Official Report 200KB pdf
We will move on to item 5.
Unfortunately, I have to go.
You are a busy man, Alex.
It was my suggestion to contact the City of Edinburgh Council. One aspect that concerns people in the Borders is employment. We should recognise that jobs represent one of the key solutions to improving the quality of life and tackling the problems of low incomes, social exclusion and poverty in the Borders. That is a strong argument—the connection with the need to expand the labour market in Edinburgh is significant.
I will add a word of caution to what Fiona Hyslop has just said. I am not against the Borders railway proposal. However, we must learn from other major transport link improvements. The idea of the Kessock bridge at Inverness was that it would take employment out into the northern parts of Scotland—into Easter Ross, Sutherland and Caithness. The reverse has been true. Inverness is now a boom town. It has sucked people in because the bridge made commuting so much easier. I am not dissenting from the point that Fiona Hyslop has made, but my wish would be—I am not a Borders MSP, so I do not want to talk out of turn—to see employment growth in the Borders. That is crucial, especially after the factory closures and redundancies of the past year. Such transport links can be counterproductive in that respect; the Kessock bridge is a good example.
I will make a general point on petitions. I am not necessarily opposed to the Borders rail link, but there are competing demands. For example, my priority is the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link.
I wonder why?
It is a surprise. I would like to think that Fiona Hyslop might join me in wanting that as a priority.
I already have, Karen.
There are social inclusion aspects to the transport agenda, but we must be clear about whether the committee should concentrate its efforts on one specific proposal or whether it should examine transport and social inclusion across Scotland, so that everyone feels that they are being represented.
I agree that more general issues arise from this petition. One of them is—given the events of the past few days—that we should not be so dependent on road transport. Moreover, those who say that it no longer matters whether rail lines are electrified and that what is important is train times should be reminded that whole areas of Scotland—such as the north-east and the Borders—are being excluded because they are not part of an electrified integrated railway infrastructure.
I agree with John McAllion. The Borders does not have a rail link—that is an important point. I understand Karen Whitefield's argument about Airdrie and Bathgate. I made the same comment about the cross-rail link in Glasgow, which links the north and south of the city. Glasgow has rails. Airdrie has access to—
It has no access.
It has access to Glasgow, whereas the Borders has nothing. That is the point. Whether people are travelling from the Borders to Edinburgh, rather than from Edinburgh to the Borders, is for them to decide, but we must give them that option. The Borders is the most significant part of Scotland with no rail link, and we should put our weight behind the proposal, resources permitting. In fact, resources should be prioritised, because the Borders, although a major part of Scotland, is a blank in terms of rail travel.
I agree with a lot of what Mike Watson said. I am concerned that the Borders should have employment growth. John McAllion and I are involved with the Campaign for Rail Electrification Aberdeen to Edinburgh, which seeks to electrify the east coast line. John made a valid point about the current circumstances. We should be pushing the Executive to invest far more in rail—not just in passenger services but in freight, because of the impact that that has on our motorways and the dreadful accidents that occur. When I was going down the motorway a couple of weeks ago, I saw a pantechnicon, underneath which was a car that had been completely squashed. Those are the kinds of things that are happening. It is unbelievable that the amount of freight on our roads has increased. I am pro-railways.
I am trying to avoid getting into a competition. We will note what the Transport and the Environment Committee is doing and keep an eye on it. If we wish to contribute, we can do so at another stage, but it is proper that the Transport and the Environment Committee co-ordinates this matter.
We should pass the petition back to the Transport and the Environment Committee and take note of what Karen Whitefield and John McAllion said. We should look at the wider picture. We cannot look at issues individually.
But it is a social inclusion issue.
Yes, it is.
Surely that requires us to say that we think railways in general are socially inclusive, in particular in the Borders.
We will say that to the Transport and the Environment Committee.
What else is there for us to say? It is not up to us to prioritise, although Mike Watson's point that the Borders is one of the only areas with no rail link is an important one.
I recommend that we collate the views of the committee and submit them to the Transport and the Environment Committee so that it can use what we say when it communicates with the Executive. Individual MSPs can represent their own areas in the competition for resources.
We should not be having a competition—that is inappropriate.
None the less, we are persuaded about the principle of inclusion in the Borders and we agree that the Borders has significant needs, which impact on exclusion.
Meeting continued in private until 12:53.
Previous
Housing Bills