Chamber
Plenary, 06 Dec 2000
06 Dec 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Glasgow Light Rail Scheme
I am grateful to Murray Tosh for raising that point. If the procedure were still in place, members from all parties would be genuinely shocked to learn that this democratically elected Parliament with devolved responsibility for transport could not lay even a single line of track without first securing the permission of Westminster. If we have got rid of that procedure, bodies such as the SPTE need to know that, because only last week they were still complaining about its continued existence. I ask the minister to address that question.
The initial phase of the Glasgow light rail proposal considered by the commissioners in 1996 connected Maryhill to Easterhouse, passing through the centre of the city. That was planned as the first line of a wider network; other lines to Drumchapel, Balarnock and Tollcross were envisaged, with a view to connecting the whole of the south side of Glasgow, including Pollok. The capital cost, at 1995 prices, included £146 million for infrastructure, £36.4 million for 26 new trams and £1.3 million for land purchase, coming to a total of £183 million. The operating costs were envisaged at £7.4 million, with a revenue income of £8.6 million, thereby delivering an operating surplus.
The fares were to be set at a level between existing bus and rail fares. The construction period was to be two years to open the first phase, with a further two years to completion. The scheme would have created 738 full-time construction jobs, 178 operating jobs and a further 800 jobs through regeneration effects. Although it was envisaged that jobs would be lost on bus operations, there would be a net gain of 53 jobs, with many existing bus drivers operating the trams. The scheme proposed a tram frequency of one every five minutes between 7 am and 6.30 pm and one every 10 minutes thereafter.
In the UK, there are light rail schemes in Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and Croydon, most of which have proposed extensions. There are nine street rail systems running in the London docklands and Newcastle. There are plans to construct light rail schemes in Leeds, Nottingham, Bristol, Hampshire, Medway, Bath and Cardiff. Local Transport Today magazine reported on 3 August this year that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions envisaged 25 new light rail schemes across England and Wales within the next 10 years. It said that the DETR intends to use £CAPut!' billion of public investment to support those schemes, at an average cost of £150 million per scheme. There is £CAPut!' billion of public money to support light rail schemes in England and Wales. The question for us tonight is: where is our £1.9 billion as a proportion of that?
In a DETR press notice of 13 December 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, said:
"In our towns and cities we will see more light rail systems, giving people a modern, attractive alternative to the car."
Glasgow is a city on its knees in terms of public investment. We feel completely neglected in relation to public housing, arts, culture and transport investment. A recent council analysis of the respective share of the Government's transport challenge fund for 1997-98 and 1998-99, together with the public transport fund for 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002, illustrates clearly that Glasgow is losing out to Edinburgh in public investment in transport schemes.
The reservations for the previously proposed light rail transport network are currently protected through the 1995 Strathclyde structure plan. The proposed 2000 Glasgow and Clyde valley structure plan has a policy of protecting former rail solums, including those required for the light rail transport network. In other words, there is absolutely no technical or engineering reason why the existing Glasgow light rail scheme should not be reinvestigated, updated and rapidly implemented.
The scheme would provide a major regeneration opportunity to the city of Glasgow in terms of jobs and accessible, efficient and environmentally friendly quality transport linking every part of Glasgow and providing a full-frontal double assault on congestion and pollution. All that is lacking is the political will. A major public investment of between £150 million and £170 million could bring Glasgow public transport into the 21st century, which would regenerate our tourist industry.
The Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive is 100 per cent behind tonight's motion but, before committing another penny to updating and developing its existing proposal, it requires a positive indication from the minister that the scheme will be looked on favourably. I appeal to her tonight to give a public commitment that she is willing to support the construction of a Glasgow light rail network that will bring us into the 21st century, with modern efficient trams connecting every corner of Glasgow and—hopefully—supplementing the crossrail scheme and the urgently required direct rail link to Glasgow airport. Glasgow cannot afford to be neglected any longer.
The initial phase of the Glasgow light rail proposal considered by the commissioners in 1996 connected Maryhill to Easterhouse, passing through the centre of the city. That was planned as the first line of a wider network; other lines to Drumchapel, Balarnock and Tollcross were envisaged, with a view to connecting the whole of the south side of Glasgow, including Pollok. The capital cost, at 1995 prices, included £146 million for infrastructure, £36.4 million for 26 new trams and £1.3 million for land purchase, coming to a total of £183 million. The operating costs were envisaged at £7.4 million, with a revenue income of £8.6 million, thereby delivering an operating surplus.
The fares were to be set at a level between existing bus and rail fares. The construction period was to be two years to open the first phase, with a further two years to completion. The scheme would have created 738 full-time construction jobs, 178 operating jobs and a further 800 jobs through regeneration effects. Although it was envisaged that jobs would be lost on bus operations, there would be a net gain of 53 jobs, with many existing bus drivers operating the trams. The scheme proposed a tram frequency of one every five minutes between 7 am and 6.30 pm and one every 10 minutes thereafter.
In the UK, there are light rail schemes in Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and Croydon, most of which have proposed extensions. There are nine street rail systems running in the London docklands and Newcastle. There are plans to construct light rail schemes in Leeds, Nottingham, Bristol, Hampshire, Medway, Bath and Cardiff. Local Transport Today magazine reported on 3 August this year that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions envisaged 25 new light rail schemes across England and Wales within the next 10 years. It said that the DETR intends to use £CAPut!' billion of public investment to support those schemes, at an average cost of £150 million per scheme. There is £CAPut!' billion of public money to support light rail schemes in England and Wales. The question for us tonight is: where is our £1.9 billion as a proportion of that?
In a DETR press notice of 13 December 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, said:
"In our towns and cities we will see more light rail systems, giving people a modern, attractive alternative to the car."
Glasgow is a city on its knees in terms of public investment. We feel completely neglected in relation to public housing, arts, culture and transport investment. A recent council analysis of the respective share of the Government's transport challenge fund for 1997-98 and 1998-99, together with the public transport fund for 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002, illustrates clearly that Glasgow is losing out to Edinburgh in public investment in transport schemes.
The reservations for the previously proposed light rail transport network are currently protected through the 1995 Strathclyde structure plan. The proposed 2000 Glasgow and Clyde valley structure plan has a policy of protecting former rail solums, including those required for the light rail transport network. In other words, there is absolutely no technical or engineering reason why the existing Glasgow light rail scheme should not be reinvestigated, updated and rapidly implemented.
The scheme would provide a major regeneration opportunity to the city of Glasgow in terms of jobs and accessible, efficient and environmentally friendly quality transport linking every part of Glasgow and providing a full-frontal double assault on congestion and pollution. All that is lacking is the political will. A major public investment of between £150 million and £170 million could bring Glasgow public transport into the 21st century, which would regenerate our tourist industry.
The Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive is 100 per cent behind tonight's motion but, before committing another penny to updating and developing its existing proposal, it requires a positive indication from the minister that the scheme will be looked on favourably. I appeal to her tonight to give a public commitment that she is willing to support the construction of a Glasgow light rail network that will bring us into the 21st century, with modern efficient trams connecting every corner of Glasgow and—hopefully—supplementing the crossrail scheme and the urgently required direct rail link to Glasgow airport. Glasgow cannot afford to be neglected any longer.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Patricia Ferguson):
Lab
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-1286, in the name of Tommy Sheridan, on a Glasgow light rail scheme. The debate will b...
Motion debated,
That the Parliament believes that the construction of a light rail scheme in Glasgow would provide enormous benefits to the city in relation to jobs, improvi...
Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP):
SSP
I apologise to those members who listened to the previous debate and are staying for this debate—it was not my choice to debate two motions in my name in one...
Mr Murray Tosh (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
Will Mr Sheridan give way?
Tommy Sheridan:
SSP
Of course.
Mr Tosh:
Con
I draw Mr Sheridan's attention to the fact that last week Parliament approved a report from the Procedures Committee that came into effect on 24 November and...
Tommy Sheridan:
SSP
I am grateful to Murray Tosh for raising that point. If the procedure were still in place, members from all parties would be genuinely shocked to learn that ...
Ms Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
Tommy Sheridan talked about our having to listen to his dulcet tones. I never mind doing that, because he usually has something sensible to say.This proposal...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
It is appropriate that this issue should be debated this afternoon, although to some extent the debate is a rerun of the one that Sandra White initiated seve...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
In order to accommodate all the members who want to speak, I ask the remaining members to limit their speeches to three minutes.
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD):
LD
A salient point is that, if the parliamentary commissioners had not rejected the scheme in 1996, we would have been looking forward to the opening of the sys...
Mr Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) (Lab):
Lab
I will be brief. I have dim and distant memories of some of the debates and news coverage of the project before it was so cruelly cut. After a constituent re...
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green):
Green
I will be brief, but I am keen to indicate my support for Tommy Sheridan's motion.Bill Aitken was not terribly serious in raising the spectre of disruption. ...
The Minister for Transport (Sarah Boyack):
Lab
I commend Tommy Sheridan for securing tonight's debate, which allows us to look beyond the current crisis on the railways to think to the future about new in...
Robert Brown:
LD
Will the minister give way?
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
No. Members have raised a lot of points and I want to address them all.I understand that the SPTE supports a joint venture whereby light rail services would ...
Meeting closed at 17:30.