept the railway ticking over and invested solely in roads. When we travel around the rest of Europe, we are supremely jealous because both national capitals and regional areas have superb airport and railway infrastructures. We have to catch up, which is why we need to ensure that this project is on the list of the Government's objectives.
I was disappointed to hear Kenny MacAskill's comments. His was a bit of recycled speech—we have heard it previously in the chamber. However, I would agree with his saying that Edinburgh airport is a driver of the Edinburgh economy. The problem, as Margaret Smith said, is that without the proper public transport infrastructure, we set back economic development to the west of the city. We must ensure that we have high-quality public transport that provides people with a real alternative to taking their cars and parking them in the airport car park for days on end. It is important for the economy and the environment of our area.
Bristow Muldoon was right that we must make possible maximum access to the airport. It is tantalising that, when the railway passes the airport, the line goes just past the edge of the runway. Getting the right route will be critical. I ask ministers to update us on the progress that they have made with the research on railway access to the airport, which was commissioned by the previous transport minister in Scotland. It must be about time that we had the outcome of that study. I cannot remember exactly when it was due, but it must be pretty soon.
It is important that we do not think only about airport access. We must consider the regional context: the east of Scotland and the Lothians area will need a mix of light and heavy rail and Edinburgh will need a package. As a constituency MSP, I strongly believe that investment in Waverley and Haymarket is critical. We must upgrade access to the whole railway network in the east. There has already been great progress in Edinburgh, and the work with the council and the Executive should be applauded. Crossrail will open shortly, as will the new stations at Brunstane, Newcraighall in Susan Deacon's constituency, and the Gyle. The next stage will be a requirement for significant expenditure, not only by the public sector—there are major opportunities for the private sector. From that point of view, I strongly agree with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's motion, which refers to the critical imperative of having public-private partnerships to get us much-needed investment.
I ask the ministers to give us a reassurance that they will prioritise the airport link. If we are going to get railways moving in Scotland, it will need ministerial action and the ministers' commitment to develop the link as part of a wider, radical package of investment in railways in the Lothians and the east of Scotland. We can see the opportunities that are close to us. However, we need to ensure that we get to the stage of having an agreed plan and an agreed opportunity for private investors to put money into what would be an exciting and radical investment, not only for the next few years, but for the next couple of decades. We desperately need that in the east of Scotland and I hope that the ministers will give us their broad support for that. I do not expect an announcement at an end-of-day debate, but an indication of how we are moving ahead would be most welcome.
I am glad that Iain Smith was in the chamber to speak up for Fife and that Dorothy-Grace Elder was here to speak up for the west coast. I see no Borders MSP here today, so, as a life member of the Campaign for Borders Rail, I feel that I should put in a word about that issue in a minute.
Dorothy-Grace Elder said that £200 million was peanuts for the rail system, but a huge amount could be achieved with such a sum, including—if the figures that I have are correct—putting in the Borders rail link and the Edinburgh loop. There would be money left over to extend the Borders rail a little bit further towards Carlisle. I remember once saying "Carlisle or bust" in the chamber. Some money would also be left over for the Edinburgh link.
I have listened carefully to the debate. I am sorry that I missed Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's speech. I was working in my office and was unaware that the previous debate finished early. However, from other members' reflections on what Lord James said, I am clear—I agree with Ms Sarah Boyack on this—that we cannot turn down on a point of principle any income stream for developing our rail network. We must not forget that we built the world's first big rail network. That was done entirely on private finance by such rail companies as the old Great Northern Railway and the London and North Eastern Railway. The railways were privately run until they were nationalised.
The airport links must be viewed in the context of an overall rail strategy for all Scotland and not just for Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness. They must be based on economic growth and on the tourism principles that have been enunciated. There are huge possibilities for train tourism, if only we committed ourselves to the idea of developing it.
I regularly travel up to Inverness and Aberdeen by train. There is one consolation for the length of the journey, which is that if one travels at weekends one can go into business class for £1.50 and do some work. That is a pleasant experience, if one can get into business class.
We have such a beautiful country that there are tourism possibilities through the airport rail links and through an overall development of and investment in the Borders rail and the upgrading of the Inverness and west Highlands lines. That development must be part of a package that includes the airport links. As well as the more apparent and necessary gains that would accrue for people such as Iain Smith from such links, there would be gains for people from Fife and for people closer to the airports in terms of their access to business trips and to holidays. Let us have the airport links within an integrated rail strategy for Scotland.
Thank you. I am not sure how many times Robin Harper has spent that £200 million. I now call the minister to respond to the debate.
I start by thanking Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for raising the issue in his usual constructive way. The debate has been useful. It is clear that there is broad agreement across the chamber, if not on the precise detail of everything in the motion, certainly on the essential objectives, which I think we share.
Robin Harper spoke about setting a context. The context is clearly that the Executive is committed to developing an integrated transport strategy that includes rail. We want a railway network that is safe, accessible and larger—it should serve more people than it currently does. We want a railway system that supports economic development, meets social needs and meets the environmental objectives that we have set ourselves and those that we have agreed to under the Kyoto agreement and other international agreements. Developing rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports can be an important part of that. That is why we, along with other stakeholders, have commissioned a major study to look at what might be done at each airport.
That is part of a much wider process that will address the continuing and anticipated growth in the demand for air transport across the UK over the next 30 years. Edinburgh airport is growing faster than any other UK airport, with the exception of Stansted, which has been mentioned a couple of times today. In 2001, Edinburgh handled more than 6 million passengers. If that growth is to be sustained, effective surface access links will be required. The study that we have commissioned is a central part of that process. Glasgow airport is growing as well. It handles more than 7 million passengers every year and remains Scotland's largest airport. It is also the main airport serving the North American and leisure markets.
In relation to both airports, the case for the construction of rail links is not only about promoting public transport and tackling congestion, but part of the wider approach to air transport that the Scottish Executive and the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions are taking in order to achieve an aviation strategy for the next 20 to 30 years.
It is vital that access to our airports is improved to ensure better accessibility to and from airports not only for passengers but for employees, who can occasionally be overlooked in this debate. Improved access would also promote employment opportunities through the continued growth of airports, which would bring economic benefits for the airport and the wider community and would reduce road congestion, accidents and the environmental impacts of road traffic. Those objectives are all part of our wider transport priorities.
That is why the consultants are undertaking a detailed economic and engineering study into rail links to both airports. They will examine options for linking Glasgow and Edinburgh airports to the Scottish rail network and to each other. The study will establish the likely demand for such links and the costs of putting rail links in place. It will also include recommendations about funding and procurement options.
We are at a detailed and practical stage in the advancement of the potential projects. Sarah Boyack asked how the plans fitted in with the wider progress of study in these areas. The scoping study that was undertaken at the end of 2000 produced a set of proposals that have formed the basis of the current study. The consultants have identified a large number of options for each airport. They will consider light rail as well as heavy rail options.
The consultants' final report is expected in the autumn. It will examine in detail the two best options for each airport, which we will measure against our five objectives for transport investment: the environment; safety; economy; integration; and accessibility. The report will also include the issue that was raised by Iain Smith, Sarah Boyack and a number of other members about the best stops on the line and the best links into local networks and the national network.
I know that recent press reports have suggested that the Executive has already decided to express a preference for the construction of a link to Edinburgh airport rather than to Glasgow airport. I will take the opportunity that this debate offers me to say that that is not the case. Our consultants have been asked to identify preferred options for a rail link to each airport. It is too early to say what will emerge from the study. I stress that we have no preconceived view on what the outcome should be.
The press have also speculated that we have funding in place for the Edinburgh link. That is premature speculation. We have yet to establish a reliable and robust estimate of the likely costs of the projects. That part of the study will not be concluded until the middle of 2002. It is too early at this stage to say what the global costs are likely to be or to specify how those costs should be met.
The reassurance on funding at this stage is to remind members that, as Bristow Muldoon said, the SRA is a key partner. It has identified three major priorities within the Scottish rail network; rail links to airports are one of those priorities. Indeed, last month Wendy Alexander met Richard Bowker, the chairman of the SRA, and agreed those priorities. As has been said, Glasgow and Edinburgh airports are the two largest airports in the United Kingdom that do not have such a dedicated link. The SRA recognised that matter as a priority and it is clearly also a priority for us.
However, new rail schemes do not appear overnight, whether the ones that we are discussing or others to which reference has been made in the debate. A great deal of forethought and planning has to go into taking forward such projects. Our consultants have much to do before they can give us a final and informed view on the best way forward.
In response to the points that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton made, it is important to say that the Executive and the SRA will take a lead in the public funding aspects of the project. However, we will also look to private sector partners—BAA Scottish Airports clearly has an interest as the owner of the airports. There are also other potential private sector partners.
Local government also has an interest and a role to play. The City of Edinburgh Council and Renfrewshire Council, as the planning authorities for the respective airports, will have a vital role in the delivery of the projects. There will be a requirement for parliamentary powers, for example; those will be sought by the sponsors of the project rather than necessarily by Scottish ministers. The railway companies, Strathclyde Passenger Transport in the west of Scotland and local government have a role. We have sought to engage all those stakeholders in a number of consultation workshops; indeed, a number of workshops are planned over the next three or four months to assess demand and to make the economic case.
Although it is too early to say definitively which options will be taken forward or to be specific about the likely cost and sources of funding, we recognise that, as many members have said, it is important that we maintain our present momentum and the drive to take those projects to completion.
I hope that local authorities will be in a position to respond positively to the outcome of the study with a view to seeking parliamentary powers from the chamber at the earliest opportunity. Members will be aware that, over the next few months, we intend to complete the devolution settlement with regard to railways and to bring to this Parliament the power to initiate the construction and development of railways within Scotland.
Assuming that local authorities will be in a position to respond to the study and to come to the Parliament to obtain the parliamentary powers, we could be in a position to move forward to design and construction as early as 2005. We recognise that that is an ambitious timetable, but it is achievable if all else falls into place, as we hope it will. We will certainly play our part in taking forward that timetable. I look forward to the contribution that those projects can make to achieving a bigger, better and safer transport network for Scotland and I look forward to the continuing support of all sides in achieving that objective.
Meeting closed at 17:33.