3. To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. (S5F-00381)

On Tuesday.

The Scottish Government is due some credit for its work on climate justice, which, in its own words, aims to

“secure global justice for the many victims of climate change who are usually forgotten”.

The Government says that

“that does not exclude people in our own communities. This is not simply an international issue.”—[

Official Report

, 1 March 2012; c 6769.]

However, that principle does not seem to apply to the people who live under the flight paths at Heathrow. A third runway would create 250,000 extra flights a year, which would cause a massive increase in emissions and be the single biggest threat to the whole United Kingdom meeting its climate change targets. It would leave thousands of people’s homes too noisy and polluted to live in, and unknown tens of thousands more would be left to suffer the damaging health effects.

I can only imagine the outrage—I would join it—from the Scottish Government and its colleagues at Westminster if the UK Government inflicted that kind of damage on so many lives in Glasgow, Inverness or Dundee in exchange for alleged economic self-interest, but Scottish National Party members will now troop through the voting lobbies to bail out a Tory Prime Minister who stood for election saying, “No ifs, no buts—no third runway.” What is the point of a principle such as climate justice when it is surrendered so easily?

The First Minister:

I will let the Prime Minister explain her position. The decision on another runway in London—whether it be at Heathrow or anywhere else—is for the UK Government, not the Scottish Government.

In welcoming the announcement that was made this week, we recognise that there are many hurdles still to be overcome for the decision about Heathrow.

In reaching our judgment—the work was led by Keith Brown, who is our economy secretary—the Scottish Government looked carefully at which option would deliver the greatest benefits to Scotland’s economy and connectivity. If we look at connectivity, we see that 40 per cent of long-haul visitors to Scotland connect through Heathrow, compared with just 4 per cent who come through Gatwick. We are working hard with our airports to increase direct flights, but hub connectivity remains important to Scotland.

On the economy, there is the potential for significant construction spend in Scotland and thousands of jobs. In the shorter term, there is the potential for a supply-chain hub at Prestwick, which will have an extremely important impact on the economy and on jobs. There will be a £10 million route development fund. A reduction in passenger charges will start in January, which will make services between Scotland and Heathrow much more viable, and there is to be a new marketing campaign.

Those are the reasons on which our decision was based. Patrick Harvie rightly raises the issues of climate change and emissions. The UK Government will have to answer questions and satisfy people with its answers to those questions.

The Scottish Government has shown global leadership by including domestic and international aviation in our emissions reduction targets. Where Scottish Government policies or policies that we support would increase aviation emissions, we have to work harder to reduce emissions in other areas to meet our overall targets. The Government has a strong record on climate change and meeting our emissions reduction targets and we will continue to show leadership on that.

The argument about connections to more destinations would make sense if those connections were going to be instead of more short-haul aviation, but the Scottish Government’s approach shows that it wants more of both. As for the job creation figures, they are entirely spurious. We begin with the airports commission’s figures of 59,000 by 2030 and then 75,000 by 2050, and then we move on to Heathrow’s pie-in-the-sky estimate of 180,000. That is about as believable as the job projection figures for Donald Trump’s golf course. Surely we are not going to fall for that, are we? What were the Heathrow bosses putting in the drinks at the Scottish National Party conference?

The Heathrow deal and the Scottish Government’s policy on cutting air passenger duty seek to reduce aviation fares, although aviation already enjoys a privileged position as the only transport mode that pays no tax on its fuel. Public transport remains overpriced, unreliable and run for private profit. Rail fares from Glasgow or Edinburgh are often three times the price of flying to London. Surely the First Minister must accept that it is time to focus on the affordable, sustainable and low-carbon transport that people actually need in their daily lives instead of boosting the most environmentally destructive, unhealthy and unsustainable transport mode.

The First Minister:

I totally respect Patrick Harvie’s position but, when we come to take decisions—the Heathrow decision is not the Scottish Government’s decision, although we have made a judgment about which option best suits Scotland’s economic and connectivity interest—they are not always either/or decisions between all the things that he talks about. We have to strike the right balance. Of course it is extremely important that we have good-quality affordable and accessible public transport in Scotland and to connect Scotland to other parts of the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe, but so too is making sure that we have the air links that allow our economy to grow and boost the connectivity that our economy often depends on. We have to balance such decisions.

Around all that is our moral obligation to meet our climate change targets and to reduce emissions. I simply say that the Scottish Government’s record on that is very strong and good, although I am not complacent about that. Unlike many other Governments, we include emissions from aviation. We have met our target years ahead of schedule and we are already working on increasing the target and ensuring that we have the policies in place to meet it.

There will always be difficult decisions to make and difficult balances to strike, but the objectives of meeting our climate change targets and ensuring that we have the necessary infrastructure to enable our economy to grow and support jobs are not mutually exclusive; they are things that Governments have to consider in the round.