Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill: Final Stage
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5161, in the name of Margaret Jamieson, that the Parliament agrees that the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill be passed.
I speak as the convener of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee. The bill was introduced in Parliament on 31 January 2006 by what is now Strathclyde partnership for transport—the promoter. The bill's principal objective is to authorise the construction of works in Renfrewshire and the city of Glasgow to provide a new railway service between Glasgow airport and Glasgow Central station. It should be noted that, contrary to the belief of some, the committee did not work for the promoter in any shape or form throughout the process. We scrutinised all evidence in a fair and impartial manner that treated the objectors and the promoter in the same way.
The Parliament debated and agreed to the general principles and agreed that the bill should proceed on 21 June. The committee met on 22 June to discuss the proposed groupings of objections and deadlines for receiving written evidence from the lead objectors and the promoter, and to indicate to the assessor what would be expected of him.
We were the first committee to appoint an assessor to hear oral evidence on its behalf during consideration stage of a bill. The benefit to the committee of appointing an assessor was to
"reduce the burden on MSPs in dealing with what are at times highly complex and technical matters"
while enabling the
"process to be conducted more efficiently."
I remind members of the amount of time that members of earlier private bill committees spent on attending meetings and dealing with vast amounts of paperwork in relation to evidence and submissions on technical matters, which sometimes made it difficult to focus on a bill's general details.
Professor Hugh Begg was appointed to undertake the role of assessor for the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill. He scrutinised all written submissions, went on site visits to familiarise himself with the area and finally heard evidence from witnesses at six meetings that were held over five and a half days in Paisley. I thank Renfrewshire Council and its staff for providing accommodation and the services of staff throughout those meetings.
Professor Begg reported to us in a little over three months, most of which were in the summer recess. I thank him for producing a comprehensive report for the committee to scrutinise. We considered in detail the assessor's report. We agreed with nearly all his recommendations and made numerous changes to the scheme as a consequence. The use of the assessor was invaluable, as it enabled the committee to concentrate its efforts on scrutiny of the principles that underpin the bill. I draw to members' attention the fact that it has taken a mere 10 months from introduction of the bill to this final stage debate. I thank the Procedures Committee for recommending that standing orders be changed.
I thank the promoter's staff for all their hard work and commitment in taking the bill to this stage. The committee appreciates the time given and the effort made by objectors in submitting their written evidence to a very tight deadline over the summer. Some found that daunting and time consuming, but all deadlines were set to make best use of the time over the summer recess. I thank the objectors and all witnesses who took the time to appear at the assessor meetings in Paisley and I thank the clerks and the team for their efforts. I also thank my fellow committee members for their hard work and diligence throughout the process.
During consideration stage, we met five times and heard oral evidence from the promoter, the Minister for Transport and Transport Scotland on outstanding issues that arose from our preliminary stage report. The promoter gave evidence on issues such as Glasgow Central station's opening hours, park-and-ride facilities, safety and security, consultation, funding estimates, noise and vibration and the code of construction practice. The Minister for Transport and Transport Scotland gave further evidence on Glasgow crossrail proposals; the business case for investment in the new infrastructure between Glasgow Central station and Paisley Gilmour Street station compared with the business case for the project as a whole; the project outturn costs for the Glasgow airport rail link; and the impact that the Edinburgh airport rail link could have on GARL. My colleagues will speak about some of those issues; I will deal with the code of construction practice and the noise and vibration policy documents, which are intended to give protection to people who will be affected by the proposals during and after construction.
At our request, the promoter provided much-revised versions of those documents, which covered all the undertakings and commitments that we required to be covered, particularly on mitigation issues. The code of construction practice will ensure that the impacts of construction activities on the public and the environment will be minimised. The changes that were made included the idea of appointing a liaison officer to liaise with local authority departments, members of the public, the press and the media. Community liaison groups and business liaison groups will be formed to represent the views and concerns of the larger community along the proposed route during construction. Those groups will be consulted and given regular updates on the project's progress. In addition, the public will be given a minimum of seven days' advance notice of planned works, and a complaints procedure will be put in place for members of the public so that direct contact can be made during working hours. Acknowledgment of receipt of a complaint will be made within 24 hours. Actions that are taken on complaints will be monitored and the relevant information will be made publicly available.
The noise and vibration policy gives the commitment to strive to reduce noise and vibration levels from GARL train services to as low a level as is reasonably practicable. Indeed, the bill now includes a requirement for the promoter to use all reasonably practicable means to comply with the policy.
I will give an example of how the committee listened and used its powers to make a difference for one objector. For years, a gentleman had complained about the increased use of loud klaxons on trains that passed his property. The noise caused distress to him and his elderly neighbours. No one listened, but we did and required an amendment to the bill to provide for a noise receptor to be placed near their properties. The use of klaxons will now be regularly monitored as part of the bill's noise monitoring scheme. That is a further demonstration of the impartial manner in which we worked. I suggest to the minister that the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill make production of such documents mandatory at the outset in the new procedures.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill be passed.
I thank the convener of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, Margaret Jamieson, and her colleagues, the promoter of the bill, advisers and committee clerks for the work that they have done to get the bill to this stage. I take the point that Margaret Jamieson made about the bill process taking 10 months.
The undertaking has been complex and has required a great deal of rigorous evaluation. The construction of a direct rail link to Glasgow airport is a key commitment in the partnership agreement, and the Government strongly supports the motion in the name of Margaret Jamieson.
Growing Scotland's economy is the Government's first priority. We are not taking a piecemeal approach to that; rather, we have proposed fundamental, integrated changes to our railway system and investments that must be made if our railways are to make a significant contribution to the integrated transport system in Scotland that we all want. The Glasgow airport rail link is an essential part of that programme. As Glasgow airport continues to grow and the number of passengers continues to rise, we must ensure that viable and sustainable public transport options are available.
Let me deal quickly with some of the nonsense that we have heard from some people about the impact of the Edinburgh airport rail link on the Glasgow airport rail link. I provided evidence to the committee on that issue in September and again in October. In response to a request from MSPs for further information, Transport Scotland provided a technical note of the modelling work that was undertaken by Scott Wilson Railways Ltd, which was commissioned by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The modelling work that was asked for was provided, so I suggest that the conspiracy theorists should grow up.
The modelling work was based on assumptions from the Department for Transport aviation white paper and provided a range of scenarios. It was not intended to provide a definitive view, but was used as part of a series of pieces of work to inform Government on the airport rail link projects. A full assessment of options is what Government does.
It is easy to quote selectively from any report, but my evidence to the committee made it clear that the impact of EARL on GARL, and vice versa, depends on a range of factors. Those include forecast air passenger growth, the market that is served by each airport, and the service availability and frequency at each airport. The complete analysis of the business case for both airport rail links is robust and the impact of the one on the other is considered to be minimal. Both projects were required to undergo regular business case assessment before the release of public money. That will continue to be the case.
I seek clarification. Was the study that the minister described an independent study?
The study was commissioned by Transport Scotland in pursuit of its assessment of the airport rail link options available to the Government.
The Glasgow airport rail link will provide an important contribution to economic growth in Renfrewshire, Glasgow and throughout Scotland. The link will be good for local residents, airport workers, tourists and Scottish business. The promoter estimates that Paisley will benefit directly from an additional 675 jobs and 650 jobs will be brought to Glasgow and Renfrewshire.
The Glasgow airport rail link will cost £160 million in 2004 prices. Last month, the promoter reached an agreement with BAA under which the airport owner will be fully involved in the delivery of the rail link. That will provide enormous benefits in managing the project and in ensuring that costs and risks are kept under control.
Scotland and Glasgow will lose out if we do nothing. Cities in Europe compete for investment and business opportunities in a highly competitive environment. The rail link will greatly enhance Glasgow's competitiveness. Companies locate in cities with good transport links, so we must invest in those improvements. When it was announced last week that Barclays' wealth will create a further 500 jobs in Glasgow, the company stressed the importance of Glasgow's accessibility and its direct links to other financial centres. If we are to attract and keep businesses in Scotland, we need the Glasgow airport rail link.
The project is integral to the Government's approach to transport. We are committed to putting in place the transport infrastructure and connections that will allow Scotland to compete, and compete well, in the global marketplace. I hope that Parliament will endorse that vision this afternoon.
Strathclyde partnership for transport, which is the organisation behind the Glasgow airport rail link, has given the project a series of objectives: to stimulate economic growth in the west of Scotland, which I believe is key for the whole of Scotland; to contribute to the provision of a sustainable basis for the future growth of both west of Scotland airports, which are key to our economy; and to support sustainable regeneration along the M8, Ayrshire and Inverclyde corridors by developing rail capacity.
Clearly, the project is about more than just an airport rail link, so perhaps the name of the bill is not as appropriate as it might be. Other objectives include: to improve social inclusion and accessibility by connecting areas of low car ownership and high deprivation to the economic opportunities that already exist near the airport and in the nearby city of Glasgow; to provide high-quality, high-capacity public transport services that connect the airport, Paisley, Glasgow and, ultimately, Ayrshire; to provide public transport services to the airport and to the M8 and Ayrshire corridors; and to integrate with the existing transport network. To what extent the airport rail link will achieve all those objectives remains to be seen.
I commend the committee for the work that it has done to tease out much of the detail and for issuing challenges to ensure that the interests of a wide variety of stakeholders are taken into account.
There is no doubt that there are issues relating to connectivity; my colleague Mr Matheson will elaborate on those in his speech. We cannot look at GARL in isolation. There is considerable interest in the Glasgow crossrail project, which is not dealt with in the bill. If the economic case for the project stacks up, it will make a significant difference to the utilisation of GARL. Direct connections between Glasgow Queen Street and Glasgow Central station would be of particular benefit to GARL, as they would undoubtedly increase patronage and have a direct impact on the business case for the scheme.
I am pleased to hear the member speak so favourably about the project. Can he explain why, exactly a year ago, his colleague Fergus Ewing described it as a waste of money?
I will come to the money in a minute. Undoubtedly there will be a modal shift, which is one of the bill's objectives.
I hope that the minister will be able to reassure us that there will be firm control of the costs of the scheme. Even the figures that the promoters have produced suggest that the scheme will have only a marginal economic benefit. We must be careful to ensure that the overall costs are kept distinctly under control.
I am delighted that the issues relating to playing fields have been resolved satisfactorily and in consultation with stakeholders. My colleague Sandra White will address the outstanding issues relating to disabled access.
The Scottish Conservatives have long campaigned for a rail link to Glasgow airport, as well as for links to Scotland's other main airports. We strongly support the project that is before us today. It is a good project, but there is still tremendous opportunity and scope for improvement, especially for better connectivity to the main railway networks in Scotland.
The Labour leader of Glasgow City Council seemed to suffer a bizarre lapse of judgment when he claimed in The Herald on 19 April that the project would offer a direct link to Edinburgh, Stirling, Aberdeen and Dundee. Although there will be a link to Edinburgh, he was not right about some of the other cities at this time. I would have expected him to understand his city much better. Like others, we argue that Glasgow Central station and Queen Street station must be connected to provide the connectivity that everyone expects in that area in the long term.
SPT appears to have missed a trick by not using the link to serve the massively popular Braehead shopping complex. Does the minister have a view on that? The undoubted merits of the scheme have been overshadowed by poor communication between ministers and the promoter, which appear to have driven up the cost of the project to taxpayers and to have pushed it back by two years. In March 2005, SPT said that it hoped to introduce the bill that spring and cited a cost of £140 million and a completion date of late 2008. However, by October the bill had still not been introduced, although SPT said that it was ready to introduce it in June, and the cost had risen to £160 million. In a letter to Mr Scott, Alastair Watson warned that SPT was
"starting to incur significant additional costs as a result of the delays being imposed by the Scottish Executive."
In March 2006, the minister claimed that the project was on target, but this time he used the figure of £170 million to £210 million and cited the end of 2010 as the completion date. The upping of the cost seemed to anger the bill committee, which had been assured that £160 million was the grand total. In its stage 1 report, the committee worried that
"such a lack of clarity does not inspire great confidence in the project."
I am surprised that the rail link does not have better connections beyond the airport into other parts of the west of Scotland. There has been no mention of the opportunity to create park-and-ride facilities adjacent to the station, which would remove at a stroke thousands of car journeys into Glasgow, ease congestion and reduce pollution. Such a scheme must allow for dropping off and picking up people at bus station points so that much better use of available transportation can be made. We also have an opportunity to create a rail hub for the area to increase passenger usage, which is vital to ensure that the project meets its costs and returns.
Last week in the debate on the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill, I mentioned to the minister compulsory purchase orders and proximity impact, both of which apply to GARL. I was pleased to hear the convener talk about a noise and vibration policy and developing a code of construction practice. I support her comments whole-heartedly.
We simply cannot afford further delays and cost overruns. Will the minister give us an assurance on those matters? Despite the difficulties, there is a huge amount of good will for the project to succeed, both in the west of Scotland and beyond. I congratulate SPT, BAA, the bill committee and its advisers and clerks, and the Executive, who all played a part in getting us to this point. We on the Conservative benches will take great pleasure in voting for the bill at close of play today.
I thank the convener for her stewardship of the bill through the parliamentary process. As the minister said, Parliament has already debated the economic contribution that GARL can make to the economic competitiveness of the whole of the west of Scotland—that is the essential case for the bill.
My coalition colleagues will deal in their speeches with some of the wider metropolitan benefits. I will mention some of the more local economic benefits. For example, 650 new jobs will be created in Renfrewshire in the next 10 years and some 700 jobs will be created in Paisley town centre once the line starts to operate. Additional benefits will include extra office space, additional visitor expenditure and superior rail links to Glasgow and beyond.
I urge members who still have anxieties about whether the patronage estimates will be met to consider the encouraging evidence that we have heard during the bill's passage about lines such as the Larkhall to Milngavie line, on which patronage levels have been considerably up on the promoter's original estimates. In that optimistic vein, I draw Parliament's attention to an agreement that has been reached in the past 48 hours between Renfrewshire Council and Strathclyde partnership for transport concerning the St James playing fields in Paisley. As some members know, the St James playing fields are the biggest concentration of football pitches in the west of Scotland. I can do no better than John Lyle, the general secretary of the local Paisley and district amateur football league, who said yesterday:
"It's like Christmas has come early! I've been a member of this league for 50 years and can remember playing in the 1950s with nothing but a cold water trough outside the clubhouse.
The Glasgow Airport Rail Link is the best thing that's ever happened to St James playing fields and we're delighted with the new changing rooms, drainage system and alternative pitches being put in place by SPT."
After that, I can only congratulate all the parties that have an interest in the St James playing fields and sports in Scotland on reaching such a welcome agreement.
As we move on and pass over responsibility for the construction stage to SPT, I urge that organisation to remain mindful of local concerns about the impact of the link. There is further work to do to relocate and compensate businesses that will be displaced and disrupted and continuing consultation of local residents is necessary. I welcome the community liaison groups that have been set up and which are operating—they will meet this week—but there is more to be done if we are to meet the ambitious and encouraging timetable for construction that will begin next year and will be delivered by 2010. In particular, I mention the need to upgrade Paisley Gilmour Street station. It is not included in the project, but SPT has said that it will consider the matter.
I welcome Brian Adam's endorsement of the scheme, but his conversion is somewhat late and I am not sure that word of it has reached Renfrewshire, where the local SNP candidates persist in calling GARL
"the wrong route, in the wrong place and at the wrong price".
I suspect that voters in the west of Scotland will make their own judgments on the wisdom of turning our backs on 700 additional local jobs and the economic competitiveness that the line will bring.
After so many years, the Glasgow airport rail link is with us. It is a visionary development that is now on the point of delivery. Given that it will strengthen the physical infrastructure of the west of Scotland and bring direct economic benefits to the whole of the west of Scotland metropolitan area, it deserves Parliament's support.
We move to the open debate. I ask for four-minute speeches.
I will try to be as quick as possible.
Wendy Alexander's politicking this afternoon does not become her: I fought for the Glasgow airport rail link when I lived in Paisley and continued to fight for it when I moved permanently to Glasgow. The proposal has been around for years and years and, thanks to the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, it has achieved the support of all parties, not just of one. I thank the committee for its hard work. As Margaret Jamieson said, from its inception, the bill has taken only 10 months to reach the final stage—a feat on which the committee should certainly be congratulated.
The case for GARL has been well made for many years, and I thank not only the bodies that have lobbied me and other members on the matter, but the Glasgow Evening Times for its unstinting campaign to make the link a reality. I am sure that, either now or once construction of the line begins, the newspaper will launch a campaign for a Glasgow crossrail, which is, as Brian Adam said, the missing link. Once that line is in place, the west of Scotland rail network will be complete. I fear that, without the crossrail, the Glasgow airport rail link will not be used to its full potential.
Previous speakers highlighted GARL's economic benefits not just to Glasgow and Paisley but to Ayrshire and beyond. We must not forget that its impact will extend to Ayrshire, and it would be absolutely—
On a point of clarification, as there are only two rail corridors from Ayrshire into Glasgow, only North and South Ayrshire will benefit from GARL.
I thank Margaret Jamieson for her intervention. I know that she comes from Ayrshire, but I have to say that I did not mention a specific area. In any case, I do not think that it matters whether the corridors are in the north, south, east or west of the county; the whole of Ayrshire will still benefit from this excellent proposal.
The benefits of the link are overwhelming, but one of its greatest benefits is that it will be a major feature in Glasgow's bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games. I believe that, with such an asset, we will win the bid.
Brian Adam said that I would mention disabled access. Under the current proposals, three disabled parking spaces will have to be removed to extend what is called platform 11a.
The spaces are not being removed, but are being relocated to allow access and to provide protection for the public.
Margaret Jamieson says that the spaces "are being relocated". As far as disabled people are concerned, they are being removed, because the spaces are in an area that they have always used. Even able-bodied people find platform 11a to be quite a distance from the main concourse. I know that the committee has no say on the matter and that it will be a planning decision for Glasgow City Council. Although Margaret Jamieson might well be right to say that the spaces "are being relocated", disabled people feel that they are simply being removed. They will certainly find it very difficult to get to platform 11a.
Although I praise the bill—as I said, I have fought for it for many years—we have to be realistic and get the link right for everyone in our society.
If we pass the bill—as we should do—Scotland's largest city, Glasgow, will be connected by rail, via Scotland's largest town, Paisley, to Scotland's busiest airport, Glasgow international airport. All three locations are linchpins of a city region that contains 42 per cent of Scotland's population and produces 43 per cent of Scotland's gross domestic product. Given the significance of those figures, the question whether to build the Glasgow airport rail link ought to be a no-brainer. However, by all means let us examine the business case for the project. If we do so, we will see that it is actually pretty conservative—with a small C. It is based on the downbeat forecast of the 2003 United Kingdom aviation white paper, which I refer to as "The Dodgy Dossier" because it predicts that only 15 million passengers a year will use Glasgow airport by 2030, although most analysts agree that a likelier number is 24 million.
The Glasgow airport rail link can be seen and supported as being an incremental step towards providing real access to Glasgow international airport for the rest of Scotland. The Glasgow airport rail link, combined with a scheme called the Glasgow crossrail, which was rightly highlighted by the committee, was to be submitted by the former Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive back in 2003, but it was dissuaded from doing so by civil servants partly because of the findings in "The Dodgy Dossier". That may not matter for the purposes of today's debate, but only if—as I said earlier—GARL is seen as being an incremental step towards wider rail access to Glasgow international airport.
My message to all parliamentarians on all sides of the chamber, to officials in the various agencies and to civil servants is that they should support the Glasgow airport rail link, stop using "The Dodgy Dossier" and open their minds to the early completion of crossrail. To do anything less would run the risk of creating an uneven playing field for the west of Scotland, which many of us will not stand for.
The position that I will put forward is similar to Charlie Gordon's, albeit for very different reasons. Before I do that, I echo members' congratulations to the committee on its thorough scrutiny of the bill.
The last time we debated this issue in the chamber, I gave GARL a cautious, cool and distinctly unenthusiastic welcome. Surprise, surprise—I will do so again today. At heart, what we have is a proposal that is motivated by the wrong reason: it is motivated by the Executive's stated top priority of chasing the myth of everlasting economic growth on a planet of finite resources. If we had a Scottish Executive that has a genuinely sustainable approach to transport policy, we would probably end up with a Glasgow airport rail link at some point. However, I believe that we would have started with the crossrail scheme that Charlie Gordon talked about. The crossrail scheme would have benefits across central Scotland—in Glasgow, most families still do not have access to a car.
Our objective should be to take traffic off the roads and get people on trains. An airport rail link can do that, if that is our objective and purpose and if that is the wider context in which it is to operate. However, if the wider context is the one that Charlie Gordon described, in which politicians and ministers look at projections of ever-increasing aviation, instead of taking the grave concerns about climate change seriously and asking how we can limit and restrain the damaging growth in aviation, they ask how we can facilitate and make more of it.
We have the absurd spectacle of Government ministers saying on the one hand that climate change is the greatest overriding threat to our society and civilisation and then, on the other hand, saying that we should be flying three times as much. It just does not add up.
However, the Greens will vote for the rail link. I just hope that, as Tavish Scott sits there through debate after debate listening to us harping on about crossrail, he and the Executive will throw their political backing and weight behind crossrail as they have done in the past behind deeply damaging schemes such as the M74.
You have one minute left, Mr Harvie.
I do not think I will need my final minute, Presiding Officer, save to say that one day, perhaps not many years from now, some poor overburdened generation of politicians will look back on the words of the Scottish Executive in some dusty tome and wonder how such complacency was ever allowed to pass for government.
Patrick Harvie's contribution has left me in a major quandary. The Greens say that they are in favour of rail travel but are against air travel. Does that mean that all the Greens will end up milling around Glasgow airport with no place to go?
The capital cost of the project was one of the major issues arising during consideration of the bill. When the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive submitted its initial estimate of expense and funding, the capital cost of the infrastructure amounted to £160 million at 2004 prices. In the ministerial statement, the figure was between £170 million and £210 million. For the information of Mr Davidson and others, the difference between the two is no more than the effect of a range of inflation figures between 2004 and the delivery date, which is expected to be 2010. For the avoidance of doubt, the committee was pleased to have assurance from the minister that the expenditure has been scrutinised rigorously, even though this is a complex project with different inflation rates relating to different parts of the work.
In support of financial stringency, I note that in the overall estimate for the project, a figure of £35 million is labelled for contingencies. Although I recognise that all major projects hit unseen obstacles, I hope that instead of the cost overruns that David Davidson mentioned, this part of the funding will be largely unnecessary and the overall cost will be less than the budget. I am also pleased to note that part of the total capital cost is going to come from Europe under trans-European networks funding.
I move on from the likely cost of the project to the economic benefits that will accrue from the implementation of this new branch line that will link Glasgow Central station, the busiest station in Scotland, with Paisley Gilmour Street, which is the third busiest station in Scotland, and with an airport that is already handling more than 8 million passengers annually. As Charlie Gordon pointed out, that figure is predicted to rise to 24 million by the end of 2030, air use taxes aside. With more than 50 per cent of the expected patronage of the new line being airport-related, the primary beneficiary must be the operator of Glasgow airport.
Because of commercial confidentiality, it was difficult to extract from the promoter the details of the negotiations between the airport operator and the promoter and thereby to find the exact contribution that would be made to the overall project by the company that is now running the airport. That highlights the fact that companies that are operating in the private sector can reap the rewards of major investments by the public sector. However, a wider view of the economic plus points of the airport rail link show that they will be widespread.
The minister was right to emphasise that jobs will be created by construction of the link and—more important—through improved connections in the transport infrastructure. As Wendy Alexander remarked, the committee was provided with evidence that between 600 and 700 jobs could be created in the Paisley area within four years of the new line's opening.
Consultants for the promoters also showed an additional 52,000 visitors coming to Scotland, bringing an estimated £10 million boost to the tourist economies in Glasgow, Renfrew and Inverclyde. A major area of growth could be the conference circuit, with existing facilities in Glasgow benefiting considerably from the direct link from overseas.
I think that I am the first east coast politician to speak in the debate—
That is not right.
I am sorry. I need to qualify that further—I am the first Fifer to speak in the debate. I point out that there will still be a gap in the links between the east of the country and Glasgow airport. The distance between Queen Street station and Central station is not vast, but I would like it to be dealt with in a future phase.
You must close.
Like other members of the committee, I thank the support team for helping us to get the bill through to the final stage. Although time was not on the committee's side, papers were turned round quickly and efficiently by the support staff. I fully support the passing of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill and look forward to the physical work starting after such a long gestation period.
As a Glasgow constituency member and long-time supporter of the Glasgow airport rail link campaign, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in today's final stage debate. I applaud the committee for its commitment and hard work throughout the bill's parliamentary journey and I congratulate my colleague Margaret Jamieson on her stewardship of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee.
Scottish Labour's 2003 manifesto contained a pledge to build GARL and following the last Scottish general election it became part of the coalition agreement. GARL will provide a 15-minute service from Glasgow Central station to a new purpose-built station at the airport. Creation of the link will significantly enhance accessibility to and from the airport.
At a time of airport growth—it is estimated that a threefold rise in annual patronage of Glasgow airport will mean that 24 million travellers will use it by 2030—modern, high-quality infrastructure from Glasgow city centre to the airport is vital if we are to protect the airport's competitive edge. It is estimated that GARL could support up to 1,300 jobs across Glasgow and that it will generate a total of about £3.14 million per annum in gross value-added economic benefit, both of which are good things. It will also help to support Glasgow's expanding £112 million conference sector and will offer a significant asset to the 2014 Commonwealth games, if Glasgow's bid is successful, which we all hope it will be. The committee was right to conclude that GARL will improve job opportunities and contribute to regeneration in the west of Scotland. GARL is a coherent and sensible project in its own right. It is based on a positive business case and it marks significant progress.
In the time that remains to me, I want to draw Parliament's attention to the committee's excellent preliminary stage report, which made it clear that the progress marked by GARL can and must be built on. In paragraph 18 of the report, the committee concluded that
"greater connectivity could be provided by linking GARL more closely to other rail developments",
and it went on to say that
"the Committee believes that GARL is a scheme that could be significantly bolstered with the concurrent development of a cross-rail scheme in Glasgow."
As the convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on Glasgow crossrail, I could not agree more with the committee's wise words. The crossrail scheme has a significant role to play in increasing the number of passengers who would use GARL, so I was especially pleased that at the recent Scottish Labour Party conference in Oban, my party pledged
"to take forward the Glasgow crossrail project as one of the strategic projects necessary to secure the future growth of Glasgow and its neighbours."
I welcome that pledge.
The so-called missing link between Glasgow Central and Queen Street stations is more than just an inconvenient 15-minute walk for passengers; it is a decisive split in Scotland's rail network and an avoidable gap in our passenger rail services. The Glasgow crossrail scheme is of strategic importance to our rail network. It would make it possible for direct journeys to be made from the north to the south and from the east to the west of the country. The cost of linking Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street stations would be insignificant compared with the positive effects of a scheme that would offer such widespread and fundamental benefits to the rail network. The scheme would provide value for money. SPT estimates a cost between £115 million and £187 million to develop. In my view, that would be money well spent because crossrail would significantly improve the Glasgow conurbation's rail links and it would support economic regeneration in some of Glasgow's poorest and most disadvantaged areas. As I have said, it would also be hugely advantageous to the bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games and to the many thousands of visitors who would come to Glasgow if that bid were successful.
Today is a day to celebrate the passage of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill, but it is also a day to acknowledge that more needs to be done. Glasgow crossrail represents the next stage in our journey towards greater connectivity and continuing economic growth. We must commit to it as soon as possible, given the beneficial impact that it would have nationwide. I commend the bill.
In principle, the Scottish Socialist Party is in favour of a rail link between Glasgow and Glasgow airport. We favour increased public transport and believe that the money that is intended for investment in the M74 should be put into public transport. The bill gave us a big opportunity not just to get air passengers from Glasgow airport into Glasgow, but to invest in public transport in the area as a whole. That opportunity has been lost.
The promoter's memorandum stated that it did not want any stops, apart from at Paisley, between Glasgow and the airport, which means that other communities in that area have missed out on a rail link to the airport and to Glasgow. There was a big opportunity to reopen Renfrew station, which is closed, and to site a new station at Braehead, but that opportunity has been lost. There is now no opportunity to link those stations with the proposal that is before us today.
The issues have become clear. The bill is not about social inclusion or regeneration, or about all the statements that are in the memorandum from the promoter: it is just about getting bums on seats from the airport into Glasgow, so it has missed out on some of the bigger priorities that Parliament is supposed to be in favour of. Although the SSP favours a rail link in principle, we will not support the bill today. The proposed line is on the wrong route and it bypasses communities in the area, which will not have easy access to the rail link. In particular, the route will miss out Braehead, where many people in the local area want to shop.
My final point is about the financing of the scheme. The figures of £115 million to £175 million have been cited, but I have also seen a figure of up to £210 million. Am I the only one who thinks that it is an anomaly for us to spend £210 million of public money—of taxes—by giving it to ScotRail, a private company that pays its shareholders nice dividends, while all the onus of funding will remain on us? The companies that run cheap flights from Glasgow airport are not to be responsible for putting any money into the infrastructure that will benefit them. If we are going to go for the free market and for privatisation, we should let those companies pay for part of the infrastructure. We want a public rail network; if we want to invest public money in developing it, let us take the rest of it back into public ownership.
I would like to make two points. I was against the proposal to start with, because of the playing fields issue. It is commendable that all those who are involved have negotiated together sensibly so that the railway will operate in an intelligent fashion and the community will end up with improved playing fields. That is a lesson for quite a number of other projects in which developers and communities have ended up at loggerheads. It is possible to negotiate and to come to a compromise that is a win-win situation for both sides, so I commend all those who have been involved in those negotiations.
Secondly, I support what Bill Butler and other members have said about the relevance of the Glasgow crossrail project. The more interconnectivity—or whatever the difficult word is—we can get, the better. People from all over Scotland should be able to get to airports and other parts of Scotland in a sensitive, civilised and competent way, and should not have to howk lots of luggage from one station to another. I hope that we can progress from the Glasgow airport rail link to the Glasgow crossrail project, and that we can continue to make other improvements to the railways.
The Executive deserves credit for progressing quite a number of railway improvements. Twenty-odd years ago, when I suggested improvements such as new stations, it was like suggesting going into outer space, but now there is serious support from Government, local government and other sources for improving our railways—I hope that will continue. I look forward to having fast trains to London, for example, so that we do not have to fly.
I welcome the bill and other bills to improve our railways.
I am delighted to speak, if only to say that there are reasons to be anxious about the bill. Wendy Alexander is not anxious, but I am. I pay tribute to the good work of the committee, particularly the convener, the clerks and the bill team. It is a tribute to the committee that it managed to get the bill through in 10 months, including hearing from objectors and visiting Manchester for guidance on how a rail link might work.
The route is the right one—an airport link is not in the business of serving areas such as Braehead. If we opened up other stations on the link, rather than catch a train that stops at every halt there would be no reason for airport passengers not to get the bus. In that sense, the concept of the rail link is sound.
I am anxious about the cost. The fact that the cost reflects insurance makes me worry that there could be differences in the outturn because of poor management or unexpected difficulties with the route.
I am disappointed that Glasgow crossrail has not come first—that will have knock-on effects. Crossrail should have been the Executive's priority.
I am anxious that there have been no independent studies—in other words, ones that have not been commissioned from Transport Scotland—of the effect of the Edinburgh airport rail link on the Glasgow airport rail link and vice versa. Clearly, those effects could be important.
The idea that businesses will not locate in Glasgow because of the lack of a rail link is fallacious, as businesses tend to use taxis. Businesses need a direct link when an airport is further away from a city. Heathrow, for example, is 45 minutes away from London.
Although there are reasons to be anxious about the bill, it will certainly be passed. However, the most important thing is that a crossrail bill should be introduced to Parliament soon.
I have a simplistic view of the Glasgow airport rail link: as a matter of common sense, it is a good thing. That is not very scientific or technical, but for me it is quite simple: a city such as Glasgow needs a rail link.
To those of us who live there, Glasgow is a major European city, and we want it to remain so, in terms of business and tourism. We want prosperity to increase. Some members, such as Sandra White, have spoken about the Commonwealth games. Others have spoken about conference facilities. That is all part of the picture. I apologise to Patrick Harvie, but most of us are always looking for more flights to more places. A direct link from the airport to the city centre is a feature of the kind of city where that is the case.
At the moment, the situation in Glasgow is back to front. Paris city centre is a short train ride from the city's major airport. If we fly budget to an outlying airport, as most of us do, we take our chance on the bus getting through the traffic. It is the same in Frankfurt, Stockholm or any number of cities. Glasgow is the other way round. If we arrive at Prestwick, we cross the bridge, get on the train and we are up the road. With Glasgow, on the other hand, we take our chance on the M8. It is almost common sense that a major city should have a rail link to its airport.
I emphasise, as many members have done, that the rail link is part of the jigsaw for the wider area and for those who live and work there. I join other members—Charlie Gordon in particular—in saying that Glasgow crossrail is important. The crossrail scheme will make the airport much more accessible for people from throughout the city, but it makes no sense to wait for it before building GARL. I disagree with Frances Curran, who is in favour of GARL but, because everything is not happening at the same time, will not support this part of the jigsaw. To me, that is daft. With any jigsaw, one has to put the pieces in one at a time, as long as one keeps the big picture in mind. Most of us have the big picture in mind and will not let the Executive forget it but, in the meantime, we are grateful for this piece of the jigsaw, because it will provide real practical advantages to people.
At the moment, residents of Lanarkshire can go to the airport in a number of ways. They can take their cars and leave them at the airport for a week at an astronomical cost. They can take a taxi, but that, too, costs an astronomical amount. They can take the train into Glasgow and then get on a bus and on to the M8, which is cheap, but it certainly is not cheerful. With GARL, people will know where they are. They will be able to get into Central station, cross the platform and get on a train to the airport. That will be true for people from Ayrshire and Lanarkshire. GARL is important to a big area and a great many people.
I do not know how the figures stack up or how it all works in detail, despite all the major studies. I have been on another railway bill committee and I think that most of us take the projections with a pinch of salt, because we are never quite sure how the modelling will turn out in practice. However, for those of us who live in the west of Scotland and for people who come into the area from outside the country, GARL is a commonsense, important part of the jigsaw. Most of us find it as simple as that, which is why we will support the bill.
Unless there is a mood in the Parliament that I have failed to detect, the bill will be passed later this afternoon, which undoubtedly makes today a good news day for Glasgow.
We must all realise that the economic infrastructure of Glasgow and, indeed, the west of Scotland has changed profoundly over the past 30 years. The old heavy engineering and metal-bashing industries, such as shipbuilding, have largely gone and we must now earn a living for Glasgow by making it a much more attractive city to visit and in which to invest.
Depending on the criteria one uses, the Glasgow conurbation has a population of 1 million to 2.2 million people. They have been singularly ill served by the transport links to the airport, which are manifestly poor in comparison with those in any comparable European city, therefore the action that we propose to take today is long overdue.
Glasgow's conference industry is worth £115 million. Glasgow City Council, the Scottish Executive and the previous Conservative Government have done an awful lot of work to attract conferences and tourism to the city. That has been successful to some extent, but we need to build upon the success.
If there was one slightly discordant note in this afternoon's debate, it came from Patrick Harvie. I accept that the Greens probably feel totally justified in having some caveats with regard to the GARL project, but the air transport genie is well out of the bottle now. The fact is that many people fly to Glasgow from the United States; it is no longer a viable option to sail from New York or Canada.
I note the Scottish Conservatives' failure to grasp the "vote blue, go green" message as fully as their colleagues down south. Does Bill Aitken agree that, although we might not need to abolish aviation if we want to tackle climate change seriously, we cannot fly three times as much? The sums do not add up.
I question the accuracy of the assertion that aviation will triple. I fully acknowledge that there are environmental issues, but there is a much wider argument involving the consumption of carbon fuels. Patrick Harvie might find himself in agreement with me on that, as an avid proponent of reducing carbon emissions.
This has been a good, consensual debate. However, Charlie Gordon might have been better advised not to use the term "dodgy dossier", which is redolent of debates in another place that have not been quite so consensual. We hope that the bill will be passed today, and that there will be no last-minute hiccups. We are confident that, once the line is completed, there will be real economic benefits to the city of Glasgow.
I stress to the minister that neither the Parliament nor the Executive should countenance any delay to the scheme or any serious increase in costings. With that warning and caveat, I whole-heartedly support the motion that the bill be passed.
As the Scottish National Party member of the bill committee, I begin by thanking those people who assisted the committee in conducting its scrutiny. In particular, I pay tribute to the clerks for their hard work. They were always there, assisting and supporting us in undertaking our task. The Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill marked the first opportunity to try out the new truncated process for considering private bills, without the need to address all the individual complaints ourselves. I endorse the procedure, and I hope that other committees will follow it in future. Although the process took us 10 months, I suspect that it would have taken almost twice as long had we been required to consider all the complaints.
A considerable amount of ground has been covered in the debate. I will pick up on two particular issues—connectivity and the football pitches at St James park. In our first evidence-taking session, it was clear to the committee that connectivity would be key to GARL's success. The committee was rightly anxious at the outset about the low patronage figures for the line that were provided by the promoter. It was clear that one factor explaining those low figures was the poor connectivity associated with the project.
The line was to go from Glasgow Central through Paisley Gilmour Street, with a spur going off to the airport. Someone wishing to get a train to Glasgow airport from Cumbernauld, for example, would have had to get on at Cumbernauld, get off at Queen Street, get the bus or walk with their baggage to Glasgow Central and then get the train out to the airport. It was clear from the evidence that we received when visiting Manchester airport that, if the link is to be successful and if patronage figures are to increase, there must be greater connectivity and the journey must be made convenient for people, so that when they get on a train they know that they can remain on it until they arrive at the airport.
Several members, in particular Bill Butler, raised the issue of crossrail. He is quite right about the important role that crossrail will play in making GARL even more successful. It is important to keep in mind the type of crossrail that is set up. A shuttle simply running between the two main stations will not have the impact that a service running from Queen Street to Central and then to Glasgow airport will have. That will be much more convenient for people in choosing the train to access the airport. Crossrail is important, but it is also important to put the right type of crossrail in place to maximise the potential benefits of GARL.
Wendy Alexander raised issues around St James park, although I notice that she has not stayed for this part of the debate, which is unfortunate. The committee recognised the important role that the park and its facilities play in the local community, and for that reason lodged amendments to ensure that the code of construction practice contains a clear commitment to upgrade the existing facilities, to ensure that there is access to adequate facilities while the work is continuing on the viaduct and to ensure that there is full access to both sides of St James park once the viaduct is in place, in case a ball happens to end up over on the other side during a game.
I hope that members will support the recommendation of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee to support the bill.
Glasgow is indeed a great European city and, as members have said, there is every reason to support the bill to encourage the trend to make it and wider Scotland more sustainable—despite what the Greens say—and more economically developed as a result of the better transport connections that we create. Even if the number of passengers using the airport remained the same, there would still be an argument for investing in the airport rail link, given the points that Gordon Jackson and others made about the number of people who use cars but who could switch to rail and about the increased competitiveness that rail links give great European cities. That argument will continue to apply as the number of people using the airport grows, to a greater or lesser extent.
Gordon Jackson's jigsaw analogy was a fair assessment of what must happen. I say to Charlie Gordon, Bill Butler and other members who raised the issue of Glasgow crossrail that SPT is undertaking further work on the demand forecasts for crossrail services and evaluating their operational impact on the wider rail network. We anticipate that that work will provide the basis for a business case for crossrail, which will be considered alongside other transport investments in the strategic transport projects review.
I say to David Davidson and Bill Aitken that, as others have said, construction industry inflation is common to all transport projects. Andrew Arbuckle illustrated the numbers involved. On Mr Davidson's specific point, the bill had to be right. I am sure that the Tories would have been the first to criticise if a bill had been introduced to Parliament that was not right.
I say to Margaret Jamieson that the 10 months spent on the parliamentary process has been a valuable learning experience, not just for her committee but for Parliament and our assessment of how the system will work. I take seriously the points that she made about the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill, which is currently proceeding through Parliament, and the code of construction practice and the noise and vibration policy. We will reflect on the committee's views and make judgments about the best way to tackle those issues.
I would have greater respect for Mr Adam and other SNP members in articulating their support for crossrail and its connections to GARL if it were not for all the quotes from their transport spokesman and other SNP spokesmen, such as:
"the wrong route, in the wrong place and at the wrong price."
Paisley North SNP constituency association formally objected to the bill. The transport spokesman of Mr Adam's party said that the project was a mini Holyrood in the making. I would take the SNP's support for GARL and crossrail much more seriously if it were not for the contrary remarks made on the record by Mr Ewing locally and nationally time and time again.
GARL is an important project for Scotland, Glasgow and Glasgow airport, and I encourage members to support the bill.
I am happy to be the closing speaker in this debate, and I take this opportunity to thank members for their contributions. The debate has been informative. Members have been passionate in their arguments and it has been interesting to hear their views.
Before I sum up some of the committee's views, I will comment briefly on some of the speeches. I welcome the support for the bill from members throughout the chamber as well as from people throughout Scotland. I welcome the details of local economic benefits, which Wendy Alexander outlined, and I reassure Sandra White that there are no outstanding issues about disabled access. As Margaret Jamieson said, the three parking bays will be moved, not removed, to the National Car Parks car park, and there will be drop-off and pick-up facilities at the canopy area of Gordon Street in addition to the existing Union Street facilities. The promoter is working to make further improvements, including providing collection vehicles and assistance with luggage.
I thank Marlyn Glen for her explanation. I was concerned that there would not be disabled spaces in the NCP car park, but she has clarified the situation.
I understand that people are concerned about the change, but I do not think that it will be to their detriment.
In response to Patrick Harvie, I point out that I take climate change seriously, but the improved and increased rail service between Glasgow and Paisley will reduce road traffic and therefore emissions. I say to Frances Curran that the project represents a sizeable investment in our rail system. From that point of view, I hope that she will support the bill.
Does Marlyn Glen accept that her assurances would carry more weight if they came with an Executive commitment not to use the project to facilitate the expansion of aviation but to use it as a way of getting traffic off the roads?
I understand that that is one of Patrick Harvie's priorities, but for the moment I think that the bill will make a real improvement.
The Glasgow crossrail project is one of the issues about which members are most concerned, and I acknowledge their arguments for an early decision on it. However, the committee accepts that it is not appropriate to delay consideration of the bill until a decision is made on the crossrail scheme. The committee accepts the position that the minister outlined in his evidence when he stated:
"The strategic projects review, which is being taken forward now and will conclude through 2007 and 2008, will provide an opportunity for further consideration of projects that can come together to deliver improved connections."—[Official Report, Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, 3 October 2006; c 285.]
The crossrail options may well be considered as part of a national transport strategy. The committee believes that a crossrail scheme would enhance connectivity as well as the business case for GARL, particularly if the service offered direct connections from Glasgow Queen Street station to the airport.
I turn to running times and opening hours. The committee heard evidence on the opening hours at Glasgow Central station and their correlation with flight times from Glasgow airport. It was felt that a balance had to be struck in relation to opening hours. It is not within the gift of the promoter to start the service one hour earlier, because that would require input from a range of organisations, including Network Rail. Even if GARL's opening hours were extended, there would be no other trains, which would leave onward passengers stuck in Glasgow. It is not clear where passengers could wait for other types of connecting transport—other than in the station—as shops and cafes would be closed at that time in the morning.
A further problem with early opening is that it might impinge on maintenance work, which in turn would lead to safety issues. The committee is satisfied that, because of the cost implications, it is difficult to justify running trains beyond the times stated in the business case. We are, therefore, satisfied that the proposed opening hours are the best option for now. However, we are happy that the promoter intends to continue discussions with Network Rail and Transport Scotland to determine the optimum timetable. The committee expects the timetable to be kept under constant review.
The committee sought an improvement in the promoter's contact with objectors and agreed that it should continue to consult all parties. The promoter provided an account of the consultation with objectors and the committee noted the promoter's improved efforts since preliminary stage.
Having scrutinised all the evidence, the committee is satisfied that the benefits of the scheme outweigh the negatives. We are satisfied that an appropriate balance has been struck between the rights of those who are adversely affected by the scheme and its benefits to the wider community. The revised code of construction practice and noise and vibration policy offer better protection to those who are affected. Construction hours will be restricted to 8 am to 7 pm on weekdays and 8 am to 1 pm on Saturdays, and the public and businesses will be notified of construction work seven days in advance.
The bill provides that the code must be agreed with local authorities and that Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency must be consulted. Local authorities will have direct involvement and powers to enforce mitigation and even to stop work if necessary. The provision in the bill on deemed planning conditions will allow local authorities to enforce compliance with the code under their existing planning powers.
There are no statutory requirements in Scotland for mitigating noise from railways, but in line with previous legislation we have required the promoter to implement the provisions of noise and insulation regulations that apply in England and Wales and to set noise design targets at lower levels when it is reasonably practicable through mitigation measures. Those measures will be incorporated into the appropriate contracts for the construction and operation of the railway and will be binding.
As the committee said in its consideration stage report:
"The Committee has throughout its consideration of the GARL Bill been mindful of its role in deciding the balance between the potential impact of the GARL Bill on the working and personal lives of objectors and that of the benefits the promoter asserts that the GARL Bill will deliver."
In considering each objection, the committee examined its content along with the assessor's recommendations and took into account all the written and oral evidence provided by witnesses. As Margaret Jamieson explained, we made many changes to improve protection and assist those most affected by the bill.
I add my thanks to everyone involved in the bill's progress, particularly those of us for whom this has been their first experience of the private bill process. We have produced a much-improved bill, and we recommend that the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill be passed. I support the motion in Margaret Jamieson's name.