Air Links
We have two debates this afternoon, the first of which is on Scotland's air links. Both debates are on Scottish National Party time. I ask members who want to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons, because we are oversubscribed and tight for time.
It goes without saying that aviation is vital to Scotland. Affordable and accessible air links are vital for a nation that is geographically distant from its markets and which contains numerous communities that are distant and isolated from the country's social and economic centres.
Aviation is no longer a luxury for the rich; rather, it is vital internally and externally. Externally, aviation is the method by which we can make our country easily and cheaply accessible to visiting tourists. Conversely, it the method by which we can provide for our businessmen and businesswomen convenient and affordable access to foreign trade markets. Internally, aviation is the method by which our more distant communities and islands can be integrated into the social and economic main stream. Aviation is one area in which central Government can ensure that there is no rural surcharge and that, irrespective of people's geographic location, they have the opportunity to partake in the fruits of our society.
What is the present situation? Internally, our links are poor and expensive. Externally, the situation is much the same, notwithstanding some recent turnaround as a result of the growth of low-cost carriers, particularly at Glasgow Prestwick International Airport, but also elsewhere. In comparison with other countries such as Ireland, France or the Scandinavian nations, we underperform badly on internal and external air links. As I said last week, it appears that the Irish Government cares more about the people of Derry—which is not even within the boundaries of the Republic of Ireland—than the Lib-Lab Executive cares about the people of the Highlands and Islands, which are within our national boundaries. That is how the matter appears if one considers the funding of public service obligations for connections to those communities.
I read Mr MacAskill's press release on that subject last week. Will he inform members of the cost of the subsidy for the route from Derry to Dublin? Has he estimated the cost of a subsidy on equivalent internal Scottish routes?
The cost should be well known to Mr Macdonald because, besides operating the Derry to Dublin route, Loganair Ltd also operates three routes in Scotland, which are funded by the minister's colleagues' department south of the border. We must move from subsidising airports to subsidising air services.
Why are we in the situation that I described? The first reason is the structure of the system. Who owns and operates our airports? Who is in charge of aviation policy? Who controls the purse strings? In each of those respects, there is a problem that must be rectified.
I do not want to concentrate on the central belt; there will be other opportunities for that. Parliament does not often meet in the north so it is appropriate that we concentrate on Aberdeen airport and on Inverness and the other airports that are owned by Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.
It would be remiss of me not to mention at least the situation elsewhere in Scotland. Prestwick airport has been a success story, albeit on the back of a particular carrier. Elsewhere, Scottish Airports Ltd owns Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen airports. That company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Airports Authority, which owns London Heathrow, London Gatwick and London Stansted airports. Scottish Airports denies that it acts as a funnel to channel people to the airports that are owned by its parent company. That denial might be true, but Glasgow airport is in decline, Aberdeen airport is stagnating and the growth at Edinburgh airport is not so much in new routes, but in more flights to London. Some of that is because of the growth in low-cost carriers, but much of it is because of the debacle on our rail networks.
There is a private monopoly that is not working in the best interests of Scotland. More than 87.5 per cent of air journeys in Scotland are operated through BAA airports. That is a private monopoly that must be addressed. Edinburgh and Glasgow airports must and can do better. Comparable airports in Dublin, Copenhagen and Stockholm all do better. Does anybody seriously believe that Dublin airport would have more direct services if it were owned by BAA? We need action, not spin, from BAA.
Let us consider Aberdeen airport, where a new service to Dublin is being operated by Ryanair. I welcome that. Indeed, I flew here on that service. However, that is one of the few routes that has been opened and developed. If Aberdeen airport is to grow, expand and interact in the global economy, there must be connections to Brussels, Frankfurt and elsewhere. BAA has opened more new shopping lets than new routes this year. Over recent years, it has developed more BAA McArthurGlen shopping malls on the European continent than direct services from Aberdeen to the continent. Aberdeen and Scotland deserve an airport operator, not a retail developer.
So much for Aberdeen, but what about Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd? That is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Scottish Executive. It has been described by the finance director of Ryanair—a company that has higher share capitalisation than British Airways—as inept and incompetent. It currently levies some of the highest landing charges in Europe.
As Mr MacAskill is interested in the cost of travel in the Highlands and Islands, does he acknowledge that £9.39 is the cost that HIAL accords to each ticket? The cost of the tickets is the issue—nothing else.
That is part of the problem. However, there is a fundamental structural issue. How did we get into the calamitous situation that we are in over the private finance initiative? Why is there not more get up and go? Why can Teesside International Airport Ltd deliver far more than Inverness airport? Airport operators—including those at Teesside airport—say that they would rather operate an airport such as Inverness airport than operate Teesside airport, because Inverness has far more going for it. Inverness airport is underperforming.
I would have thought that the distance that people have to travel to get to an airport would have resulted in a reduction in charges as an incentive, but apparently that is not the case. Inverness has some of the highest landing charges in Europe. The problem is not simply the additional tax that has been imposed by Westminster, but the landing charges that are imposed by the Scottish Executive. HIAL and the Lib-Lab Executive use the same excuse in the development of aviation as they use in the development of our nation: "We're too small. We cannae dae it."
Surprisingly, Ryanair has offered to fly into Inverness and Stornoway and to guarantee the route and the fares for 10 years. A company in Ireland has more get up and go and more faith in the economy of the Highlands and Islands than the Scottish Executive has. The Executive must sort out the debacle of landing charges and get Ryanair and other low-cost operators in.
Although easyJet operates in Scotland at the moment, it will not expand its services because of exorbitant landing charges. The time for excuses is past and the time for action has arrived. The Executive should bring the landing charges down and get the low-cost carriers in. The tourism industry needs them and the people of the Highlands and Islands want them.
It is obvious that there are routes within HIAL's operation that are used too little to be profitable. They require Government support and assistance. The Irish Government provides such support for Derry, although it is not within its national boundaries. They also provide support for Kerry, Sligo and other communities. The French provide similar support for Corsica and for other places in mainland France. The Scandinavians provide it as a matter of course.
The Executive is embarking on a renegotiation of the ScotRail franchise. It will consider routes, timetables and fares. In the north, where rail is not an option in many instances, we must do the same. We must create the routes, decide on the type of aircraft and the standard and frequency of the services, and—most important—set the level of fare to be charged. We do that for rail in the central belt; we must do it for aviation in the north and the islands. It is a similar issue; it is a matter of having the will to deliver.
We must recognise the importance of aviation to social and economic development in the north of Scotland. The Government is pivotal in that and must take charge and act. The Government controls and decides on the motorways and highways in Scotland. The SNP argues that we should take similar charge of rail; the same argument applies to taking charge of aviation. If that does not happen, we will remain simply a channel down to London Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted.
There should be no more flying cap in hand to London asking for a PSO. We should decide our air routes and their frequency and cost. Comparable European nations manage to do that and to deliver internal and external air services that are suitable for their people, their tourism industries and their business sectors. We fail to do so because our Lib-Lab Executive and the British Government let us down.
Action must also be taken in Inverness and Aberdeen airports. They are underperforming and must do better for their communities and for Scotland. As I said at the outset, air links are not a luxury but a necessity. The time for excuses has passed; the time for action has arrived. The minister must deliver for Inverness and act on Aberdeen. Our people are entitled to no less and deserve far more. The Lib-Lab Executive's double whammy of high landing charges and low subsidies must end. Change or be changed at the next election.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of air links to, from and within Scotland for social and economic development; notes with concern the current situation within Scotland and, in particular, in the north of Scotland of poor international connections and high internal air fares; further notes with concern the high landing charges imposed both at British Airports Authority and Highlands and Islands Airports Limited airports and calls for action to be taken for these charges to be reduced and the competitiveness of the airports increased, and calls for all aviation matters to be devolved to the Parliament, for the Scottish Executive to establish a route development fund to assist the development of direct routes to and from Scottish airports, and for action to be taken regarding the terms of the Highlands and Islands Strategic Transport Partnership report into the creation of more public service obligations allowing affordable and accessible air links within Scotland.
I was rather hoping to be able to welcome Kenny MacAskill back down to earth but, sadly, that was perhaps too much to hope. Anyone who chooses to spend seven and a quarter hours travelling from Edinburgh to Aberdeen by flying around the North sea is clearly not making the same travel choices as other members and the general public face daily.
Can the minister justify that time of seven and quarter hours?
I certainly can. It is from the calculation of the routes that I understand that Mr MacAskill followed. [Interruption.] Of course, should he wish to demonstrate that that was not the case, I look forward to him doing so when he responds later—or he can do so just now.
I departed on the 8.25 from Edinburgh and arrived in Dublin at 9.25. I had a courteous meeting with Ryanair's communications officer. I got the 11.50 and arrived at Aberdeen airport at 12.50. If the minister calculates that to be in excess of seven hours, he requires to work on his mental arithmetic.
I have to concede that Kenny MacAskill's speed of travel was greater than we expected. Sadly, the speed of development of his rhetoric has not improved. [Interruption.]
Order.
In fact, what we heard in his opening speech was simply a repetition of the same tired old demands and claims that we have heard before. Of course, what Kenny MacAskill has again failed to recognise is the significant success in air transport development in Scotland over the past 40 years. We have an air transport system that was once not accessible to the general population, but now is. Also, despite external events, that system continues to develop within Scotland. The growth of air transport has had a fundamental and positive impact on Scotland's perception of the rest of the world and has contributed to the outside world's perception of Scotland.
I remind the Scottish National Party that in the past year Scotland's airports showed a 7 per cent growth in passenger travel. At the same time, London airports showed a fall of 3.5 per cent. I add that those figures were carefully audited before they were brought to the chamber.
Of course, air travel is not the only way to travel. However, air links are hard to beat for speed and accessibility. Our well-developed internal air network is unique in the United Kingdom context.
Will the minister give way?
I shall certainly do so in a moment.
Air services provide vital links over long distances and are also vital in maintaining the economic and social fabric of our Highlands and Islands communities by preventing population decline and outward migration.
The minister is right that people welcome the fact that they can now travel to all sorts of places in the world. However, does he share my regret that if we want to travel anywhere in the world, we must travel first to London? The fact that we must travel via London to get anywhere else is a continual complaint of business people in this area.
There are many direct routes from Scotland to points on the continent, such as Norway, Belgium, France and so on. Of course, the Executive will address the issue of direct routes in the coming period. There is no need to travel from Scottish airports to London, but there are routes that go along that road. New routes will be developed that exclude that requirement.
Scotland is not an insular nation and we have long recognised that, to develop our full potential, we need to have access to the wider world and to be accessible directly from beyond our borders. There is no doubt that the overall market for air services to and from Scotland will continue to grow substantially during the next few years. We recognise the challenges that that will produce. We recognise the fact that we need to produce policies that will maximise the benefits of air transport to Scotland, to Scottish business, to tourism and local and national economies and which do not favour one part of Scotland, one airport or one airline over another. They must also meet the needs of the Scottish people in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way.
The domestic aviation market in the United Kingdom is a mature market and Scotland has had to work in that context in order to attract new direct international services.
What is the status of the application of the public service obligation to secure the Inverness to Gatwick route?
We have put forward the public service obligation submission for the Inverness to Gatwick route. I want to deal with that in the context of Kenny MacAskill's motion. Kenny MacAskill asks us to move our policy from support for airports to support for airlines and direct routes. That would leave us with a choice between sustaining our existing policy of support for lifeline air services or developing support for commercial development.
Working with our colleagues in the UK Government, we will consult during the coming period and publish a consultation document in the summer that will seek views on a range of policy scenarios, including the development of direct routes and the public service obligation system. We intend to pursue an inclusive consultation that will allow access and ideas to be produced by the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership and others who have made proposals.
We will base our decisions on realistic assessment of what is in Scotland's national interest. On that basis, we look forward to meeting the challenge of developing air services in the years ahead.
I move amendment S1M-3154.3, to leave out from "the importance" to end and insert:
"the substantial and on-going contribution by the Executive and its agencies to the maintenance and development of air links serving Scotland; believes that the best way to develop more international services is through a strategic framework which gives priority to those routes which are best for the Scottish economy; recognises that passenger numbers through Scottish airports are continuing to increase substantially, and notes the publication of the recent report by the Highlands and Islands Strategic Transport Partnership and looks forward to the forthcoming publication of the Scottish Air Transport Consultation Document which will provide a full and inclusive opportunity to comment on the development of aviation policies for Scotland, within the context of the UK consultation led by Her Majesty's Government including the use of public service obligations and the cost of air travel."
As a positive backdrop to the debate, we have the news that UK transport matters will no longer be in the hands of Stephen Byers. I hope that we will now be able to focus on important issues rather than on the constant saving of Mr Byers's neck. It is interesting that a Scottish MP has been appointed to a position that largely relates to England and Wales. In due course that will give Scottish Conservative MPs greater career prospects.
It is also interesting that the SNP raises the issue of air links as, of all the issues relating to transport, recent events have shown air travel to be the one to which the independence of the nation is least relevant. I note that, in the usual pick-and-mix collection of countries that SNP members talked about, we heard nothing about Switzerland or the problems that have been associated with that small country's airline, Swissair.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sure that Mr Stevenson is an expert on Swiss airlines, but I do not want to take an intervention from him at this stage.
A benefit of meeting in Aberdeen is that we have seen how it has been possible to develop services at Aberdeen airport, where easyJet and Ryanair offer low-cost flights. Effective and functional transport links for all Scotland are important so that we can move people and business. However, they must be set in the context of an overall transport strategy.
Issues with transport links are one reason for the difficulties with developing Glasgow airport and Aberdeen airport. Unless those issues are resolved as part of an overall plan, the development that is required will not take place. All the studies from business and other sources identify the problem with Glasgow airport as the perceived difficulty of getting there. We must resolve that in the wider context of air transport policy. We must consider, as is done for marketing purposes, whom exactly the flights are aimed at, what the services are and the contrast between business services and services for those who are not so driven by timetables and other requirements.
As one who used to fly from Glasgow airport to London at least once a week, I believe that one of the main problems with air transport policy was an obsession with direct flights to the United States. The eye was taken off the ball of flights into Europe. Although the extra 90 minutes—or however long the required transfer time is now—at Heathrow or any other hub airport added little to a journey to the United States, it was a significant delay indeed when going to major European centres.
Will Mr Mundell give way?
No, he is in his last minute.
I am disappointed that I cannot take Mr Stevenson's intervention, but I am sure that we will exchange views later in the debate.
The Conservatives want competition to develop in the United Kingdom airline industry and market, but we also want essential services to be maintained. An issue that was raised at the Transport and the Environment Committee was that we must be able to ensure effective use of aircraft and to deal with the numbers of people who use them. It is all right for Kenny MacAskill to cite Teesside airport, for instance, but it has a significantly larger catchment area on which to draw.
What about Reykjavik?
Reykjavik is in Iceland, which is an island. [Interruption.]
Order. You must wind up, Mr Mundell.
My amendment seeks to ensure that the UK has a competitive environment but is willing to consider realistic ways of providing the essential services that are required throughout rural Scotland.
I move amendment S1M-3154.2, to leave out from ", in particular" to end and insert:
"calls upon the Scottish Executive to work with Her Majesty's Government to develop a strategy for ensuring that essential services are provided within a competitive environment that allows low cost airlines to prosper and deliver new and cheaper services."
I will make a few points that relate to the Highlands and Islands. I am the member for Shetland, where air services are somewhat important. I begin with the observation that seven and a quarter hours is not a unique length of delay because of transport difficulties for my constituents—nor, I suspect, for those in the other island groups around the coast of Scotland.
I welcome the SNP debate on the subject, but I do not welcome the SNP's approach, which tends to carp about problems rather than provide some balance. Links to mainland Europe exist. For example, KLM uk flies from Aberdeen to Amsterdam. Of course those links are not enough and business and other interests would like more such links. Business people who speak to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, for example, make that point repeatedly and I accept that argument. We must find ways to encourage those developments. To say that there are no links, as has been suggested from the SNP side, does not help in a debate on what are complex issues, which also relate to the structure of the companies concerned and to how best we can attract them.
I agree that it is wonderful that there is a flight from Aberdeen to Amsterdam, but I highlight the practical difficulty of getting to the airport in the morning to catch that flight. Because of the state of the road, one has to allow two and a half hours to get from Elgin to Aberdeen airport for an early morning flight. It is all very well to say that we have the direct flight, but we cannot use it.
I am sure that Mr Macdonald, as minister with responsibility for transport, will have heard that point.
It is simplistic to say that low-cost carriers provide the solution for the Highlands and Islands, as the issues are more complex. Apart from anything else, we cannot rely on a Boeing 737-800 to get into Sumburgh, and it cannot be landed at many of the airports in the HIAL network. Low-cost carriers operate on the basis of one type of plane, one engineering need, one set of spare parts and so on. That is their raison d'être and that is how they operate.
Furthermore, we have seen what can happen to low-cost carriers: Go and easyJet have already merged. Decisions on international links have to take account of 11 September—I cite the demise of Sabena. Those are important issues, and we should find ways of improving services in the Highlands and Islands.
Does the member agree that the private finance initiative for the new terminal at Inverness airport has been an abject disaster, and that the trigger mechanism for payment to the financiers is a disincentive to increasing the passenger throughput? That is one of the reasons why HIAL squeals that it is unable to offer Ryanair the deal that it seeks. Does the member accept that that PFI was a mistake, and that whoever carried it out needs their head examined as far as airport operation is concerned?
I am sure that Audit Scotland will review the operation of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd—as it does on a statutory basis. If it finds faults, I hope that the lessons will be learned. We should consider such issues in detail, however, rather than commenting on them from a position of complete ignorance.
The lifeline services on which some parts of Scotland, such as Shetland, rely are extremely important not just for business travel but for domestic travel and for patients. Patients from Shetland have to fly down to Aberdeen to attend Aberdeen royal infirmary at Foresterhill and the range of services that are available here.
My chief concern is that about £1.4 million of Shetland NHS Board's money is spent every year on flying people to and from the islands by British Airways. Although that is a necessity, I cannot believe—and have always struggled with the thought—that British Airways cannot provide a cheaper option for that block booking, which has to be made and which costs the health board, and therefore the Government, a very large amount of money.
There are arguments around public service obligations, and I am pleased that the minister has recognised them in his amendment. I recognise—unlike the SNP—that money does not grow on trees and that to win the argument I have to argue for spending in competition with other spending priorities in Mr Gray's budget. I accept that reality. There are good arguments in the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership's report why PSOs may be appropriate, and I hope that the minister will find time to consider them carefully.
A recent story in Business a.m. indicated that the Executive was in discussions with a business that had offered to provide management services to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. I hope that the minister will comment on that in his winding-up speech, particularly in light of recent decisions concerning Sumburgh.
We come to back-bench speeches. There is no chance of getting everybody in so I call for tight timing, with speeches of four minutes apiece.
It is well known that travelling to some of the Scottish islands costs about as much as travelling to the continent of America. There has been a great deal of publicity about that recently, and members of all parties will agree that the position is unacceptable and intolerable. The question is how we tackle it. Part, but not all, of the answer is to tackle landing charges. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the minister will say that he will take measures to reduce landing charges.
I have met Bob MacLeod of HIAL and it is important to stress that we should not be shooting the messenger: HIAL relies entirely on the Scottish Executive. It is the Scottish Executive that can, if it wishes, help HIAL to take action to ensure that we do not lose opportunities such as those that are presented by Ryanair and other low-cost carriers, which, after 11 September, are making the running in international aviation.
The Executive has a role to play. I hope that the minister, in closing, will acknowledge that for several months he has had the precise costings of what would be required to give people in the Highlands and Islands the benefit of those low-cost routes. When did he get the costings and what will he do about them?
My main remarks are about the public service obligation for the Inverness to Gatwick air link. The campaign for that is broadly based and I think that every party supports it. The Scottish Executive, Simon Cole-Hamilton of Inverness and District Chamber of Commerce, Ewen Gabriel of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the Forum of Private Business and the Federation of Small Businesses all support it. The business community, the tourism industry and ordinary travellers all support it. The application for the PSO was submitted because slots at Gatwick and Heathrow are entirely in the airlines' control.
In 1997, British Airways announced unilaterally that it was going to cancel the Inverness to Heathrow route without any consultation. Many aviation experts fear that that could happen to the Inverness to Gatwick service tomorrow. It is perhaps more likely that the airlines will shift the slots so that they are at times that are totally impractical and inconvenient for travellers coming from America and Canada. That would have the same effect as the disappearance of the slots altogether.
The campaign has had the broadest base of support of any campaign that I can recall in the Parliament. The application was submitted last autumn, to Westminster, unfortunately. However the Westminster minister has now gone and Alistair Darling has replaced him. Time will tell whether he is like Captain Darling from "Blackadder" or whether he has more independence of mind.
The application has been at Westminster since last autumn. In January, David Jamieson said that a decision would be made as soon as practicable. A letter to me in March stated that it would be made as soon as possible. I have had two further letters, which said that the decision would be made soon and shortly. When are soon and shortly going to arrive? Will the delay last as long as the delay in the resignation of the former Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions?
I hope that I am not taking up too much time. Lewis Macdonald said something extremely worrying today—that no decision would be made on the PSO until after the consultation to which he referred in his speech and to which his amendment refers. If no PSO decision is to be made until some unspecified date, it will be a matter of great concern. I see the minister shaking his head. In response to my intervention, he did not say what Westminster is going to do about the PSO. Will Westminster turn it down and blame it on Europe? If so, will he tell me why PSOs cover 30 per cent of the slots at Charles de Gaulle airport, but no slots at Heathrow or Gatwick?
The member has to wind up now.
I will do so. To sum up, the campaign has the support of everybody. It has not been conducted on a party-political basis. I hope that the minister will divulge what discussions he has had with his new counterpart and his former counterpart in Westminster to say how he is fighting for the people of the Highlands and Islands.
I reinforce and associate myself with the comments that my fellow island MSP Tavish Scott made in his speech. I noted with interest Fergus Ewing's passing interest in matters that relate to the Highlands and Islands. I say to Mr Ewing and the other nationalists who continue to denigrate committed public servants that if they lived in the Highlands and Islands they might be better placed to comment on issues that relate to the area.
The development of air transport in Scotland has been spectacular. Air transport was in its infancy 40 years ago and it was certainly not easily accessible to the majority of the population. Today, despite external events, the sector in Scotland is vibrant and continues to develop. As the minister rightly said, aviation has broken down social and economic barriers.
I welcome the opportunity to put some facts on the record about the Highlands and Islands and about travelling from an island to the mainland. We have been subjected to Mr MacAskill's ramblings over the past few months and his ideologically confused theme continues today. As far as the Highlands is concerned, the Scottish National Party gives unconditional backing to one private business by condemning and undermining the public sector. We have the usual MacAskill recipe—unlimited sums of money and not a word about where the money should come from.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will just continue. It is worth putting on the record that support for Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd is at a record level. In the current financial year, it sits at £21.5 million, which represents a threefold increase since 1997.
The nationalists would do well to inform themselves before they stride into the debate. HIAL does not set air fares. Airport charges, which on average are £10 per passenger, are not the main determinant of air fares. In such a low-capacity market, other operating costs are the major driver for airlines. David Mundell was correct to highlight that. Examples of other costs are aircraft costs, wages and fuel.
Will the member give way?
I will continue. As an MSP for an island constituency, I know that reliable and affordable air links are important for the delivery of goods and services and for the stimulation of economic activity.
I was delighted that British Airways, the main carrier to the Western Isles, last week announced that it was offering cheaper flights between Aberdeen and London and between Glasgow and London. The company is doing that in response to the calamitous financial situation that it has faced since September 11. I urge Lewis Macdonald to reinforce the clear message that the First Minister gave to British Airways when he opened the Stornoway terminal two months ago. He urged British Airways to widen the availability of cheaper tickets and not only to make that excellent scheme available for the airports of Glasgow and Aberdeen, but to extend it to the Highlands and Islands, without the weekend condition.
Air links within the Highlands and Islands are developing. In my constituency, there are three airports with well-developed links with the mainland. I urge the minister to raise the issue of widening the availability of cheaper tickets with British Airways as a matter of urgency.
Duncan Hamilton will be followed by Robin Harper.
Listening to Alasdair Morrison's speech, one would swear—
I beg your pardon—Robin Harper appears not to be here. Please continue and I will find a different speaker to follow you. I am sorry to interrupt.
Alasdair Morrison suggested that the Western Isles were somehow in good shape and that the people whom he represents are happy with the situation. I refer him to last week's Stornoway Gazette, in which the headline on the comment page was "Let's have action on air fares". The relevant editorial ended:
"You too Mr McConnell, as First Minister, have a responsibility to these islands. Forget the talking—let's have action."
The Stornoway Gazette is backing the calls for lower landing charges. The people of the Western Isles are telling the rest of us—I am sure that they are telling Mr Morrison—that the Executive simply cannot wash its hands of its responsibility.
Let us remember the depth of the injustice. The suggestion to the people of the Western Isles and the rest of the Highlands and Islands is that, uniquely, they should not have access to the low-cost budget airline services that the rest of the country and most of Europe have access to. Are those places so uniquely disadvantaged that they should be singled out for such treatment?
The fact that it costs the same to travel from Glasgow to Stornoway as it does to travel from Glasgow to Moscow is ludicrous. The fact that it costs £293 to get from Stornoway to Edinburgh is a disgrace. Fergus Ewing is right that we should land the blame where it deserves to land—on the Executive. Even though the Executive is the sole shareholder of HIAL, it has attempted to put the blame on the airlines. In the Western Isles, Jack McConnell suggested that the airlines should resolve the problem.
There are two reasons why the Executive should take a lead. First, any comparison of landing charges makes it obvious that Scotland has some of the highest landing charges in Europe. That is the Executive's responsibility. Direction from the Executive on that could make a material impact. Secondly, it is the responsibility of the Executive to take the lead on PSOs. There is no one-size-fits-all European policy. National Governments have massive discretion in deciding the routes on which they would like to have PSOs and on the conditions that would apply.
The minister's speech was deplorable. He asked whether we were asking for favours for one part of the country as opposed to another. I ask for favours on behalf of the Highlands and Islands and do so with a clear conscience. Such areas are naturally and intrinsically disadvantaged because of distance, remoteness and rurality; they need the additional supplement. PSOs exist to help such areas, so there is no logic in the idea that it would be ludicrous to give a leg up to those areas.
Of course, the idea that we should extend PSOs has its opponents, not least Loganair and British Airways. They have said that they are against such a proposal because they want commercial flexibility. To the people in the Western Isles and in the Highlands and Islands, Loganair and BA's flexibility means the flexibility to keep putting the fares up without the responsibility of keeping them down below a certain ceiling.
There is a substantial human cost to the Executive's policy. When patients are taken off the islands, their relatives are subject to the highest possible fares if they need to go and visit them at short notice. The fares are highest at the point of maximum stress in the lives of those families. If the minister wished, he could implement a system whereby islanders had a particular exemption or reduction, but the minister chooses not to do so. The Executive could make that call, so the minister should not attempt to pass the responsibility to HIAL or to anyone else. The Executive should stand up and admit the decision that it has taken and stand up for what it thinks is correct.
Let us look at the cost of the policy for economic development and jobs. The Western Isles and the Highlands and Islands are losing population. Providing cheaper routes is the single greatest measure that the Executive could introduce to reverse that trend and encourage economic development by bringing back jobs and prosperity. That would reverse the decline that we have seen over the past 10, 20 or 30 years. The alternative is stagnation. If that is the minister's policy, I suspect that he will reap a grim reward at the election.
First, I would be grateful if later speakers from the Scottish National Party could develop their argument on landing charges. We are talking about a charge that is under £10. Even if HIAL went for the magic figure of a 50 per cent cut, the charge would still be little more than the price of a packet of fags or a gin and tonic on the plane. I cannot make the figures stack up in my mind. If the argument is to stick, we need more detail and less hot air from the nationalists.
The second hole that I want to pick in the nationalists' argument concerns the talk about Ryanair and HIAL. For those of us who have bothered to study the correspondence and have talked to HIAL, it is pretty evident that Ryanair is holding something of a loaded gun to HIAL's head with one minute's notice. It is worth remembering that HIAL is the custodian of public funding. In all my days, I have never seen quite such an intemperate letter as that which Ryanair wrote to HIAL. That needs to be said on the record in defence of what HIAL is trying to do. HIAL is a custodian of public money.
The language in the letter may have been intemperate, but does the member agree that it would have been wiser and more professional if HIAL had responded to that letter professionally and confidentially instead of taking it to the press and upping the ante?
First, HIAL has been in negotiations for months on the issue. Secondly, if we are to speculate on who took what to the press, I have my own thoughts on the matter.
Let us return to the real world by considering a constituency such as mine. I have used the Wick flight only once since being elected as an MSP because the timetable is unsuitable. Those of us who fly in and out of Inverness to and from Edinburgh know full well that we have two flights in the morning—the 5 to 8 flight and 5 to 9 flight. Neither flight is particularly convenient for getting to a committee meeting or indeed for getting to work in Edinburgh. For flying back in the evening, all flights leave too early to be of much use. I therefore suggest that the timetabling of the flights is as relevant as anything else for people who live in the Highlands. That is certainly the case if my postbag is anything to go by, as I have had as many letters on that issue as on any other.
I welcome the fact that Alistair Darling has been appointed in Westminster as the new Secretary of State for Transport. Being a good Scot, he may well work in co-ordination with Lewis Macdonald to further the good work that has already been done. It is worth remembering that there has been investment in the past. I was extremely grateful to Sarah Boyack for the investment that was made in Wick airport. We need to invest in airports.
The SNP line that the argument is all about airlines forgets the fact that we need airports; its approach would be the high road to hell for airports such as Wick and Stornoway, so I counsel caution on that.
I know that we are short of time, Presiding Officer, so I shall sit down in a second, but I press the SNP again to come clean on its argument about landing charges. At the moment, the landing charge is equivalent to the price of perhaps two packets of fags. In my mind, getting rid of the landing charge altogether would make little or no difference to the price of tickets.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate at a time when the number of air passengers in Scotland continues to rise and when the population of the Highlands and Islands continues to rise. Duncan Hamilton would know that if he spent more time in the area.
Will the member give way?
I want to get on, as I have much to say.
It is important to improve air services in my constituency. That was clearly shown when the Rural Development Committee visited Colonsay last week. There is an airstrip in Colonsay but there are no landing facilities in Oban, so there cannot be an Oban to Colonsay service. We must reconsider such issues to ensure that people on remote islands have access to air services. We must also consider lowering the cost of flying. I welcome Jack McConnell's recent comments and I am pleased that BA is examining its cost structures. I welcome today's investment by BAA of £60 million, which Kenny MacAskill completely ignored in his opening remarks.
The Scottish Executive has whole-heartedly supported the case for a PSO in Inverness. When we speak about PSOs, we have to be clear that the issue is not about adding more subsidy; it is about securing routes. The issue has to be examined closely and I welcome the consultation that Lewis Macdonald spoke about.
Many ordinary businesses in the Highlands are anxious to see the London route maintained and to have a PSO on it. They were pleased that Scotland Office ministers took time to meet representatives of the community to hear their concerns directly. It is important that we work with our Westminster colleagues on air travel. We must assess what we have already achieved and what we must now achieve.
The SNP motion talks about flights from Scotland, so it is strange that SNP members talk about devolving to the Scottish Parliament responsibility for all air travel. Their policies are insular; they do not look outwards.
Most recent media coverage has centred on HIAL and Ryanair, which have been mentioned a lot today. I am uneasy about the way in which those important negotiations have been conducted. The nationalists have turned the issue into a political football. They have not taken the time to assist HIAL in the negotiations. In fact, when proposals were first mooted, the SNP was in the press talking down HIAL and talking down the Highlands and Islands.
In recent weeks, many people have contacted my constituency office, anxious for a deal to be struck. The benefits that could come to Inverness if Ryanair were to fly into it are obvious. However, we have to remember that public money is involved and it is important that it is spent properly. Our constituents expect nothing less. However, the SNP seems to disagree; it seems to think that the board of HIAL should throw taxpayers' money around without any investigation. It continues to talk down our public sector.
Will the member give way?
I am in my last minute.
SNP members continue to talk down our public sector airports. One would almost think that they favoured privatisation. Kenny MacAskill said that Inverness does not need subsidy. Was he talking about the privatisation of Inverness? I do not agree with that. My advice to HIAL and Ryanair is to get back round the table and produce robust proposals to provide what would be good value to taxpayers.
However, there are some good-news stories and I would like to touch on them before I finish. They include Transun Flights Ltd flying into Inverness, holidays abroad from Inverness and holiday breaks from the south-east of England straight into Inverness—all those are wonderful for the local economy.
Kenny MacAskill finished his speech by suggesting that the Executive should make a greater input into the Scottish airport scenario. To that, I would have to say, "God forbid." I point to the Government's involvement in airports so far and I point to the fact that we are talking about low air fares and low-cost airlines. Those ideas were pioneered by Prestwick and I say to Rhoda Grant that Prestwick was a privatised airport and remains so today. The airport provides the services that Kenny MacAskill talked about—services to Oslo, Frankfurt, Brussels, Paris and London. It offers cheap flights on a commercial basis. When I hear BAA's plea that to provide reasonable international services it must get the Scottish community, local authorities and national politicians to work together, I say that we should let people work with the airports and airlines—ultimately they will get what they want without the help of the Scottish Executive.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
I recognise the problems in the Highlands and Islands. I can tell members that Ryanair would be delighted to offer services to Stornoway or Inverness. Tavish Scott referred to the problem with 737-800s. At the moment, Ryanair operates 737-200s and so could use the airport. Perhaps if there is Government money around, it could go into those airports to give them more help in developing for the future, when they will be obliged to accommodate the 737-800s.
I turn to central Scotland and the arguments about rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Why do we need to argue about Glasgow? Glasgow Prestwick already has a rail link. Perhaps Edinburgh needs a rail link, but Glasgow already has one and we should use the one that we have a heck of a lot more.
Is Phil Gallie aware that a Tory Government built the rail link to Stansted? Before that link was built, Stansted had fewer passenger throughputs than Edinburgh or Glasgow; now it has 10 million passenger throughputs, which is almost as many as Glasgow and Edinburgh put together. Was it right of the Tories to build a rail link to Stansted? Is it not right to build a rail link to Edinburgh now?
Prestwick paid for 60 per cent of its rail link and the Tory Government and others supplied the other 40 per cent. However, the main point is that we are talking about commercial companies—BAA is a commercial enterprise—and we must be very careful about putting Government money into such bodies.
We should not ignore the air traffic control situation. In recent times, there has been chaos in the skies above Scotland and further south because of problems at Swanwick. If the Government is to get involved, the Scottish Executive could do a great job by pressuring Westminster and ensuring that the new Scottish air traffic centre at Prestwick is built expeditiously and in the interests of the whole of the UK, with particular consideration of the skies above Scotland. Without good air traffic control, nobody will want to be up there anyway.
I begin by picking up on a point that Lewis Macdonald made. I am sure that members and people in the visitors gallery will be pleased with what I have to say. Next week, as part of my investigations into the prison estates review, I shall visit a prison in France. I shall not be flying from Aberdeen with my assistant, because the airfare would be £958. Instead, I shall drive to Prestwick—that takes extra time, but it is a trade-off that is worth making—from where the flight costs £180.
Before Phil Gallie gets too complacent, I remind him that it was a Tory Government in the 1970s that, at the express request of BOAC, removed the fifth freedom flights from KLM, SAS, Pan Am and TWA. That denied those companies to pick up passengers at Prestwick on their en route flights to countries in Scandinavia. Does he recall that it was a Tory Government that did that?
I am too young to remember it.
I will accept that.
Model 737-200s burn 50 per cent more fuel than 737-800s. We need the facility to support economical aircraft. Incidentally, in Scotland we are denied the most effective route into Luton and Stansted because of military traffic that uses the east coast of England—there is limited capacity for southbound traffic and none for northbound traffic. If we had an airway down there, we would save between 600kg and 1,000kg of fuel per 737 flight—I point that out for Robin Harper's benefit.
We talked about equality of access across Scotland, about which Mr Morrison made a point. Is not it curious that the Labour Government has continued with the practice of charging 90p per litre for the inter-island flights in the Orkneys and Shetlands? Fuel for a flight out of Aberdeen is priced at 20p per litre. What is the difference? The difference is tax, pure and simple, not the cost of the fuel. Many of the things that discriminate against aviation in our remote communities are avoidable.
David Mundell challenged the SNP on what would be different about aviation if Scotland was an independent country. He did not let me intervene during his speech, so I will ask my question now, so that he can ponder it and tell me the answer later. Is there an independent country anywhere in the developed world that has fewer airline seats owned and operated by local airlines per head of population than Scotland does? The answer is no. We have 20 per cent of the number of seats that the country above us in the list has. That is one thing that independence would change.
I say to Rhoda Grant that I pay tribute to Total Logistic Concepts Ltd, which runs Oban airport. Oban airport has the facilities to run scheduled services and in the past it provided services to Glasgow and Mull.
That brings into sharp focus the fact that we get fixated with terminal buildings. We have built a wonderful new terminal building at Inverness. That is fine. However, we did not install an instrument landing system that would bring the cloud base at which aircraft could make an approach down from 500ft to 200ft. The aircraft are equipped and the traffic controllers are ready to operate. We are getting the £500,000 for that landing system at last. That is more important to airlines than anything else. When I was a tourist in South Africa, I flew by jet into an airfield that had no terminal building. Terminal buildings are not the problem.
It is true that resources are finite in this business. However, we have differential landing charges. It costs £1,500 to put a 737 on the tarmac at Inverness airport, whereas it costs less than £1,000 at the London airports. Airlines will therefore make choices. That is why we are putting broadband into the Highlands and Islands so that people are not turned away. That is also why we should support lower landing charges.
We have had quite a debate. It is obvious that we are vulnerable to the vagaries of the airline operators, whose main objective is not to provide a service but to maximise their profit on every route. I suggest that the profits from their lucrative international routes should help the airlines to provide an efficient and affordable service on internal domestic routes, particularly in the Highlands and Islands.
I was surprised that much of the debate concentrated on passenger traffic. Although that is essential, we must not forget the air freight market, which is developing at quite a pace and has become an essential part of our economy. That is especially true of the growing trade in transportation of perishable items to the lucrative markets in the south.
Although I welcomed his contribution, I was surprised that Kenny MacAskill suggested that we should cut subsidies to airports and apply the money to air fares. That is a laudable and commendable objective, but I fear that, if we were to cut subsidies to airports, we would compromise safety and the services that are provided and expected at those airports.
The member said that removing subsidies from airports would threaten safety. Will he say how, in that case, Prestwick airport operates safely without subsidy?
Prestwick airport does not compare with some of the airports in the Highlands and Islands. The volume of traffic going through Prestwick is considerably more than the volume of traffic in the Highlands and Islands and I am sure that that has a marked effect.
Kenny MacAskill also mentioned landing charges. I understand from HIAL that the landing charges at Inverness compare favourably with those at all the other peripheral airports. I do not think that the amount of traffic going through Teesside compares with that going through Inverness. I am sure that Teesside is a much busier airport. As Alasdair Morrison pointed out, the airports that we are talking about in the Highlands and Islands are low-capacity airports.
I was pleased that Lewis Macdonald mentioned the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership, which we must support. Its proposals must be acted on, particularly its attempts to secure PSOs on lifeline routes to and from peripheral airports.
The Parliament must unite with and support the local authorities throughout the Highlands and Islands in their attempts to secure a dedicated domestic air transport service at an acceptable cost and at an appropriate frequency.
I call David Davidson to close for the Conservatives. You have three minutes.
We have had a parochial debate today. Once again we have been presented with a new policy line from the SNP, and once again it has not been costed. We had a harangue from Kenny MacAskill about nationalising things, and then he said that he wanted to subsidise commercial airlines. There is no logic in the way that the SNP has presented its policy today. We had another attack on BAA, but the SNP is quite happy to subsidise Ryanair. Does the SNP have shares in Ryanair? The question must be asked.
I am sorry, but I have been told to cut short, and Robin Harper missed his slot.
If I may summarise—
Will the member accept an intervention?
If I may summarise—
Mr Davidson, you know that you have three minutes. You were told in advance. It is up to you whether you let anybody in, but please give clear signals and proceed if you are not going to accept an intervention.
We heard all sorts of contributions round the chamber today. A lot of them were about local services and a lot of them were about access to airlines. Some of the most cogent points that were made in the debate were about the fact that a critical mass is needed to fill planes and to create an environment that will help them to pay. That is one of the major issues.
We all happily buy into investment in airports and safety, but we need to examine integrated transport. We should not address aeroplanes in isolation. The use of the hub system can be improved. It has been done in America. Through-ticketing, through-baggage checks and all the rest of it are ways of accelerating the use of the hub system.
I was in Orkney with the Finance Committee last week. Orkney's airlines are expensive, and they are not exactly packed, although we had good facilities and a good flight. We need to investigate in a more transparent way PSOs and how the debate is progressed. I take Fergus Ewing's point about the time that it is taking to come to a decision about Inverness.
PSOs and their application are matters for national Government. Does the Conservative party agree that the percentage of internal flights that are PSO routes in Scotland—the figure stands at 26 per cent, which is one of the lowest in Europe—should be increased?
You now have 36 seconds, Mr Davidson.
Thank you for reminding me, Presiding Officer.
Operating costs are more of an influence than are landing charges, whichever way we look at it. If we are going to take an holistic view of transport, we have to examine carefully how we subsidise and support the essential services. There are three basic types of flight—tourism, business and local—and the airlines have to come to a decision, through competition and joint working, on how they can best put in the resources to meet the demands. I hope that the next time we hear from the SNP we get a costed policy.
I will be clear for members' benefit. The agreed time allocation for closing speeches in this debate was three minutes for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. Nobody was cut short, but the time is very tight. I call Lewis Macdonald for the Executive. You have five minutes.
We have had a wide-ranging debate. The fundamental issues that have arisen from it are what kind of subsidy we should pay to secure lifeline services and to whom we should pay it. It is our contention that continuing support for airport operators in marginal areas through the public ownership and support of HIAL is the right way to provide the right kind of support. Let us be clear that, in real terms, the airport charges that are levied by HIAL have risen at a lower rate than the prevailing rate in the aviation sector. They are directly comparable with charges at airports such as Liverpool, Norwich, Bournemouth and Teesside.
The charges that are levied on landing at those airports represent only one third of the operating costs of HIAL, because Executive support for HIAL's airports is at a record level—it is £21.5 million in the current financial year. That support has had a dramatic threefold rise in the past five years. The subsidy per passenger at Inverness airport is £7.96 and the subsidy at Stornoway is double that. That level of support has enabled HIAL to deliver a comprehensive programme of capital investment, no small part of which is an instrument landing system at Inverness airport, which was called for today and which will be introduced this year.
We heard today that BAA Scottish Airports is investing £60 million in improved discounts and marketing direct routes. That is welcome, but it should be clear that the organisation is simply catching up with the discounts that HIAL already offers new operators that fly to and from Highland airports. HIAL offers discounts that are as high as 75 per cent in the first year, which have meant a total spend in the past five years of £1.4 million. That has attracted operators such as easyJet, which flies between Inverness and Luton. However, BAA's decision is welcome, not least here in Aberdeen, where the range of direct routes will be extended.
Members talked about a PSO on the Inverness to Gatwick route, which is an Executive priority. Altering the devolution settlement would not remove the need for the UK Government to support a PSO application for the Gatwick route, as the SNP's motion implied. We have worked and will continue to work closely with Highland stakeholders on the case for securing that route.
When will a decision be made? Will the minister take the opportunity to confirm that British Airways and BAA have submitted letters of objection against the PSO? Has the Executive made them public? What response will it make to those letters?
I have seen no such letters. Earlier in the debate, I was asked whether I had met Alistair Darling in his new capacity. That was optimistic, to say the least. I have not had the opportunity to discuss the matter with him. However, I have met the minister who is responsible for aviation, David Jamieson, and my officials continue to develop the matter with his officials.
At the outset of the debate, I touched on the air transport consultation document, which will be issued this summer. That will start the largest-ever consultation process on air links in Scotland. It will be launched simultaneously with similar documents elsewhere in the UK. That document will seek views on the range of opportunities, policy scenarios, forecasts of demand, options for the delivery of infrastructure and the possibility of the development of direct routes.
I am sorry. Time is against me.
We will hold conferences in Scotland to address those issues and to allow the maximum contribution from people who have a direct involvement in the sector and from people on whom aviation has a substantial impact. The consultation process will last approximately five months.
After a thorough analysis and consideration of responses, the UK Government will issue an air transport white paper in the first half of 2003. The Executive will have a full input into that as the lead ministry for developing the Scottish wing of the consultation. The opportunity exists to make a difference and to develop aviation and air links in Scotland. During the consultation period, I hope to hear from all those who have an interest in the matter. The outcome of that consultation will equip us with the policies and the strategy to advance Scottish aviation for the new century.
I thoroughly enjoyed the debate, because it characterised the difference between SNP members and the rest. We believe that we can take action on air links. All that we have heard from other members is why we cannot do anything. They have no drive and no initiative.
Has the Executive discussed providing more direct links with airlines? What steps is the Executive taking? I have corresponded with people who have said that they had little or no contact with the Executive. If they had had a little contact, it resulted in similar responses to those that we have heard in the debate—that the Executive can do nothing.
I have made personal contact—
If the minister will bear with me for a moment, I have made personal contact with a number of the airline companies and a number of businesses in the north-east to attempt to encourage more direct links from Scotland to the continent. Business people tell me that they do not want indirect links to the continent. They do not want to have to travel for several days in order to hold a business meeting. What steps has the Government taken to encourage the direct links that business people want? I am delighted to let the minister in now so that he can respond.
Mr Adam should be aware that an aviation summit was held in December of last year. The summit was chaired by Helen Liddell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and was attended by the Scottish Executive, the airlines, airport operators and others with an interest in the aviation industry. As Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, I attended the summit. The UK Government and the Scottish Executive is taking a joint partnership approach to the forthcoming consultation process. That approach was developed following the summit.
Is that why we have seen a cut in the tourism budget, including a cut in the funding for marketing air routes? Is that not a direct consequence of the Executive's involvement in such events?
I want to see more direct links and that is what people out there also want to see. Scotland has a dependency culture—we are dependent on hubs elsewhere in the UK. All of the routes that BAA is encouraging for development are to London airports. BAA appears to have a virtual monopoly on the main airports in Scotland, which means that there is no incentive for it to do otherwise.
If the Tories believe in competition, perhaps they should take a leaf out of Phil Gallie's book and encourage the approach that has been adopted by Prestwick airport. Prestwick has gone out and built a market for—
Does Brian Adam share my astonishment that Mr Gallie and the Tories appear to be against a rail link between Glasgow and Glasgow airport? Mr Gallie talked about a link between Glasgow and Prestwick, when all parties, apart from the Tories, are in favour of a direct link between Glasgow and Glasgow airport. That is what the business community, the local authority and everyone in Glasgow wants.
That should be a lesson to you, Mr Adam.
BAA has a virtual monopoly on the main links out of Scotland. It does not appear to have adopted a can-do philosophy. It does not encourage development and it appears to be refocusing its business to act as a retailer as much as a marketer of air services. That may well be in the overall commercial interest of BAA. After all, BAA is controlled from somewhere else.
That is also the situation for members on the Lib-Lab and Tory benches—they too are controlled from somewhere else. Their London focus means that they cannot look to anywhere else in the world without first looking to London. However, the business community in the north-east is looking for direct links, especially to Europe. If we can get direct links from other major airports in Scotland to elsewhere in the world, that would also be welcome.
So far, we have not seen the Executive or its masters in London take a proactive approach to the issue. We have been promised yet another glossy consultation document, but when will we see the results of the consultation? We are told that that might be at the back end of 2003, which is beyond the date of the next election. Is the document yet another attempt to kick an issue, which is a live issue especially in the north-east, into the long grass?
I suspect that later today, when we discuss other transport links in the north-east, we will get the same kind of response. I suspect that we will be told that something will happen, but it will happen after the next election—another issue kicked into the long grass.
My colleagues Fergus Ewing and Duncan Hamilton dealt ably with the important issue of PSOs. Everybody realises that we have to have PSOs and I will not dwell on them.
I thought that the Tories believed in competition, but they seem to be tied to the idea that we cannot disturb the system too much. I thought that the Tories were the party of enterprise—the party that wanted to make things happen—but the SNP is now telling the Tories how to do that. We are looking to other places in the world, where dynamism exists in the airline industry.
Will the member take an intervention?
No thank you.
Earlier this week, Kenny MacAskill and I visited Dublin. Although we were not in the city for as long as Lewis Macdonald thought we were, we were still there long enough to have interesting discussions with a representative from Ryanair and to see what a dynamic airport in a dynamic country does.
A country with ambitions.
The member is absolutely right: Ireland is an ambitious country. Members should have seen the queues at the airport in the middle of a Monday morning. The Labour benches show no ambition at all as far as Scotland's future or its air links are concerned. If we want to encourage tourism and business, we have to give them direct access to markets, not make them go indirectly through someone else's airport which is run by someone else's company in someone else's country.
Against all expectations, we have finished the debate bang on time.