Chamber
Plenary, 14 Mar 2007
14 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill: Final Stage
Normally, the Scottish Green Party enthusiastically supports rail developments and proposals to encourage modal shift to rail and public transport throughout Scotland. However, we do not support the Edinburgh airport rail link. We remain absolutely unconvinced that it is a priority as a way to connect Edinburgh airport to the rail network or as a missing link in the national rail network. We are unconvinced that it is the best use of anywhere between £600 million and £1 billion of public money.
In addition, as we have heard, the project will increase the journey time on some routes, including the Edinburgh to Glasgow route. It may necessitate further capital works that the current documents do not account for, to remedy the situation. In addition, the whole development may be prone to flooding.
At a capital cost of more than £610 million at least, the project represents significant expenditure that could easily be spent otherwise on a multitude of small local schemes that have the backing of local communities—schemes that local people want to use, campaign for and support. The Executive is ignoring such schemes throughout Scotland.
The Greens were not represented on the committee. We volunteered to supply a member, but we were excluded from the committee. Although we have endorsed some of the committee's comments on the proposals, I take the opportunity to remind Parliament that we were enthusiastic about serving on the committee and interested in considering the evidence in detail. That was probably the first example of a member volunteering to serve on a private bill committee but being excluded by the main parties.
I turn to the substantive issues. This is not a debate about an airport extension, but the EARL project is predicated on such expansion. It is predicated on a Department for Transport progress report—"The Future of Air Transport"—which entirely ignored questions about climate change, peak oil, oil shortages and reductions and, more specifically, the projected rise in the cost of oil. It is inconceivable that we will bring about significant reductions in climate-changing emissions while we treble airport capacity, which the report suggests. It is also ridiculous to base such expenditure on a proposal that takes no account of global oil projections. I strongly question the assertion that the link would save 1.7 million car journeys a year.
Paragraph 21 of the "West Edinburgh Planning Framework, 2006: Background Report" states:
"As the Airport grows from 8.6 million passengers per annum in 2005-06 to up to 26 million passengers in 2030, the tram and rail links are forecast to increase the public transport share of surface access to the airport from about 20% currently with bus to 44% in 2021. While that is a significant contribution to sustainable transport access, it still means that car access will grow on a person-trip basis by around 100%"
over the next 25 years. It continues:
"One of the issues to be addressed by the West Edinburgh Planning Framework 2006 is therefore how to plan for double the number of cars seeking to access the Airport, given the congestion on the current road network."
The EARL scheme will mean that car access will increase in the years to come.
Our concerns about journey times on key rail routes, which were acknowledged during the stage 1 debate, have been mentioned. Members of various parties have made the same point that we have made: that claiming that the project will benefit all Scotland's rail network is overegging the pudding. The same applies to the public benefit to cost ratio that has been claimed. We think that various small to medium local improvements that have been proposed in the rail route utilisation strategy offer a far greater public benefit, but those improvements appear to be inexplicably unpopular in the Parliament. The Executive appears not to be interested in smaller schemes that would benefit people throughout Scotland.
We congratulate the committee on its painstaking work, but we remain convinced that there are far better ways of spending the money to serve Scotland's transport network. Therefore, we shall not support the motion. EARL seems far too much like a vanity project that is taking precedence over more effective ways in which the money could be used.
We support rail development, but we want properly costed schemes that are based on strong business cases, that have local community support and that improve rather than lengthen journey times. We support schemes that local people want and for which they have campaigned. We cannot support the waste of money that has been proposed.
In addition, as we have heard, the project will increase the journey time on some routes, including the Edinburgh to Glasgow route. It may necessitate further capital works that the current documents do not account for, to remedy the situation. In addition, the whole development may be prone to flooding.
At a capital cost of more than £610 million at least, the project represents significant expenditure that could easily be spent otherwise on a multitude of small local schemes that have the backing of local communities—schemes that local people want to use, campaign for and support. The Executive is ignoring such schemes throughout Scotland.
The Greens were not represented on the committee. We volunteered to supply a member, but we were excluded from the committee. Although we have endorsed some of the committee's comments on the proposals, I take the opportunity to remind Parliament that we were enthusiastic about serving on the committee and interested in considering the evidence in detail. That was probably the first example of a member volunteering to serve on a private bill committee but being excluded by the main parties.
I turn to the substantive issues. This is not a debate about an airport extension, but the EARL project is predicated on such expansion. It is predicated on a Department for Transport progress report—"The Future of Air Transport"—which entirely ignored questions about climate change, peak oil, oil shortages and reductions and, more specifically, the projected rise in the cost of oil. It is inconceivable that we will bring about significant reductions in climate-changing emissions while we treble airport capacity, which the report suggests. It is also ridiculous to base such expenditure on a proposal that takes no account of global oil projections. I strongly question the assertion that the link would save 1.7 million car journeys a year.
Paragraph 21 of the "West Edinburgh Planning Framework, 2006: Background Report" states:
"As the Airport grows from 8.6 million passengers per annum in 2005-06 to up to 26 million passengers in 2030, the tram and rail links are forecast to increase the public transport share of surface access to the airport from about 20% currently with bus to 44% in 2021. While that is a significant contribution to sustainable transport access, it still means that car access will grow on a person-trip basis by around 100%"
over the next 25 years. It continues:
"One of the issues to be addressed by the West Edinburgh Planning Framework 2006 is therefore how to plan for double the number of cars seeking to access the Airport, given the congestion on the current road network."
The EARL scheme will mean that car access will increase in the years to come.
Our concerns about journey times on key rail routes, which were acknowledged during the stage 1 debate, have been mentioned. Members of various parties have made the same point that we have made: that claiming that the project will benefit all Scotland's rail network is overegging the pudding. The same applies to the public benefit to cost ratio that has been claimed. We think that various small to medium local improvements that have been proposed in the rail route utilisation strategy offer a far greater public benefit, but those improvements appear to be inexplicably unpopular in the Parliament. The Executive appears not to be interested in smaller schemes that would benefit people throughout Scotland.
We congratulate the committee on its painstaking work, but we remain convinced that there are far better ways of spending the money to serve Scotland's transport network. Therefore, we shall not support the motion. EARL seems far too much like a vanity project that is taking precedence over more effective ways in which the money could be used.
We support rail development, but we want properly costed schemes that are based on strong business cases, that have local community support and that improve rather than lengthen journey times. We support schemes that local people want and for which they have campaigned. We cannot support the waste of money that has been proposed.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5685, in the name of Scott Barrie, that the Parliament agrees that the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill b...
Scott Barrie (Dunfermline West) (Lab):
Lab
The Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill was introduced on 16 March 2006. It seeks powers to provide the promoter, Transport Initiatives Edinburgh Ltd, with stat...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
The member says that the bill will do a lot more than just provide for the building of a rail link to the airport, but has the committee fully considered the...
Scott Barrie:
Lab
The committee examined fully the effect that the proposal might have on services in the central belt and further afield. We put Pauline McNeill's point to Ne...
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):
SNP
In the evidence that he gave on behalf of Network Rail, Ron McAulay said that, if the EARL project is constructed,"that will have an adverse impact and … we ...
Scott Barrie:
Lab
I think that I addressed that point, in part, in the response that I gave to Pauline McNeill. Although some journeys that are diverted via the airport may ta...
Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
LD
Some concerns remain. The committee has said that there should be a code of construction practice and local construction codes. Will the member give us more ...
Scott Barrie:
Lab
The committee was satisfied by the fact that the requirement for a code of construction practice is incorporated in the bill. We will thus be able to ensure ...
The Minister for Transport (Tavish Scott):
LD
I thank the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee and its convener, Scott Barrie, for their work on the bill. I pay tribute to the committee clerks, the...
Pauline McNeill:
Lab
I put to the minister the same point that I put to Scott Barrie. Before I vote on the bill this evening, I would like an assurance from the minister that he,...
Tavish Scott:
LD
We considered the matter closely and we do not envisage that there will be anything other than a very minimal impact in relation to the Glasgow airport rail ...
Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP):
SNP
As the minister is now expressing confidence about the capacity of the industry to deliver the new rolling stock, can he tell us precisely what the additiona...
Tavish Scott:
LD
I cannot give Mr Adam that answer today, as we have only just entered the rolling stock procurement programme—as I have said repeatedly in written answers to...
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):
SNP
I will set out the SNP's position on EARL—I hope not in an insipid way. We offer a clear alternative to what all the other parties offer on the issue. We do ...
Tavish Scott:
LD
He is making it up.
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
It is the SNP's view—despite the minister's habitual running commentary, which we enjoy during these debates—that the money can be better spent on other proj...
Tavish Scott:
LD
Will the member give way?
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
In a moment.At present, our rail network is running at or near capacity. The SNP's view is that we must invest to increase that capacity. Otherwise, we will ...
Tavish Scott:
LD
Does Mr Ewing believe that Network Rail is wrong to have made the Edinburgh airport rail link part of its route utilisation strategy?
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
We do not believe that EARL is a pivotal part of Network Rail's route utilisation strategy. A more important part of the strategy is to reduce journey times ...
Bristow Muldoon (Livingston) (Lab):
Lab
Will the member take an intervention?
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
I will finish this point, if I may.We need to effect major improvements to our road network throughout Scotland. Plainly, it is not possible to make all impr...
Tavish Scott:
LD
Yes you have.
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
The minister says, "Yes you have," but the record will show that we have clearly stated that the SNP recognises that long-term objectives must include, for e...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con):
Con
Does the member accept that if Scotland's capital is a great deal less competitive in communications than other European capitals, that will be to Scotland's...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
I accept that point in principle. Indeed, the SNP has developed policies to tackle that very problem. For example, we will provide substantial opportunities ...
Tavish Scott:
LD
I am very glad about that.
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
Does the SNP support EARL? The answer is: no, no and no. Instead, we will invest the money for the good of the whole of Scotland.
David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con):
Con
In the preliminary stage debate on the bill, I said that inadequate information on the project's funding and on alternative and more cost-effective methods o...
Iain Smith (North East Fife) (LD):
LD
Does the member accept that the major benefit of the rail link is that it will serve people who travel from elsewhere in Scotland, whereas the proposed traml...