Rural Affairs Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 30, 2000

Official Report 274KB pdf

---

Borders Rail

I have explained to one or two members what is happening, but I will explain it again. We must take 10 minutes at this point in the meeting to agree a motion for the debate on Borders rail on Thursday, so that the motion can be lodged at the chamber desk before the 4.30 deadline. Given that our meeting is running slightly over time, it is sensible that we get this item of business out of the way.

A number of proposals and suggestions for the text of the motion have been circulated, although it may not be clear which is which.

Perhaps I should clarify that the typed motion is mine; my name is not actually on it.

Thank you. I think we have two suggested motions, so I will give the proposers two minutes each to speak to their suggestions before we have our discussion. Who wants to speak first?

I have the text of only one suggestion in front of me. Can the others be read out?

Okay. The first one reads:

"That the Parliament recognises and endorses the case for"—

That is my suggestion; I will read it out.

"That the Parliament recognises and endorses the case for the establishment of a railway linking the Scottish Borders to the national network, and urges the Scottish Executive to facilitate its establishment by whatever means are most effective and appropriate."

May I speak to my suggested motion now?

Yes.

I want two things out of the debate. First, I would like the Parliament to say that the link is a good idea; secondly, I would like the Scottish Executive to have a duty to make progress on the matter. I would love the Executive to say that it will pay for it tomorrow, but that is not realistic. We need to say that it is a good thing. The Parliament says yes; the man from Monsanto says yes.

We have to move forward from here and I think that we would be silly to tie the motion down by referring to an immediate payment by the Government. However, if the Executive is put under pressure to facilitate the establishment of the railway by whatever means are most effective and appropriate, we can argue about the finance afterwards. That is what I want Thursday's debate to focus on.

Could Mr Jenkins read his suggested motion again?

The first part reads:

"That the Parliament recognises and endorses the case for the establishment of a railway linking the Scottish Borders to the national network".

The reason for putting it that way is that we would like the line to go all the way to Carlisle, but I do not want anyone to say that we cannot do it because we cannot afford to go all the way to Carlisle. By saying that we want to link the Borders to the national network, we are not being specific about either end of the line. We want the Parliament to endorse the idea of linking the Scottish Borders to the national network.

The motion continues:

"and urges the Scottish Executive to facilitate its establishment by whatever means are most effective and appropriate."

That would allow us to argue about the money, whether it should be public or private and so on. Those are the two elements that I want to be discussed in the debate.

What do you have to say about that Euan?

That is perfectly acceptable to me. The motion that I drafted rather hastily last week and gave to Elaine Murray as a simple suggestion is somewhat similar. Convener, you have the only copy of that motion. We need an inclusive motion. The debate should not drive anyone away from the matter by tying it down too specifically at this stage. We are some way away from finding the money. There is a lot of work to be done before we reach that point. There may be a variety of funding sources that we might attract to the project.

I am happy with Ian Jenkins's motion. The one that I produced was just something for the committee to consider. I am not trying to tell the committee to do anything. I hope that members do not feel that I was being impertinent in suggesting my motion—I was just trying to be helpful.

Needless to say, my amendment is rather more feisty. According to the Scott Wilson report, it would cost £100 million to reinstate the line all the way to Carlisle. Already, £1,200 million has been spent on the Jubilee line in London. The shadow strategic rail authority has billions to spend. For 30 years, Borders people have been talking about reinstating the railway line; they want testosterone from the Parliament rather than more good wishes. I am sure that, on Thursday, everyone will put their hands up and say that re-establishment of the railway line is a good idea. They could also say that it should be done by whatever means are most effective and appropriate. However, where does that take the debate? We need a commitment to finance.

Last week, the Parliament had a debate on a new approach to rural affairs. I want action, not more glossy brochures and fine words. I want the Parliament to ask the SRA for £100 million to fund the line and to regenerate an entire area of Scotland, where there are 108,000 people in very poor economic circumstances. It is time the Parliament laid down the line on something that matters. Forget section 28 and foxhunting, let us talk about the economy and jobs. That is what the railway line would deliver. I have a lot of time for cross-party consensus, but the time has come to ask for money. The strategic rail authority has money that is separate from the consolidated fund and available.

I have listened to the two propositions. It seems to me that the inclusive approach taken by Ian Jenkins and Euan Robson is the one that would allow Parliament to have a positive and constructive debate on this issue. As a member of the Rural Affairs Committee, I do not want to insist that the strategic rail authority put this project above the many other projects that the Rural Affairs Committee and all of us as constituency MSPs would like to happen.

In Thursday's debate, we should highlight the significance of the project; but we should not take up a feisty position, as Christine Grahame calls it. The debate is an opportunity for local MSPs and others with an interest to make their case. I concur with Ian Jenkins's proposition.

Would the motion be a committee motion, and not in the name of any individual member?

That is correct.

I, too, would like to support Ian Jenkins's view. Especially because this is a committee motion, it is appropriate that it should be all-inclusive. I do not think that we should be feisty, to use Christine Grahame's word again; that would give entirely the wrong impression. I urge fellow members of the committee to take up the more inclusive motion that we heard first.

I do not disagree with much of what Christine Grahame said; it is just the tactics that I do not agree with. I want the money and I want it as quickly as possible, but I do not think that Christine's tactics are the ones that we should use on Thursday.

I would like the strategic rail authority to provide the cash for the Borders railway, but I suspect that if the motion is too definitive we may not get the support of the Parliament and the motion may be lost. I know from our discussions in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee that some people began to retreat from support of this project when they realised that it would mean earmarking particular finances. A more inclusive approach might be more likely to attract cross-party support and to result in the motion being carried. However, I would hold out for the reinstatement of the line from Edinburgh to Carlisle. There is not much point in reinstating half a railway that ends up half way into the Borders but then does not go anywhere. It is important to consider the entire railway.

What is the deadline for the motion?

Half past four.

May I hear the motion again?

Yes.

"That the Parliament recognises and endorses the case for the establishment of a railway linking the Scottish Borders to the national network, and urges the Scottish Executive to facilitate its establishment by whatever means are most effective and appropriate."

Two points arise. First, are we talking about two branch lines—or one branch line, depending on how you look at it—or about a through line? Secondly, should we mention how it should be funded?

We obviously have split ideas on whether we should talk about a through route; I wondered whether we could at least mention a through route. I am not clear about the funding and whether it would be the strategic rail authority that would put in all the money.

The feasibility study suggests that a rail link down as far as Gala and Tweedbank would be a going concern, but it expresses real doubts about the through line. I think that the through line is what we are looking for, but I do not know how pushy we should be about it. We must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

If the deadline is 15 minutes away, we need to go for an all-inclusive motion such as Ian Jenkins suggests. It does not exclude anything at the moment, and this is the very start of the process. All the points can be made during the debate. We need to get a move on.

We have heard responses from Ian Jenkins. Perhaps being feisty upsets some people, but the Rural Affairs Committee has a duty to rural communities. This is an opportunity to do something different. Ian's suggested wording is so open to interpretation that it does not bring our goal any closer. Who can define "by whatever means are most effective and appropriate"? Who decides that and when does it happen? That wording will not help us to get anywhere, because there is no call on anybody to provide funding.

There is no obligation on the Scottish Parliament not to call on the strategic rail authority for funding. I can see that there might be room for a compromise, but I would like some form of words that takes us beyond our four walls and looks to the strategic rail authority to consider the issue. I am just making a suggestion, but I hope that the motion that you eventually lodge will not simply be a motherhood-and-apple-pie job. A lot of people have worked very hard for 30 years for this.

The strategic rail authority is certainly an option and it probably should provide investment, but Christine Grahame's suggested wording identifies it as the sole source of funding. There are opportunities for other funders, so I do not want a motion that restricts the options for raising money to just one source. That is a problem if we isolate the strategic rail authority. There is little doubt that the strategic rail authority would have the resources to do it, but we are not yet clear that that is the optimum route. There may be other sources of funding.

Presenting two motions to the committee 20 minutes before the deadline is an unfortunate way of doing things. Why does the motion have to be lodged by today when the debate is on Thursday?

Are we mistaken about that?

According to standing orders, the motion has to be lodged two days before the debate.

Would it be possible to amend the wording of Ian Jenkins's motion to mention "a railway linking the Scottish Borders to the national network at Edinburgh and Carlisle"? That does not state that it should be a through line, but it implies it. Would that provide an acceptable compromise on one of the issues?

I would vote for that. If the committee is happy with that, I will be happy to sign the motion.

I suggest that we also amend the end of the motion to add to "whatever means are most effective and appropriate" the phrase "including the strategic rail authority". I am concerned about isolating the strategic rail authority; that would give the impression that we would not look anywhere else for funding. There might be an optimum funding route elsewhere than the strategic rail authority.

Could we add at the end, "including making approaches to the SRA for funding"?

That would be fine.

We could urge the Scottish Executive "to consult the SRA and others to facilitate its establishment".

I agree with Alasdair Morgan about differentiating between the two ends. The committee meetings about the issue have shown that there are different reasons for re-establishing the railway at the southern end and at the northern end. One is largely for freight and forestry, the other is for commuters and traffic, but both are relevant and I would like both to be mentioned. That is a welcome addition to the motion.

Can you read out the amended wording?

It now reads:

"That the Parliament recognises and endorses the case for the establishment of a railway linking the Scottish Borders to the national network at Edinburgh and Carlisle and urges the Scottish Executive to consult with the strategic rail authority and others to facilitate its establishment by whatever"—

Stop at "facilitate its establishment." We do not need any more than that. Sorry—that is my suggestion.

That was the wisdom of Solomon.

Do we have a compromise?

Members indicated agreement.

That was agreed unanimously.

We always agree unanimously.