Official Report 263KB pdf
Good morning. I am sorry for the slight delay in getting started this morning. I welcome everyone to the ninth meeting in 2004 of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee. Apologies have been received from two of our parliamentary colleagues. Rob Gibson is on committee business elsewhere and Jamie Stone is delayed; his plane was cancelled this morning.
Good morning. I am the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian. I am joined by my colleague Dave McCulloch, whose project management responsibilities include transport. We thank the convener for the invitation to address the committee on the strategically important proposal to reintroduce trams to the streets of Edinburgh.
I will not make an opening speech as such, because Jim McFarlane has covered much of what I would have said. I will just add a few comments in support of the general position that he has outlined.
Thank you. Needless to say, you have answered many of the questions that I intended to ask. In your submissions and your presentations, you have both made much of the tram system's potential economic benefit and the prosperity that is associated with it. Will you distil that into the specific economic benefits that you think a tramline would bring?
For me, the key is that a tram system would move large numbers of people around the city very quickly in a way that no other form of public transport, except an underground or a heavy rail system—which are not options—could do. That is vital. As regards economic development, the ability to put new developments in places such as the waterfront and Leith depends on being able to get the people who will work in those developments to their place of work and back again quickly, comfortably and in a predictable way. Predictability is a key point.
An efficient and effective transport system is what binds the economy together and makes it work. I mentioned the scenarios work that was completed earlier in the year. That exercise involved Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian, the council and Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce in conducting about 120 interviews with leading figures in the city, including the major corporate employers. The responses consistently raised the transport situation, congestion and the potential for increased congestion to act as a constraint on the growth of the economy in the future. The major corporate companies shared the fear that their expansion could be inhibited in that way. As I have said, those factors all point to the need for efficient transport.
You mentioned investment in public transport. Why should we invest in trams rather than in the existing transport system?
As Bill Furness has pointed out, Edinburgh, to the city's credit, has invested significantly in the bus system and in bus lanes. However, the sheer growth in vehicular traffic will mean that, over the next 10 or 15 years, that level of investment will simply be unsustainable in relation to the problems that we will face. Trams with dedicated routes offer the potential for swift movement through parts of the city, down to the major areas of growth at the waterfront and—with tramline 2—out to the west end and the airport.
I want to ask Bill Furness about the constraints on economic development that could result during the construction phase and when the trams eventually operate. Many people have told us that there is likely to be disruption during the construction phase. If that is the case, how do you think we could avoid or minimise some of the negative impacts?
That is a real issue. Although we are in favour of tram systems once they are built, there is an issue about what I understand can be a lengthy construction phase. We need to consider carefully how we can help retailers predominantly, as retail is the sector of the business community that is likely to be affected most during the construction phase. I am not writing off residential properties or commercial office developments, but in relation to immediate impact on trade we need to consider in particular small retailers in narrow streets where disruption might be an issue.
I have a question on that point. Later we will be considering the European convention on human rights in relation to the effects of the project on traders and their businesses, which could be significant. What consideration has the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce given the matter and how strong a bargaining point do you envisage making it?
It worries us, although we would not necessarily call it a bargaining point. We welcome trams and we have to accept that there will be disruption while the lines are being constructed. Retailers can be helped in a number of ways, some of which I have just touched on. I do not think that we should rule out a compensation scheme, although I can see all sorts of practical difficulties with one, such as how someone would prove that loss of turnover related directly to construction work going on outside their premises and what would be an adequate level of compensation. I do not know whether something practical can be worked out. However, a compensation scheme should be considered, because we are worried about the effect on traders during the construction period.
I thank members of the first panel—sorry, you thought that you were getting off lightly there. I am not with it today. It is Helen Eadie's turn to ask a question.
It is me. I have unsettled you this morning, convener.
There are details in our submission of the scale and density of the development that is to take place at waterfront Edinburgh. The line of the tram has already been established and the amount of business space that is to be created depends on public transport. Moreover, Telford College is under construction at waterfront Edinburgh and its 20,000 or so students will require to be moved in and out of the area efficiently.
Are you confident that the predicted levels of development in the waterfront area will be reached?
Yes, very much so. My experience of regeneration in Leith goes back to the 1980s, when I was part of the Scottish Development Agency team that established the Leith project. We can track the momentum and growth that has occurred in that part of the city since then. For example, the wider waterfront, which now integrates Granton docks and connects westwards with the estates of Pilton and Muirhouse, is an area of redevelopment that is larger than the new town. Its scale is immense. We can also track the amount of housing that has already been built and the construction of hotels and other projects that simply would not have been envisaged 20 years ago. Moreover, the new office buildings that are being constructed at Leith docks are attracting major interest and tenancies will be secured in the near future. I am very confident that those levels will be reached. The momentum is there, but if we are to benefit the economy we need public transport assistance to ensure that it does not stall.
In supporting the development, do you have any evidence that the introduction of tramlines elsewhere has had a positive impact?
Yes. My colleague Dave McCulloch and other colleagues in the city have examined tram systems in Lyon, Strasbourg and other cities in Europe. Before Christmas, I spoke at a European Union event in Turin, where massive investment has been made in a new tram system to support the city's hosting of the winter Olympics in 2006.
How immediate would any impact be?
In turning the situation around?
Yes.
I go back to the scenario work, the figures for which were in my submission. The Edinburgh economy is doing extremely well and it is to the benefit of the Scottish economy as a whole that that continues to be the case. The Edinburgh and Lothian area is very much the engine of growth. We looked at how financial services have expanded in the past five or eight years. I know from direct experience with Standard Life, Scottish Widows and the Royal Bank of Scotland the difficulties that such companies faced in expanding in the city and their concerns about public transport and the mobility of a growing work force to continue to meet their needs.
In your opening remarks, you referred to your written submission. The Edinburgh and Lothian structure plan for the period to 2015 forecasts net growth of 43,000 jobs and a requirement for almost 70,000 housing units. Can you confirm that that will be the situation provided that tramline 1 exists?
I go back to the detailed interviews that were undertaken as part of the scenario-planning exercise. In the light of the phenomenal growth in financial services and the fact that tourism has grown to be a year-round industry in the city, employing more than 30,000 people directly, the question is whether, if we do not address public transport, we can reasonably expect that growth to be sustained into the future, when we know that we face competition from comparable cities. As I said, we cannot expect buses and non-fixed-track vehicular movements to support the city's growth to any credible extent. The continued growth is dependent not only on tram route 1, but on tram routes 2 and 3 being provided in due course.
In your submission, you suggest that tramline 1 will be of benefit not only to Edinburgh and the region, but to Scotland as a whole. A drop in population is forecast for Scotland and fewer people will be available to do jobs, yet Edinburgh will attract an additional 43,000 jobs, so what will happen to the rest of Scotland? Will we create a situation similar to that in the south-east of England, where there is population over-cram and sparsity around?
The reality is that the wider Edinburgh city region goes beyond Lothian. The travel-to-work area for Edinburgh extends into Fife, down into the Borders and across east and central Strathclyde. The distances that people are travelling are already significant. If we want to make the labour market work more efficiently, when unemployment in the area is falling below 3 per cent, a transport system that extends the reach of the labour market and makes movement more effective is absolutely desirable and essential.
I agree with what you said about the expanded labour market, but how would tramline 1 help? Anybody who comes into Edinburgh in the morning recognises that the problems do not exist in the centre of Edinburgh, but on the periphery. Will the tramlines help that in any way?
Along the current line of tram 1, we have major employers such as BAE Systems at Crewe Toll, and State Street, which is a US-owned financial services inward investment company that employs 800 people and has the capacity to expand further. Major employers are moving into the north of the city. Furthermore, beside the Edinburgh International Conference Centre, the Exchange, which is the new financial centre that was created in the 1990s through a joint venture between my organisation and the City of Edinburgh Council, is almost complete—there is one remaining phase. Additionally, we have a certain amount of land left at Morrison Street—
You are making my point for me. I cannot see how tramline 1 will benefit all the employees of the businesses that you are talking about. Their problems lie outwith the tramline 1 circuit.
There are two aspects to the situation. The next major area of development opportunity is the north side of the city. At present, it is not particularly easy to travel from the city centre to Leith docks and the waterfront. It can take up to 40 minutes by car, taxi or bus at congested times of the day. If Edinburgh is to suck people in from the wider city region to work in the north side of the city, efficient transport into Edinburgh and across the city to the north side along the tramline 1 route is essential to the growth of the economy of that area.
As Jim McFarlane said, the north of the city is the next major development area. Either we put in place the building blocks that will attract companies to locate in the area and people to work in the area—I think that tramline 1 is one of the most essential building blocks—or one of two things will happen: either we will constrain growth because we do not have the capacity for such growth anywhere else in the city, or the city will expand and start to encroach into greenbelt areas.
Experience is relevant in this regard. Edinburgh Park has been a major success in economic development terms, but the associated traffic congestion is quite horrendous. It is ridiculous that the rail link to Edinburgh Park was opened 10 years after the first development there. It makes much more sense to plan public transport from the beginning. That is what we are doing, which is why tramline 1 is important.
I sympathise entirely in relation to developments in the north of Edinburgh. However, we cannot look at that in isolation. I am trying to determine the benefits of tramline 1.
Tramline 3, which we plan to build later, will provide connectivity to the eastern part of the city. The ultimate intention is for that line to extend out to the new hospital site at Little France and the major development opportunities in that area.
That is a fair point. I am thinking about the waterfront developments and the probable types of property and levels of car ownership that the area will have. Mr Furness has referred repeatedly to congestion problems. Would the developments be complicated by increased car ownership and the complexities of trams and heavy transport using the Granton waterfront?
The Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce believes in flexibility and a range of transport options for commercial and personal transport. I understand that there will be mixed developments on the waterfront. A range of housing of varying value will be available, as well as commercial property, retail units and hotels, so there will need to be transport options.
I want to ask Mr Furness about the reaction of members of Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce along the proposed route of the line.
There are concerns about the construction phase—we have touched on them. The principle of fast connectivity is generally welcomed, but there are undoubtedly worries about the nature of the disruption that construction will cause. People want to know whether roads will close and whether help will be available to them. There are also concerns about how long the disruption will last. People do not know whether it will last for one month, three months, six months or nine months. There is great uncertainty and concern about the construction phase.
I am picking up that there is support in principle for having the tram, but legitimate concerns about what will happen in the interim.
Yes.
Phil Gallie will ask about some of those concerns.
No, I am quite happy; you can drop me off the next question, convener.
Excellent. I will drop you off the lot.
The submission from Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce mentions
I can speak about the premium in general terms, but the committee will take evidence later today from Andrew Holmes from the City of Edinburgh Council, who can probably speak about the subject more ably than I. The general principle is that developers who stand to benefit from being in locations that the tram will serve should be encouraged to enter into planning agreements with the city council to provide contributions to public transport.
Is that premium likely to inhibit developments in any way?
In my opinion, it will not. Developers are shrewd people, so they will fully understand that it is more likely that they will find a market for more profitable high-density developments at waterfront Edinburgh if the tramline is built. The tramline is in the developers' interests, so it is highly likely that they will wish to contribute.
Contrary to expectations, Phil Gallie has a supplementary question.
I have a brief question for Mr Furness. Do you think that Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce's membership will increase or decrease from its present level of 1,500 once tramline 1 is built?
Yes. Along with the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce and City of Edinburgh Council, we support the Edinburgh City Centre Management Company Ltd, which has a remit to improve the general environment of the city centre and to work with traders to improve the retail product. Through that vehicle and through the business development powers of our small business gateway, it is part of our responsibility to ensure that we do whatever is possible to mitigate any adverse effects during construction.
Does Mr Furness think that his organisation's membership will increase? I will not let him away without answering that question.
I have not had time to think about that. Our membership should increase, but I am not sure whether that will be due to an increase in the number of businesses, which would give us more potential to have more members, or whether it might happen because existing companies might join us. Once the city has a network of tram systems in place—which, we hope, is the end-point of all this—retailers, commercial office occupiers and other members of the business community will see the trams as a huge benefit that will assist their operations in the city. I think that the number of companies in the city will grow; I hope that more of them will join Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce.
I thank all three witnesses for giving evidence this morning and for resisting my earlier attempts to cut that short. Their evidence was very welcome, but Mr McCulloch got off very lightly indeed.
Thank you.
I thank you all very much.
I will be brief and will try not to repeat too much of what Mr McFarlane said.
Thank you very much. I will pick up on that last point first. Your submission states that failure to deliver the tram would have an impact on the economy of Scotland. Can you explain how such a failure would have an impact on people in Dumbarton, Dumfries or in the Highlands?
Please do not think that there is any feeling of triumphalism or anything like that, but the Edinburgh economy and the Edinburgh population—I refer to Edinburgh in the context of the city region—is growing and we are successfully adding value to the Scottish economy. Plenty of statistics back that up and plenty of commentators would agree with that. The core of Edinburgh's economic strength and success in recent years—that will continue to be the situation in the future—is that we have built on two or three sectors in which we have a particular combination of circumstances. The financial sector is probably the most prominent of those. We are managing to retain and attract not only an international presence but a major headquarters presence. The two most obvious examples are the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS. I was closely involved in the negotiations that led to the Royal Bank of Scotland making its decision to invest at Gogarburn. Had it not gone there, a likely destination for it—maybe not for board meetings, but for most of the economic activity—would have been one of two or three locations in England. The presence of the Royal Bank of Scotland and all the other major Edinburgh financial institutions underpins the whole financial presence in Scotland which, in turn, is leading to the development of the Glasgow financial quarter, which relates directly to employment opportunities in Dumbarton.
That is interesting. I am waiting to hear how we will connect Dumfries with the Highlands.
That takes us back to some of the core points about capacity. I will pass the question to Barry Cross, who is the City of Edinburgh Council's transport planning manager. He can perhaps explain more about that in detail.
The City of Edinburgh Council has been relatively successful in developing public transport with the operators over recent years. It has put a significant amount of investment and effort into improving the bus network, for example. We have had several successes and, when Lothian Buses appears before the committee in the not-too-distant future, it will, no doubt, stress the results and the success of its core route down to Leith. However, there are limits. The greenways, bus priority routes, a new bus fleet and our guided busway—the ribbon of which we will cut next week—operate within the constraint of our making the best of what we have at the moment.
I am not sure who will answer this question, but the committee is interested in the extent to which the tram will be dependent on the viability of the waterfront development. We are also interested in the link between the trams. How dependent is the tram on the waterfront development?
There may be two elements to that question. I shall say a little about the development. Garry Sturgeon will then give one or two examples from elsewhere.
The crux of the issue is really to do with city competitiveness. Andrew Holmes and Jim McFarlane have already made the point that Edinburgh is competing not with other cities in Scotland, or even in the UK, but with cities elsewhere in Europe such as Paris, Zurich and Amsterdam, particularly in financial services. Much work has been done on city competitiveness, particularly by Professor Michael Parkinson of Liverpool John Moores University, who has looked at the increasing importance of cities and at some characteristics of successful cities. He has identified that the most successful cities of Europe are generating three or four times the national GDP per capita, which is a staggering statistic and one that is quite important in the context of national economic development policy. At present, Glasgow and Edinburgh generate roughly between 1.2 and 1.5 times GDP per capita.
How will the tram attract investment to those localities?
The scenario-planning work that we did has been mentioned by both Andrew Holmes and Jim McFarlane already, and I was heavily involved in the fieldwork for that. As Jim pointed out, we did around 120 interviews with senior people across the business community and in public sector agencies. They identified that transport is the single most important issue facing Edinburgh and the surrounding region. They also identified that the failure to deliver improvement to the integrated transport system is the single biggest impediment to future economic growth in the city and the region. We are being told clearly that, unless we resolve the city's transport issues, they will be a barrier to future growth and future development, which will compromise not only the city and the region but the rest of Scotland. Andrew Holmes has already picked up on the linkages with Glasgow and elsewhere with respect to financial services. This is across the board; it is not just about financial services.
Whenever major construction works or road works are going on, politicians in Scotland, irrespective of whether they represent Edinburgh or somewhere else, are confronted with the critical question of how to avoid adverse impacts on local businesses. How is that being addressed? Is it a matter of real concern?
It is a matter of continuing concern in Edinburgh, principally because of public utility works. According to current statistics, we get more public utility works per kilometre of road here than anywhere else in Scotland. That, at least, makes us well aware of the problems that small and large businesses face. It is not a new issue for us.
What happens if the contract overruns quite badly? I have had experience of that happening in my constituency, and the impact on small businesses is significant. Is there any form of compensation for small businesses in such situations?
That is a difficult issue. I am not a compensation expert but, as far as I understand it, the forms of compensation for small businesses that consist of money changing hands boil down to rates relief. For a variety of reasons, one might want to have the contractor for any tram network tied down—in the weeks to come, you could ask witnesses about how they might feel like taking the contractor out and shooting them if such circumstances arose.
What happens if the contractors appear on site, start to do work and then disappear for a week or 10 days, with no work being done but with cars still not being able to pull up beside the doors of small premises? Will anything be built into the contract to protect small traders from such situations?
Even before work starts on the ground on the contracts, all the homework will be done, so that all the requirements and so forth will be built into the contract form, as far as it is humanly possible to do that. Also, given that a clear works programme will be set out in the form of contract that we will use, a contractor should not be able to disappear for 10 days. If there is no way of avoiding a 10-day disappearance, what I said earlier about having a dedicated team on the job would apply. The disappearance would be clocked and entered into the programme. Someone would do something to reflect the circumstances—the street would be reopened temporarily or something like that. We are talking about preplanning, communication, sympathy and having the ability to react at all times during the process.
I want to pursue a couple of those points. I hear exactly what you are saying about the soft measures that need to be taken to minimise any adverse impact of the construction. I also acknowledge the fact that you have a good relationship with many of the small businesses that line the proposed route. Nevertheless, short of shooting the contractor—I am sure that any contractor would be slightly nervous at hearing those words—what can you do? Are you ruling out a compensation scheme?
I do not rule out a compensation scheme that is within what we are able to do legally and within our ability to introduce sensible audit processes.
Helen Eadie has hit on an interesting line of questioning. In contracts such as this, penalty payments are usually laid on contractors. Earlier this morning, Bill Furness referred to the tensions that can arise in circumstances such as those which Helen Eadie described. Has thought been given to what will be done if there are delays? Are the plans that have been laid down so far sufficiently detailed to manage and control such construction delays?
Regrettably, we are a long way off preparing the contract documents. However, the situation that Mr Gallie describes is not dissimilar from others that involve work in the city streets. As far as it is possible to do so, measures can be built into the contract so that the circumstances that cause such disruption do not arise and the contractors have the appropriate incentives and penalties in place.
Taking note of Mr McFarlane's earlier comment about the economic development aspects of impact on traders, surely the council could provide support to traders who want to move into alternative premises? Again, on economic development grounds, surely support should be given to small traders to encourage the use of information technology in conducting their business by e-trading?
That is a practical example of the kind of thing that we could do and it would build on some of the initiatives that we have under way for the small business sector. Let us take the example of the tramline that could run down Leith Walk. In the months preceding construction—perhaps even in the years preceding construction—we will go in, identify the needs of local businesses and explore in conjunction with business organisations the ways in which they can react and improve their operation during the construction period. That work might include identifying alternative premises and assisting with moves; certainly, it could deal with improved marketing and training, for example, which is the sort of thing that we are doing at the moment through our small retailers support scheme.
That is encouraging.
I would not for a moment want to say that I know my way around how the European convention on human rights might apply.
Few do.
I am sure that you will hear from people who know far more about it. If there is an ECHR aspect, we will have to identify it early and be clear about how we will react.
In your submission you say:
A couple of your questions to previous witnesses touched on the same issue. The answer is that tram would not be the solution if that were all that we were doing. It has to be seen as part of an integrated package of measures—I mentioned bus priority measures and guided bus earlier. Our current package of measures is linked with congestion charging, which gets to grips with congestion at source by providing a mechanism through which people will ask themselves whether their car journey is necessary. The issue relates to the package of measures that we are developing for cycling and walking, where we think that there is real potential for people travelling—especially at the waterfront—by modes that are not terribly fashionable. It is a question of getting to grips with congestion using a range of mechanisms. Some are based on infrastructure, some are based on service and some are based on what might globally be called behaviour management—people thinking about what they are doing rather than simply driving because that is what they have always done. All our work demonstrates that we have to get to grips with congestion to allow people who have to get around the city to do so speedily and easily.
To some degree, the City of Edinburgh Council's predecessors must have thought of those problems in the past—to use Mr McFarlane's statement, the "C'moan—get aff" aspect. Edinburgh had a tram system in the old days. What changes in technology or appearance make trams attractive now, given that they were seen to be a block to achieving a modern city image in the past?
One could talk for a long time about historic tramways and the differences between them and what we have now. Perhaps not terribly many of you are old enough to have caught trams. Those of you who are will remember that experience and could compare it with the experience of catching trams in Nottingham. There is little similarity between the vehicles then and the vehicles now, in the same way that there is little similarity between vintage cars and modern motor cars.
Is it a question of volume or capacity?
The presumption is that volume issues led to trams' demise, but I do not think that they did; I think that it was a question of decades of underinvestment. On volume issues alone, the current proposals before you for tramline 1 and the other tram networks build on providing segregation. That segregation can be either physical, as it is for much of the route along the waterfront and Ravelston, or spatial, as traffic signal technology can be used to provide segregation by time, such as on Leith Walk and the pedestrianised Princes Street.
The principal area of segregation on tramline 1 is the Roseburn corridor. That area has also attracted most public protest. How important is the circular nature of the route?
I must correct you: a significant proportion of the route is segregated. For example, the route is segregated from the foot of Constitution Street, all through the Leith dock estate and right the way out to Newhaven. We looked at that when we drove around on the bus. The waterfront section all the way through Granton is segregated, and south from there, right the way up to Haymarket, is segregated. Also, you must not forget the segregation that is offered on Princes Street. There are significant sections of segregated route. One of the benefits of a segregated route is the fact that we can offer a more reliable timetable. Ravelston is one section of segregated route, but it is not the only one by any means.
I will add two brief observations. First, as I said in my opening remarks, there has been a public, statutory, notifiable reservation of that piece of rail track since the early 1970s. Initially, that was for its use as a road; however, since then there has been a long-term reservation for a tramline. The proposal has not suddenly appeared overnight.
On the issue of potential employment—we are also talking about employment for people who live outside north Edinburgh—the tramlines seem to be fairly isolated, particularly with respect to park-and-ride facilities. It is going to be difficult to attract motorists from outside Edinburgh to use the trams, unless the side streets around the tramlines are turned into park-and-ride places. What thought has been given to that idea?
I am conscious of the fact that this is the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee. Because line 1 is a circle that is embedded within the city, the opportunities for park and ride are more restricted than elsewhere. The position is different for lines 2 and 3; line 2 is being considered by another committee and we hope that line 3 will be considered soon. Line 2 has a very large park-and-ride site out at Ingliston that is already under construction and which will be suitable for drivers from West Lothian and beyond. Line 3—to which Jim McFarlane referred, but for which a bill has not yet been introduced—has a park-and-ride site at Newcraighall that has already been constructed adjacent to the heavy rail station there.
Many cars that enter north Edinburgh along Queensferry Road from Fife and the area north of Fife—including Perth—park in and around the area of the Sainsbury's at the top of Craigleith Road, so I am surprised that you say that parking is not required or demanded there. I have friends who live there who complain about a lot of parking on side streets. I agree with Phil Gallie; parking could increase at the Craigleith Road junction.
Our view and that of our partner authorities in the south-east Scotland transport partnership is that the best park-and-ride location for traffic from the north and Fife lies before the bridge is crossed. Ferrytoll, which is sponsored by Fife Council, is one of the most successful park-and-ride sites in the country. To signal to people that they should cross the bridge and travel in on one of our most congested corridors to park next to a tram stop that is a mile and a half from where they are going is not a sustainable way to deal with the issue. The way to deal with it is to enhance heavy rail, to build park-and-ride facilities where car trips can be gathered most effectively and to use the investment in trunk corridors beyond that.
I take issue with you on that, because I represent the part of Fife that includes the Ferrytoll park and ride. Members will recall that I was the transportation services spokesperson at Fife Council when that facility was developed. At the time, I argued for 1,000 car parking spaces, but the council in its wisdom went for 500. Now the number will be expanded to 1,000, but the people of Inverkeithing say categorically that they will accept no further park-and-ride development after that, as otherwise, Inverkeithing will turn into a major car parking area.
I hear what you say. There are two points to make. For people who come into Edinburgh from Fife, even by public transport, Ferrytoll is not the only park-and-ride option. Park and rides are being developed all along the rail links in Fife, for example. Directly linked with tramline 1 is the potential for a ferry-based park and ride. A ferry across the Forth would work only if it connected with tramline 1 at Newhaven.
Convener, a number of points that have been made are flawed. This may not be the moment to pursue them, but I would welcome guidance from you later on the appropriate way to do so, because neither the realities of rail transport from Fife nor the capacity possibilities of further parking at railway stations in Fife are being addressed.
I am happy, convener, to speak with colleagues and see whether we can produce a short monograph for the committee, if that would be appropriate.
That would be helpful. I know that we will be considering the matter in future weeks, so perhaps we could raise it then.
There will be a proportion of high earners. It is always the £1 million penthouse flat that attracts attention, but the reality is that in Granton and Leith the target for a large chunk of the development is people who want mainstream housing provision. We will leave the social housing provision for now, but if you look at the development framework for the docks development area, which we have just put out for consultation, mainstream family housing makes up a much larger proportion than has been seen in recent developments in Edinburgh. There is not necessarily a focus on high earners.
We are most impressed.
The key issue is how we provide a product that, in transport terms, is an alternative to the car and is attractive across the piece. The core issue is quality, which we have demonstrated through our work and the work of Lothian Buses. We have secured inroads into areas where traditionally one would not have expected the bus to be used. However, that requires us to offer a product that is competitive in terms of journey time; to provide information, because it is an uphill struggle to capture those people on to public transport; and to offer a vehicle, whether it is a train or a bus, that is of a quality that at least attempts to emulate the quality that you get in a private car. It is not always possible, but that is the objective. It is part of what tram brings to the mix of public transport, and it challenges the view, "I always use the car because it's outside the door, it's clean and it means that I don't have to mix with people." That is a challenge, but it is doable, and quality is at the heart of it.
I thank Mr Holmes, Mr Cross, Mr Turnbull and Mr Sturgeon for coming along. I am sure that we will have you back.
I can provide some information on NEAR, if that would help, but I am happy to go straight to questions.
We will go straight to questions, which I hope will tease out some of that information. Will you explain why NEAR supports the development of the tramline?
NEAR began life as a housing renewal project, which focused on fixing council housing. The project evolved as a social inclusion partnership was established in north Edinburgh and it became increasingly apparent that we could not fix just one bit and hope that everything would work. The partnership now considers issues such as health, community safety, employment and training and is a partnership in the wider sense. The board includes representatives from Scottish Gas, Telford College and Lothians NHS Board, as well as representatives from the City of Edinburgh Council, SEEL—and many others who I suppose support the tram scheme.
Is that the board's view, or did you consult the community in which you work?
The board did not directly consult the community before today's meeting. However, the companies that are active in the waterfront developments have consulted on their development ideas and proposals, including the tram, through many local workshops. Broadly speaking, people think that the tram could be a good thing. They have specific questions about the route, the location of stops and the cost, but they are more positive than negative about the scheme.
Is the community directly represented on NEAR's board?
Yes.
What is the balance? I want to get a feel for that.
I think that there are three local councillors, three elected representatives and various individual representatives—up to a total of 12 to 14 people—on the board.
Is the route for tramline 1 the right one if we are to secure the maximum social inclusion and social benefits from the route? Should the route be different?
I am not aware of all the alternatives. However, we can consider the social picture. There have always been strong connections between Leith, Granton, Muirhouse and Pennywell. People from that part of Edinburgh tended to work in dockside industries and manufacturing, whether that was at the gas-works, United Wire or Leith docks. Tenements were cleared from Leith in the 1950s and 1960s and new housing was built in Pennywell, so there are big social and family connections between Pennywell and Leith. The connection between Granton and Leith is important and obviously the tram would connect those areas.
As regards employment prospects, there has been talk of some 20,000 jobs coming into the north of Edinburgh as a result of the developments along the line. Does that offset to an extent the requirement to link with outlying areas to the extreme west of Edinburgh, or do you just regard that as an added advantage?
That will depend on what those jobs are. A number of the jobs that are coming into Leith have been described as being for IT, website and media folk. That is great, but not many of the people in the area that NEAR covers have the skills to access those jobs.
That is helpful.
I do not think that I am qualified enough on pricing to make that comment. I am feeding back a comment on the part of the community.
Thanks very much. My point was not intended as a criticism; I just wanted to tease out what you had in mind.
I want to tease that out slightly further. Experience elsewhere shows that it is undoubtedly the case that when trams begin to run, bus services reduce, so it is likely that there will be a reduction in the number of buses in north Edinburgh. You talked about pensioners who use concessionary tickets. What will be the impact on them?
My question for some of the earlier witnesses is, "Must that be so?" You say that a reduction in bus services will be inevitable. If that is the case, I would think that there would be a negative impact, especially on older folk, because bus services have more permeability through certain areas than the tramline will have. I wonder to what extent a reduction in the number of buses is inevitable and to what extent the council can do something about that.
Thank you for coming to give evidence to the committee. I hope that it was not too painful an experience for you.
No. I may have been on my own, but it was very short.
Thank you.
The answer lies in addressing one of the questions that you asked the previous witness. The question was based on the assumption that there would be fewer buses, but we are working in partnership with TIE, the bus operators and particularly the tram operator that we now have in place to develop an integrated system.
That is a helpful clarification.
It is worth mentioning the penalties that the fare imposes. The model of work on tramline 1 is based on the assumption of fare comparability between trams and buses.
Let me tease out the latter point in relation to the tramline replacing buses along its route. If you are looking for comparability with buses in terms of pricing, does that extend to concessionary fares?
Yes.
Thank you.
In your evidence, you said that tramline 1 will contribute positively to social inclusion by
Earlier, I gave the example of the current bus route from Pennywell into the city centre, let alone further afield. I am not sure whether one can understand how tortuous a route that is without sampling it at first hand, but it is not equivalent to one of our main radial corridors through which there can be high-quality and short journey times. There are tortuous journeys for some bus services to the northern sector. Buses run through locations in which there are significant delays and there is significant congestion throughout the working day. Goldenacre and the foot of Leith Walk are examples of such places.
I would like to pick up a point that Alice McGlone made a few minutes ago, which is relevant to north Edinburgh. The sheer number of single-parent households in north Edinburgh with child care issues, for example, should be considered. For people who seek to get into and maintain employment, to utilise nursery facilities and so on, the ability to make a single, simple and fast journey down one or the other leg of the route from north Edinburgh would make a huge difference. That factor should not be underestimated.
I would like to consider issues that we touched on previously. The viability of tramline 1 depends on a reduction in the level of bus services. Given that many buses start and end on routes that will not be served by the tramlines, how will such a reduction bring benefits in public transport options?
The key to the viability of the tramline is not a reduction in the number of bus services but integration with buses—perhaps we should deal with what is envisaged—and the management mechanism that will be put in place to ensure that that happens.
I am not sure that I can add terribly much to that, other than to reinforce the fact that we are talking about not an abstract integration, but an exercise that we have already kicked off with Lothian Buses, Transdev plc—the tram operator—and TIE to generate the design of what the integrated network will look like. Buses will still parallel trams, but the probability is that there will be many fewer buses. We want resources to go into places that do not benefit from trams, so that the benefits of the introduction of trams and an integrated network are spread across the city as a whole. For some communities, that may well lead to effective and short feeder services to tram stops.
When the tramline is up and running and a community of people is living in the waterfront development, what is the process by which service improvements will be delivered in a situation in which the public perceive that there has been a reduction in their transport options?
There is quite a lot of hypothesis in your question.
You have said what would happen in the event of a perceived shortage, but I am interested in gaps in the knowledge that you might have. People in a community might discuss among themselves the fact that there is a gap in the transport provision that they require, and I am not satisfied with your answer with respect to how you intend to find out whether that is the case.
That issue exists at the moment. How do we perceive gaps in the transport network at present? The most obvious way in which that happens is that people tell us and we ask people. Tonight, for example, I will meet a group of residents of an area who will tell me about their bus services and perceived needs. Apart from the route that people can take that involves us, the most obvious route is to take up the issue with the bus companies. Another route was discussed at earlier committee meetings. We asked TIE to set up community liaison groups so that there could be positive and proactive communication with communities before the event. It is important that we can build a dialogue and give people somewhere to go when they perceive the shortcomings that you talk about.
Being entirely mischievous, I suggest that, when you go to meet those residents tonight, you should keep in mind the European working time directive.
Chance would be a fine thing.
I think that the directive has been suspended indefinitely in the department, for some considerable time.
Okay. I am not surprised by that.
Yes. A number of members will probably be aware of the one-ticket scheme that SESTRAN partners have introduced. That scheme, which is very much in its early stages, is being developed across the wider SESTRAN area. That comes on top of our requirement that the tram ticketing system must not be superimposed on another set of ticketing systems; it must be integrated for the very reason that Alice McGlone talked about. There would be little purpose in our modelling equality between tram and bus fares if, for a journey of any consequence, the user was in effect hit twice, by a bus feeder fare and a tram main journey fare. The comparability that I mentioned is end-to-end comparability.
That answers in part the question about affordability, given that it suggests that there is a relationship between the level of current bus fares and tram fares.
I will deal with the second point, to which the answer is yes. A tram can be far superior to even the best-designed buses in that regard. The modern trams that are being introduced in Europe in particular and, to a lesser extent, in the UK are miles ahead of both the current bus stock and trams in the past.
I will add a comment in relation to people who find it difficult to walk and who live halfway between two tram stops, which might both be a significant distance away. In mentioning feeder services, I was conscious that the tramline is not an all-or-nothing thing, with buses not operating on the tram route but only at either end of it. Even on routes such as Leith Walk, on which trams will run frequently, there will continue to be a requirement for buses because many people will need the frequency of stop that buses provide. That is an important component. Similarly, I am sure that the committee will hear evidence from Lothian Buses to the effect that not everybody will want to interchange two or three times.
Given your recognition of the needs of people with disabilities and those who have mobility problems, do you agree with Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce's written submission that the lack of a direct service to the Western general hospital represents a missed opportunity?
I am sure that that issue will feature highly in the consideration stage. There is no secret about the fact that our objective was for the tram to serve the Western general. The hospital is an obvious location to which people want to travel, not least because many people work there but also because visitors to the hospital would also benefit from the introduction of the tram. However, that aspiration had to be weighed against a raft of other issues within the process.
I recognise that I might have stepped over the line by raising an issue that is for the consideration stage. However, I think that it might be far too late even to think about changing routes at that stage.
That is not the case.
Okay.
I cannot recall our using the words "low skilled", but the issue comes back to our earlier argument, which was repeated by Scottish Enterprise and picked up in our interviews with the full spectrum of business interests in the city. Business leaders see the Edinburgh tram not just as a feature that will support the city's wider economy by allowing the city to continue to move, but as a factor that will influence investment locations. Development interest clearly exists, as some people would now consider north Edinburgh as a business location who would not previously have dreamed of considering the area because of its physical inaccessibility.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for your evidence throughout today. I ask Mr Holmes, Mr Cross and Mr Buckman to leave the committee table and our final panel to come forward.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Welcome to the committee. Sorry for the short comfort break; however, in order to do your evidence justice, some of us felt the need to leave the room temporarily. I welcome Rahul Bijlani, from Bircham Dyson Bell. I understand that you do not want to make an opening statement.
That is correct.
Great. We will go straight into questions. Let me kick off. I understand that, in the written evidence, in consideration of ECHR matters, you looked at article 1 of protocol 1 and article 8 of the convention. Were there any other provisions that you felt were relevant, in terms of the convention? If so, which were they?
Article 6 concerns the right to a fair trial. The Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill creates a number of relatively minor criminal offences: obstruction of construction; failure to give a name and address when receiving a penalty fare; unauthorised use of a tramway; obstruction to operation; trespass; and contravention of bylaws made under the bill. Each of those offences is punishable by a fine on the standard scale after summary conviction. The ordinary court process applies and there is no issue about contravention of article 6.
So, you are quite satisfied that there would be no contravention of article 6.
Yes.
That is helpful to know. I take it that that does not include the City of Edinburgh Council wanting to shoot the construction company, which it mentioned earlier.
We may have to lodge an amendment about that at the consideration stage.
That might be helpful.
There are two issues. First, we sought to incorporate the general law, as far as possible, compliant with the private bill process. The way in which we get our compulsory purchase powers under the private bill process is slightly different from a compulsory purchase order, which is where a local authority makes an order that is confirmed by a minister, which gives the authority specific powers to take specific parcels of land. That is dealt with by a procedure under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947. A number of objectors have referred to that, which is the standard procedure under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. In this case, that would not be appropriate, because we are not following an order-making procedure. It is the private bill itself that gives us the detailed authorisation to acquire specific plots of land.
Are rights under article 8 of the ECHR likely to be engaged by the proposed scheme? If not, why not?
Those rights are likely to be engaged; the issue is whether they are likely to be breached in any way. We would say that the answer to that is no, for a number of reasons. Article 8 is a qualified right, not an absolute right. A public authority may interfere with private and family life, to the extent that that interference
I think that the next question that I was going to ask might already have been answered by the respondent.
I think that it has.
As regards article 1 of protocol 1 of the ECHR and the need for the compulsory acquisition powers in the bill, the committee notes the promoter's evidence to the effect that only land that will actually be required in connection with the scheme will be acquired. Does that mean that people who might believe now that their land will be acquired may keep it if it turns out that the promoter does not need it?
The limits of the land that is to be required have been drawn so as to allow the tram scheme to go ahead on the basis of the knowledge that we have at the moment. We do not know what is going to happen on the ground when we get to a particular piece of land, and we do not know whether, in the final development of the scheme, the route will change by a metre here or there, which is why we have limits of deviation.
That could have a positive or negative effect on the owners of the land, particularly if agreed prices are set when it is decided that the land within the limits of deviation is likely to be acquired.
There are standard rules for the assumptions that are made in determining compensation, which include rules on the times at which valuations are made. As I said, we do not seek to change any of those rules—which are set out in the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 and in case law—but simply to incorporate them. You are right that the effects can be complex; I cannot explain them exactly off the top of my head, but such matters will be dealt with in the same way as they would be dealt with under the compulsory purchase process.
I asked my next question at an earlier meeting, but as we have an expert in front of us, I will ask it again. If land is purchased and found not to be required at a later date, will the person who had the land taken from them have an automatic right to purchase back the land at the originally agreed price?
I hate to be tarred with the brush of being an expert in human rights.
Given that the ECHR has been brought into use in Scotland and the UK relatively recently, have cases in which acquirers have not co-operated along those lines been tested in the European courts?
I am not aware of any such cases. They are unlikely because, as I said, the rules are non-statutory, so not complying with them would not be the same as failing to comply with an act.
I want to move the goalposts a little. Earlier, the representative of Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce referred to the problems that could be faced by individuals who have property that cannot be properly used during the construction period. Under the ECHR, does the promoter have the authority to make compensation payments in that situation?
I presume that you are talking about people such as small traders whose businesses are affected.
That is right.
The article that would be engaged would be article 1 of protocol 1 of the ECHR, which gives the right to the enjoyment of property and possession. Again, that is a qualified right, as is the one in article 8, as I explained earlier. If an interference with that right is in accordance with the law and is in the public interest, it does not necessarily constitute an infringement of the right. The interests of a person whose rights are infringed must be balanced against the public benefit. If the interference is not disproportionate, there is no infringement of the right. We believe that, with the right engaged, the bill as it stands, with mitigation measures and so on in the environmental statement, strikes a fair balance between public need and infringement of rights.
On compensation for small traders, is it not the case that penalties are built in to public private partnerships and private finance initiative schemes for financial compensation for local authorities or whoever? Such penalties could be used to compensate traders where construction works go beyond their timescales, which is a notorious problem for small traders.
I do not know whether what you suggest is the case, but there is no reason why it could not be in principle. The key thing to be aware of is that under the general law there is not generally compensation for traders who suffer because of, for example, road works, whether those are undertaken by Scottish Water, the City of Edinburgh Council or are in relation to a tram scheme. Whether, as a result of the contracts for doing those works penalties are imposed which can then be put towards alleviating some hardship is a matter for individual contracts.
This is not for you to respond to, Mr Bijlani, but is just by way of throwing something on to the table. When the committee visited the tramline down in Nottingham, we became aware that our Westminster colleagues had moved an amendment to legislation to include provision for compensation schemes. I am sure that people will want to reflect further on that point before the consideration stage.
Meeting closed at 12:44.