Glasgow Airport Rail Link Preliminary Debate

Ms Wendy Alexander (Paisley North) (Lab): I am delighted to be back in Parliament after several months on maternity leave. In that vein, I add my congratulations to Michael Matheson on becoming a father to James: I hope that he enjoys parenthood as much as I do.

I thank the committee for its report, which I read last week. I found it to be seriously detailed and challenging scrutiny-it is exactly the sort of work that was envisaged by Parliament’s promoters a number of years ago.

During my absence over recent months, when I have been reduced to watching daytime television so that I might understand the deliberations of Parliament, I have been struck by how much our reputation as politicians comes down to the decisions that we make. The decision today is whether we support in principle the case for a rail link to Glasgow airport. The case for the rail link is that strengthening of Glasgow airport’s competitive advantage is fundamental to ensuring the economic strength of the whole of the west of Scotland. That is the essential case for the bill. In addition, a host of other economic benefits will flow to Renfrewshire and to Scotland: 650 new jobs will be created in Renfrewshire in the next 10 years, and an additional 700 jobs will be created in Paisley town centre when the line starts to operate. Benefits will include extra office space, additional visitor expenditure and extra trains to Glasgow.

I realise that some members are sceptical about such forecasts, but any legislature anywhere in the world that is debating an infrastructure project must decide whether the forecasts that have been put before it are an adequate basis on which to proceed. I urge those who have anxieties about whether the estimates that the promoter has put

Col 26779

before us are overly optimistic to consider-as the minister said near the beginning of the debate-that patronage on the Larkhall to Milngavie line is 30 per cent up on the same promoter’s original projections.

The purpose of parliamentary debate-we will come to the decision later-is to draw out the differences of opinion, so I will dwell a little while on the differences that we have heard. Mr Ewing told us that the SNP now favours the scheme; we welcome his conversion, albeit that it is somewhat late. Sandra White was positively effusive, so I have to ask that an SNP member-if not Sandra, then whoever will sum up for the SNP-explain why the SNP’s Scottish Parliament candidates in Renfrewshire describe the link as

“the wrong route, in the wrong place and at the wrong price.”

Sandra White claimed that Glasgow people are not parochial, but the charge of being parochial is the one that we must level against the SNP’s representatives who have, week in and week out, stirred up local opposition and now turn their backs on 700 local jobs.

Ms White: I welcome Wendy Alexander back. Her babies are beautiful; I am sure that she concurs with that.

Wendy Alexander said near the beginning of her speech that we are here to agree in principle on a rail link. Every member who has spoken from every party has said the same. Although my comrades in Renfrewshire agree in principle with the rail link, they have concerns about the scheme. That is all there is to it.

Ms Alexander: I look forward to hearing an in-principle agreement from the people who said yesterday that their objection is to the whole bill. I could go on, but I will leave it there.

All parties have their dissidents. The Tories have, of course, already jettisoned Brian Monteith, their dissident. I can say only that his argument seems to take on a slightly different flavour depending on whether he looks towards the Clyde or the Forth. As Charlie Gordon said in his speech, Brian Monteith told us in The Herald this morning that the problem is that the scheme is “not ambitious enough”. However, I drove along the M8 to Parliament today to find in the amendment that he lodged that the problem is that he

“does not agree to the general principles of the … Bill”

at all. One could do a little bit better by discussing the general principles in the same terms regardless of whether one looks towards the Forth or towards the Clyde.

The Greens constantly berate us, sometimes with good cause and good reason, for the slow

Col 26780

progress that is made on infrastructure projects and for the pace at which they proceed, but to insist that we halt the development of the Glasgow airport rail link and await another project’s development is probably not the way forward.

Patrick Harvie: I clarify that I did not call for a halt but suggested that the crossrail scheme ought to be the priority.

Ms Alexander: There are dangers in using the word “priority”, but I will leave it there.

I will say a word about what is happening in Paisley. The racecourse, as it is known, is the site in St James park playing fields for 22 football pitches, although only 20 are laid out. I record my gratitude for the combined efforts of local footballers, Renfrewshire council’s persistence and the good will on the promoter’s part: those efforts mean that, once the link is complete, 20 pitches will be provided on the current site with an additional two pitches at Ferguslie. The crucial point is that all those pitches will be upgraded to league standard and the existing pavilion will be replaced by new and modern facilities that will accommodate 40 teams and local officials. That has been widely welcomed in my part of the world, so it is vital that a legal agreement with Renfrewshire Council be reached quickly on those matters.

As we move on to the consideration stage, I urge the reporter to remain mindful of local concerns about the link’s impact. Members from several parties made important comments about the crossrail project’s importance; I do not want to add to those, but I emphasise the importance of upgrading Paisley Gilmour Street station as part of the project. Also, more work is required to relocate and compensate businesses that will be displaced or disrupted. Improved consultation of local residents is also needed on issues such as mitigation of the scheme’s visual impact. In that regard, I welcome the community liaison groups as a forum for working with the communities that will be affected. The consultation must be real and effective.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, our choice is to proceed with the project or not to proceed. Calls to delay it after so many years of waiting smack of underlying opposition to it. The Glasgow airport rail link is a visionary development. It will strengthen the west of Scotland’s physical infrastructure and will bring direct economic benefits to Glasgow and the whole west of Scotland metropolitan area. It deserves Parliament’s support today.