Plenary, 01 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, June 1, 2000

Official Report 617KB pdf

---

Borders Rail Link

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-922, in the name of Alex Johnstone, on behalf of the Rural Affairs Committee, on a Borders rail link. As members know, in the chair, I do not have any views on anything, but it is a particular pleasure to be chairing this debate, as I was a passenger on the last train to travel down that line.

In deference to whoever is next on the list of speakers, I begin by saying that, as I am not a local representative and do not have expert knowledge on the Borders rail campaign, I do not intend to speak at enormous length; I will leave as much time as possible for those who have much more knowledge on the subject.

Public transport is an issue that is dear to the hearts of many us—perhaps not quite as near to my heart before I was a member of the Parliament as it is now. The experience that I had this morning in encountering one or two problems as I tried to get here, which made me wonder whether I would be able to make this speech, has brought my mind into focus. The problems that I am likely to face tomorrow when three members of the Rural Affairs Committee and I visit Islay, after which I may have an eight-hour journey home, may focus my mind further.

This debate is being held as committee business. It is a tribute to the processes of the Parliament that we have managed to secure a debate on the Borders rail link. A few moments ago, while John McAllion was speaking, I made a note about the importance of the role that is played by the Public Petitions Committee, whose function is to put petitions into the committee system and to encourage discussion such as the one at the meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee that led to this debate. We have to acknowledge the success of the petitions system.

The petition on the Borders rail campaign was placed not with the Rural Affairs Committee, but with the Transport and the Environment Committee, which asked for comments from the Rural Affairs Committee. We discussed the issue at great length at our meeting on 2 May. It was the unanimous view of the committee that the issues raised in the petition were worthy of support. It was also the view of the committee that, as convener, I should write on behalf of all members of the committee to request that the petition's call for time to be given for a debate in Parliament be considered at the earliest opportunity. That is why I, not the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, am introducing today's debate.

It must be acknowledged that, when it was announced that the debate was to take place today, 1 June, there was some dismay among the leading campaigners within and outside the Parliament, who felt that the debate was happening too early in the process. However, I hope that today's debate will focus the views of the Parliament and that we will be able to consider the issue in committee and in the chamber in future once further progress has been made and there are further issues to discuss.

We recognise that discussion of the project requires specialist knowledge. The committee is extremely grateful for the advice of Christine Grahame, Euan Robson and Ian Jenkins, who, at various stages, have attended committee meetings to assist us in our discussions and in the process of deciding how we want to progress the matter.

The issue is important within the context of a number of the campaigns and investigations being sponsored by the Rural Affairs Committee. In recent months, we have been gathering information and views for our investigation into changing employment patterns in rural Scotland. The issue of transport in rural areas has been raised time and again, which has gone a long way towards persuading all members of the committee that the Parliament should focus on the issue of constructing a railway through the Borders between Edinburgh and Carlisle.

The motion is an attempt to reconcile a range of views and to gain the support of the whole Parliament. It deliberately steers away from committing the Executive to any specific action that could result in concerns over the budget. At the same time, it points to a practical way in which to proceed at this stage and allows the whole Parliament to commit its support to the Borders rail campaign. I hope that everyone in the Parliament feels that the motion is worthy of support.

We recognise that the project may proceed in a number of stages and that, although some methods of funding may be easier to achieve than others, the project may go ahead with a range of funding sources. We hope that the motion does not commit the Parliament to any particular funding route.

On behalf of the Rural Affairs Committee, it is my pleasure to move motion S1M-922, in my name. I move,

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.

Thank you. I am grateful to the member for taking less time than he was allotted. More people want to speak than have given me advance notice, so we will have to keep to strict time limits to get everybody in.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about this issue today and would like to thank Alex Johnstone for moving the motion. I thank him also for the tone and content of his speech. I want to use my speech to outline the progress that has been made since we last discussed the issue in the chamber.

In April 1999, when Gus Macdonald, then the Labour Government's Scottish industry minister, commissioned the feasibility study into the reopening of the Borders railway line, the aim was to explore the practicalities and viability of the options.

I accept without reservation that improving the transport links between the Borders and the rest of the country is a prerequisite to the area's economic regeneration and for its social and environmental well-being. I am totally committed to securing a better-integrated and sustainable transport infrastructure for all rural communities.

However, one of the challenges is to manage people's expectations honestly. All who are genuinely supportive of the aspirations of those who seek the reinstatement of the Borders railway line must take a detailed, informed and considered view of what can be realistically achieved. We must avoid making rash promises. The people of the Borders deserve no less. That is why I welcomed the commissioning of the groundbreaking feasibility study into reopening the line. Earlier this year, I marked the publication of the study by joining key stakeholders in the Borders—including some MSPs—to highlight the fact that the project was moving into a new and exciting phase.

Having clearly demonstrated that reinstatement would be operationally viable to Tweedbank, the study was adopted by Scottish Borders Council and its partners as a sound basis for working up detailed project proposals. I am aware that a tender has been awarded to Turner and Townsend consultants for preparing the next stage of the work; I welcome that. I knew that the proposals would underpin a bid for public transport fund support and a couple of months ago I stated that I was looking forward to receiving these proposals. Since then, Scottish Borders Council has taken up the challenge enthusiastically. The council has worked with Railtrack, ScotRail, Midlothian Council and City of Edinburgh Council, which are fully assisting the council to fulfil its desire to develop a robust economic, social and environmental case for reinstatement. That is an ambitious and sensible approach.

Nobody has claimed that, together, the construction and operation of the line, even to Gorebridge, is commercially viable, taking account of capital as well as operating costs. However, most people are convinced that the wider economic, social and environmental benefits of reopening the link to the heart of the Borders outweigh the costs to the public purse of assisting its construction. I have much sympathy with that view, although I am aware that at some point a line will have to be drawn. I know that there is a debate about whether Tweedbank or further on to Newtown St Boswells would be the best place for an integrated public transport hub and for park-and-ride options to link into a line. That is one of the critical issues that will have to be considered in the work that Scottish Borders Council has begun.

As the feasibility study ably demonstrated, we need to ensure that we get the assessment right. Viability is an important issue in considering the reinstatement of the line all the way from Edinburgh to Carlisle. After exhaustive analysis, it was shown that the very limited additional demand for passenger and freight services south of the heart of the Borders did not, at present, generate benefits that would justify significant levels of public funding.

I say "at present" advisedly. The study was at pains to point out that no option for reinstatement should be ruled out entirely. It acknowledged that future demand trends might justify a serious reconsideration of extending the line beyond the heart of the Borders, on to Hawick and possibly to Carlisle. However, right now, that is not feasible. On that basis, the study insisted that no partial reinstatement of the line should preclude the possibility of future extension. I commend and support that sensible approach.

It is worth reminding ourselves that, even at the height of the Victorian railway promotion, it took 17 years to join Edinburgh with Carlisle by the Waverley line. The incremental approach was appropriate then and most serious promoters of reinstatement are adopting a similar commonsense approach today. Indeed, having spoken to Scottish Borders Council, I know that it is playing the long game. It recognises that, at the moment, the sustainable case promotes reopening the line only to the central Borders. However, that does not rule out the potential for a southerly extension. The council's insistence on protecting the disused line for its entire length is important. That is a mature and realistic approach.

The feasibility study demonstrated how the direct and indirect benefits of reinstatement to Tweedbank could be used to justify public support. It also explored in considerable detail the potential for reopening a southerly link between the Kielder forest and Carlisle. The argument had been made that rail access to Kielder would open up the forest to the commercial movement of timber from the forest to customers outwith the area.

The feasibility study considered the whole issue of costs, in particular the extremely cheap cost of imported timber, which is undercutting many UK producers' prices. Again, the report did not discount the possibility that market conditions could change, but with the southerly extension from Tweedbank, the study concluded that a link to Kielder from the west coast main line could not be discounted entirely.

I believe that Scottish Borders Council is on the right lines in seeking the development of a project that sets a medium-term goal of developing the passenger rail link between the heart of the Borders and Edinburgh, without ruling out longer-term reinstatement options.

The motion urges the Scottish Executive to consult others to facilitate the reinstatement of the Borders railway. That is an important proposal that deserves our serious consideration.

Will the member give way?

No, but I will take an intervention from Mr MacAskill in a minute.

I have outlined in some detail my reasons for not raising expectations about the Scottish Executive's preparedness to support, at this time, the re-establishment of the line between Edinburgh and Carlisle. There will be bids, through the public transport fund, from the Borders and many other councils, for schemes that I will have to consider fairly, on their merits, alongside other legitimate claims on public resources. It would be inappropriate for me, in the chamber today, to make any pronouncements about the outcome of those bids. To do so could also justify indignation throughout the rest of the country from potential competing bidders, and would undermine any commitment to equity and transparency.

That has not prevented us from working fully with Scottish Borders Council in its preparation for the public transport bid. We would give the same assistance to anyone who was considering applying for support under the scheme. It certainly does not stop us discussing with Scottish Borders Council the potential sources of funding that the council can explore.

Did the minister see the front page of The Independent yesterday, which said "Prescott gets £140bn boost for transport" under a "Ten-year plan"? The article went on to indicate that

"the programme will include a £500m extension for Manchester's tramlines, a new £180m system in Nottingham and extensions to the Docklands Light Railway in London and the similar Tyne and Wear rail network."

Is that a rash promise, or is John Prescott actually delivering something? Why are we leaving the railway with Scottish Borders Council? Why do we not get our share of the £140 billion and just build it?

That is precisely the issue that I have just addressed. There is not only the option of the public transport fund; there are other options that the Scottish Executive can explore in consultation with Scottish Borders Council. However, we must ensure that we get the process right. We have the feasibility study, which goes into great depth about the options. The next stage is to consider how the whole issue should be progressed. Looking for finance is one of the key issues; I have just said that we are more than happy to discuss that issue with the promoters of the Borders railway and to explore it with the shadow strategic rail authority.

As a result of the McLeish settlement, new responsibilities on rail will come to the Scottish ministers; a number of those are outlined in the Transport Bill that is before the UK Parliament. The most significant of those will be dealing with directions and guidance to the SRA for the franchise for providing passenger rail services that start and finish in Scotland.

Will the member give way?

No. I am answering the member's question.

That will be underwritten by the transfer of full financial responsibility for the cost of the Scottish franchise. We will also have an input to the SRA on its GB strategy for the railways and on advice on cross-border franchises. Together, those functions make for a significant ability to influence how Scotland's railways will develop in future. We are also having discussions with the authority about options that will come through a number of funding opportunities that it is developing.

I am committed to using our influence fully. I am committed to developing a set of robust and achievable strategic priorities for Scotland's railways. That is why I will consider all sensible arguments that are raised today for developing our existing network and will take into account practical and cost-effective proposals for how we deliver that. The proposals that are being developed by Scottish Borders Council are firmly within the category of realistic, practical and cost-effective.

We have kept the SRA fully informed about developments regarding the Borders railway. The SRA is conducting a detailed consideration of the feasibility study and has met at least once in the past few months all the main players who are promoting the railway. Members will know that the SRA itself operates a funding scheme for developing passenger rail services and I am sure that that has not escaped the attention of Scottish Borders Council.

There has been progress since we last met to discuss the reintroduction of a Borders rail link, and I welcome this debate, which allows us to discuss the issue further. The motion asks me and Scottish ministers to continue the work that we are already doing. It is vital that we make maximum use of an excellent feasibility study and that there is further work between the key partners—Scottish Borders Council, Midlothian Council, Scottish Borders Enterprise and the rail industry.

That approach is underpinned by the feasibility study and will be built on by the south-east of Scotland transport partnership, which will be given new weight by our new transport bill. As we start our new century, I hope that every member in this chamber will work together to bring to fruition the wish expressed by so many people in the Borders to bring back the railway to the heart of the Borders. [Applause.]

Although we very much welcome visitors in the gallery, they are not allowed to express approval or disapproval of any comments from the chamber. Please contain your applause until you meet your MSPs afterwards.

I take slight offence at the suggestion that it is rash and raises false expectations to seek to re-establish a rail link in the Borders. For me and others campaigning on this issue, this is a matter of vision, justice and economic necessity. As has been stated, there is money around to fund the line.

First of all—rather like at the Oscars—I want to thank some people for getting the debate this far. The members of the cross-party group on Borders rail made me their convener and, although some minor party differences still exist, most differences have been put aside as we fight in common cause. I thank Alex Johnstone and the Rural Affairs Committee for securing this debate. Alex knows that I tried to make the motion tougher; however, it will suffice. Furthermore, I appreciate the support of the Equal Opportunities Committee, the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, all of which wanted this debate.

In particular, I praise John McAllion and the other members of the Public Petitions Committee. John fights for that committee's special democratic role in the Parliament. That committee alone may have given 20,000 Borderers a voice in demanding a return of the railway that was axed by Beeching in very dubious circumstances and with devastating and continuing consequences for the economic and social well-being of the entire Borders area. John took the Public Petitions Committee to Galashiels to hear presentations of passion and clarity from petitioners of all ages before a packed gallery. Before that, the individual members of the Campaign for Borders Rail stood for months on end on street corners and in supermarkets gathering the petition's 20,000 signatures. We should also remember the campaigners on this issue over the decades. Even today, the small public gallery here is filled with Borderers, many of whom left their homes before six o'clock this morning to hear what Ms Boyack and the Executive intend to do.

What does the Executive intend to do? The case for the return of a Borders rail link is irrefutable. We need only compare and contrast the area with similar areas in Scotland. For example, the Scottish Highlands has 208,000 people and 57 railway stations; the Borders has 106,000 people without a metre of track, no railway stations, no ferries and no airports. Road links in the Borders are inadequate and tortuous; even if they were suitable for dualling—which they are not—such improvements would be more costly than a rail link. In an area where people without cars are almost disconnected, only one in three people own one and, for car owners, rural petrol prices are punitive.

This is not solely a transport issue; transport routes are the arteries where the life-blood of economic and social well-being flows. Alex Neil will deal with some of the social aspects; I want to headline some of the economic realities. The main industries in the Borders are textiles, farming, electronics and tourism. The chamber hardly needs reminding of the 2,000 jobs lost in textile manufacturing in the past three years alone; of the drastic fall in farm incomes; and of the ruthless closure of Viasystems, with the loss of 1,000 jobs. As a result, the Borders has suffered a population loss of young people in an area with the highest percentage of older people in Scotland. Furthermore, it now has the lowest average weekly income, which is £50 under the Scottish national average.

The Scott Wilson report estimated that 900 jobs could be created simply by making a line from Edinburgh to Tweedbank. The cost of investment for that distance would be £73 million. For an extra £20 million plus, we could reconnect the Borders to the UK. That south link is essential, not optional. Together with a branch towards Kielder, the line could carry freight with the option of having a passenger service. Ms Boyack has conceded that Scott Wilson's report says that the line could be reinstated in a relatively straightforward manner. That would also clear heavy transport lorries off small country lanes, which would end the devastating effect that they have on the villages that they go through.

The SNP has long been committed to the creation of a link from Edinburgh to Carlisle. I have already given the reasons for that commitment. Only by opening the entire route can the Borders be connected to the markets of Scotland and England.

The benefits of a Borders rail link would be felt in Dumfriesshire. There would also be benefits to the city of Edinburgh with its crowded suburbs. The link would breathe life into the Borders and give breathing space to Edinburgh by alleviating congestion and opening expansion to the south. Think of the transformation that Fife has undergone in the decades since the Forth road bridge opened. Just as Perthshire and Fife were disconnected from the capital by the Forth, so has the Borders been disconnected by the loss of rail. Jobs and people have flowed both ways between the city and the kingdom. Why has a similar flow not happened with the areas south of the city, to Galashiels and beyond? It is estimated that a rail journey from Galashiels to the heart of the capital would take only 45 minutes. There is the potential not only for economic expansion and the dispersal of jobs but for the dispersal of population. People could live in a beautiful rural environment and counteract the effects of the aging population. Young people could live in the Borders and commute if they needed to. A reconnected Borders would also be able to tap into tourist potential. Day trippers on rail could rule, okay.

I will address some words to Jack McConnell. Some £60 million went on consultancy fees for the modernising of London rail, £250 million was spent on the Manchester metro and £1,250 million was spent on London's Jubilee line. Given the benefits to Scotland and the Borders of the investment of £100 million, the rail link is cheap at the price. Indeed, when did a road ever have to pay its way commercially?

Reopening the Borders railway line is necessary, but the petitioners expect more of the Parliament than good wishes, and so do I. Many years ago, I stood in the rain that usually accompanies street campaigning with an earlier petition for a Borders railway line. Many people signed, but all said the same thing: "Lassie, I'll sign, but it will never happen." In my members' debate last year, we debated the case for a Borders railway. Last week in this chamber, we debated another glossy Executive brochure, "Rural Scotland: A New Approach", which is all about a commitment to the rural economy. I said then, and I say now, that the Executive should prove that it is capable of more than gloss and call on the strategic rail authority to provide the necessary funding.

This is a question of vision and hard cash. One vision is a terminus at Galashiels, trains with Borders rail livery, cycleways parallel to the track, bridle paths, local industries flourishing alongside the line, villages in which the schools remain open because families live there and a community at last repaid long-overdue debts accrued in the time from the closure of the railway to the closure of Viasystems. That would be a tangible achievement that would last for centuries. It might not be the rail that Jack would build, but it would be the rail that this Parliament would build. Most important, it would be a lasting testament to the tenacity of the Borders people.

It is clear to me, as a member for South of Scotland, that there are two great gaps in the transport infrastructure of that huge slice of Scotland: the first is the lack of a Borders rail link; the second is the lack of a lateral rail route across Dumfries and Galloway.

The closure of the Waverley line in 1969 was an economic and social disaster for all Scotland's border counties. As a result, the Borders missed out on all the growth of commuter traffic and travelling that has transformed Scotland's economy in the past 30 years. The Borders missed out on the housing and employment booms that occurred in Fife and the Lothians, because the region lacked access to the core of those booms, Edinburgh. People in the Borders have lost out on the variety and quality of employment that is available in Edinburgh and to people who have ready access to Edinburgh. To a large degree, the Borders region has also missed out on the opportunities for economic diversification as its traditional staple industries of agriculture and textiles have struggled.

The consequences for the Borders are easily stated, but no less significant for that. The Borders has a low-wage economy. People throughout the Borders who are reliant on public transport are reliant on an expensive and infrequent bus service. The motor car—which, in most of Scotland, is a means of liberating people and providing choice—is something on which people in the Borders are dependent, and even low-income householders must have a car, sometimes two cars, to be able to function in the labour market and in other contexts.

Many areas of the Borders have experienced a decline in population, with all the implications that that has brought for Scottish Borders Council and the health services, the resources of which are essentially geared to local population levels. As the minister implied in her speech, if we are serious about social inclusion, we must consider how we can integrate the towns and villages of the Scottish Borders into the mainstream Scottish economy and provide those links to employment, education, entertainment and everything else that an accessible and reliable transport system means.

It is important that we treat transport in the Scottish Borders as a regional issue. After all, that has been the context in which the local council has operated through its representatives on SESTRANS. The council is saying that the issue should be treated not as a Borders problem but as a south-east Scotland problem, as the Parliament tries to balance the demand for housing land and quality workers in Edinburgh with a supply that exists in the Borders, but is not readily accessible. The vision that Scottish Borders Council has tried to put across in that argument has much to commend it.

I appreciate that the minister was necessarily constrained in what she could say the Executive could do in response, and about the time scale in which the Executive can act. It will not be easy to find the £75 million for a central Borders railway in the transport budget, much less the £200 million that the full line would cost. That is a genuine challenge for the minister, and I try to score no political points. If I were—remarkably—the Minister for Transport and the Environment, it would be no easier for me to find that money. I would also say, albeit with a degree of trepidation, that were Christine Grahame the Minister for Transport and the Environment, even she might struggle to find £200 million just like that.

Will Mr Tosh give way?

I anticipate the point that is coming, and I shall respond to it later.

Answer it.

I shall answer it later on.

There are pressures on the minister's budget. The Parliament has just gone through a budget process in which we have seen how the momentum of existing commitments and programmes is carried forward. In that process, none of us suggested any amendments that suddenly lifted £100 million from one area and put it in another. We all know that there are considerable competing claims on the transport budget, and many of us have spoken in favour of those competing claims. The problem is not an easy one to resolve. However, I shall make three suggestions of ways in which the Executive might realistically fund a Borders railway line.

The one area of the transport budget in which there is genuine discretion and no commitment to local authorities, motorway programmes or rail subsidies is the challenge fund. That fund is worth £90 million over three years. The whole of Scotland, outside the Borders, has a rail network and receives the benefit of the ScotRail subsidy. Is there perhaps a case for the £90 million in the transport challenge fund to be earmarked for the Scottish Borders for the years 2005 to 2008?

All over Scotland, I find huge good will towards the Borders and an awareness of the area's problems. I venture to suggest that the sense of justice which is strong in the Scottish character would lead people to accept that, for a time, there is a case for making the Borders a priority within existing budgets. That is not in any way to belittle the projects that are funded under the transport challenge fund at present.

Does the member accept that the construction cost of one station on the Jubilee line—between £70 million and £100 million—would pay for the construction of the Borders rail line at least as far as Tweedbank?

I understand the SNP's agenda when it tries to play off socially excluded working-class communities in greater London or Manchester against comparable communities in Scotland. However, there is—sometimes—a core of sense in what Kenny MacAskill says.

When?

I often struggle to find it, but it is there if we look for it.

The second and third points that I want to make relate to the resources of Westminster rather than those of this Parliament. The ScotRail franchise—and this point has often been skated over without our debating its substance—was set up with an annual subsidy of £300 million. In the course of its seven years, that annual subsidy is declining to £200 million. That is good—getting the same service for a declining subsidy is good. But who will benefit from the £100 million a year that is saved? That £100 million is part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus. I suggest that there is a gap in the McLeish settlement—a settlement that did not find a way to keep under the authority of this Executive the savings as the ScotRail subsidy declined in real terms. We could do an awful lot of work on Scotland's railway infrastructure with that sort of money.

It is not unrealistic for us to say that that money should be made available here. Among all the rumours that we hear about big allocations of money for transport, the press frequently notes that the strategic rail authority is to receive substantial additional sums. However, that money will be under the control of the strategic rail authority, not the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Executive has a pro rata share of the freight facilities grant. Why should it not have a pro rata share of the infrastructure fund and the rail passenger funding schemes that are available through the strategic rail authority? That seems to me to be part of the logic of an evolving, devolved system of government. If big sums of money—really big sums of money—are to be made available, we have to be assured that we in Scotland will have a mechanism to access that money and that we will be able to inform the debate of criteria that may not apply in urban England but that do indeed apply in scattered and disaggregated rural areas of Scotland, where different economic and social conditions obtain.

My third and final point concerns the press announcement that came from "Government sources" this week. The announcement updated the rumours from earlier this year that Mr Prescott would have £80 billion: he will now have £140 billion over 10 years. Apparently there will be an announcement in July. If that extra money is coming, that is good news and I am pleased. We could do a lot with that money.

It can be difficult to interpret Westminster statements, because the same sum of money gets used over and over and over again, but this Parliament and this Executive is committed to transparency. When the announcement is made, let us find out from the Scottish Executive what additional funding we will get. What will be the pro rata consequences in Scotland of a big increase in transport expenditure for the UK? That additional sum of money is committed to no one else, so it will not be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. From that additional money, let us consider earmarking money for the funding of the Borders rail line during the three or four years that it will take to develop it in the earlier part of the new century.

I am grateful to Alex Johnstone and his committee for allocating all of their parliamentary day to a debate that may, on the surface, appear to be just a local issue, but that, in truth, will resonate far beyond the Borders. I hope that today's debate will prove to be a defining moment in the economic and social life of the Scottish Borders. I hope, too, that it will prove to be a significant moment in the life of the Scottish Parliament.

I pay tribute to those who have helped to bring us to this point, including Borders Transport Futures, the Campaign for Borders Rail, Scottish Borders Council and Scottish Borders Enterprise, our colleagues at Westminster and in all parties in the Scottish Parliament. We work together on an important project where, as Christine Grahame said, party differences ought not to matter too much. Above all, I pay tribute to the people of the Borders, who signed the petition, who have come here today and who gave memorable evidence to the Parliament's Public Petitions Committee when it visited Galashiels. Without all that work we would not be here today to make what I hope is history.

I do not want to dwell too long on the past, except to say that an amazing number of Borderers vividly remember and still feel the sadness and anger that accompanied the closure of the Waverley line, which foolishly and short-sightedly cut the Borders off from the rest of the country's network to the north and south, with immeasurable consequences for the economic life of the area. Christine Grahame has outlined the economic problems created, which we are all familiar with and that have come to a head in recent years. Sarah Boyack mentioned the help we got from the Government, from Gus Macdonald and Brian Wilson. Two good things came out of that: the new ways economic strategy and the feasibility study. The feasibility study helped to silence the cynics because it proved that a link to the central Borders was and is viable—it can be built and it can be viable.

The benefits for Borderers will be substantial, in terms of jobs and of social inclusion, helping us as a community to belong to the mainstream of Scottish life. They will include expanded tourism, increased educational opportunities and a truly strategic transport strategy. We need a hub where the transport links can be drawn together—at the moment the buses are all over the place. Above all, the rail link would transform the psychology of the Borderers. We would be able to see ourselves as a dynamic, forward-looking community, not languishing but moving forward, not passive but active, not waiting for something to turn up but with a new, positive focus—not drowning but waving.

Parliament can today throw the Borders a lifeline that will transform the prospects of one of the most beautiful, characterful areas of our country. It is an area with fine workers who have never let any employers down, with good schools, a strong sense of local community and tradition and a proud sense of self-worth. It has a quality of life that is the envy of almost everyone who takes the trouble to get to know our towns, villages and valleys—I see a Borderer over there nodding.

Why should Parliament back the railway? There are many reasons but one is equity and social justice. The Borders have not done well from public investment. The Highlands and Islands have been more effective in attracting funds, with access to European grants, a strong brand image and a great deal of cultural pressure. In the Borders we have been less assertive but we are changing. We are establishing a brand. We have fine foods and hotels and quality in all sorts of things. We have good co-operation between agencies such as the council and the enterprise company. However, the fact that there are 57 railway stations in the Highlands and none in the Borders is unanswerable.

The second main reason I pick out is choice in transport, which the Minister for Transport and the Environment spoke about recently. In my constituency there is no choice in transport. We have no coastline, so we cannot complain about ferries. We have no air link, there are no dual carriageways—nothing. We have a rickety bus service run on rural roads, and there is really no choice but cars. That means social exclusion on a big scale. I ask the minister to give us mainstream access to help us to improve the transport system.

I wish to consider the project now with a wider focus. Let us not think that the line is just for the Borders. Let us get away from the idea that we are coming looking for vast sums of money for the Borders. It is not just expenditure, it is investment; and it is not just for the Borders, it is for Edinburgh. The new line attacks problems of pollution, congestion and pressure on housing. It helps solve pressures on the labour market. It provides Edinburgh residents with access to a treasure house of day trip opportunities, cultural activities, activity breaks and just plain days out for a holiday. It provides opportunities to develop Midlothian's south-east wedge and to establish a flourishing suburban rail link to the capital, with all the benefits that that would confer.

I say again—it is not just for the Borders; it offers Scotland a new line through to Carlisle for freight, and an alternative route for passenger traffic. No one ever says or thinks that the west Highland line is just for west Highlanders; it is for you and for me and for the whole of Scotland. It is a national treasure, as would be the restored Waverley line—a new line for a new nation.

The project should be seen as a flagship project for this new Parliament in a new millennium. It should be a symbol of our being able to do things differently now—a millennium project that means something and which really does something. Let us push aside contentious issues and wipe them off the front pages with some good news of a Scottish Parliament at work. We should remember that five committees of this Parliament have listened positively to the petition. They have seen its relevance to broadly agreed policies and stances on transport, sustainability, rural development, social inclusion and enterprise and lifelong learning. All those policies are embodied in a single flagship project.

Today, at a stroke, we can change people's attitudes to the Scottish Parliament. Here we have an accessible and listening Parliament—although not as accessible to Borderers today as it would be on other weeks, but never mind—which can put good things into practice that Westminster simply could not or would not have done. We talk about Scottish solutions for Scottish problems. We have Scottish problems in the Borders. Let us start solving them here today.

I acknowledge that there are difficulties with funding, particularly for funding the whole line at once. Everybody accepts that, and Murray Tosh's contribution helped us focus on that. I am delighted that the Executive did not decide to amend the motion. We all have reservations about how fast we can proceed, but this Parliament will give the project whole-hearted backing today.

We in the Conservatives are eager that, working all together, we can bring the railway back to the Borders. I urge the Executive to take up the challenge and to show us an Executive that is listening; a partnership Government that is working; a Parliament that is shaping a positive future for our nation. Bring back the railway for the sake of the Borders, but bring it back also for the Parliament and for the Scottish people.

The debate is now open. Speeches will be of four to five minutes, plus interventions.

A portion of my constituency could be considered to be in the Borders. My constituency generally borders on the Borders, so I am particularly happy to speak in support of the motion.

It cannot be denied that the Borders has been particularly poorly served against the standards of the rest of Scotland. As Christine Grahame said, the Borders has a population of more than 100,000, yet they have no railway station. That puts the Borders in a unique position with regard to its bargaining for funding, compared with other areas of Scotland. More than 70 per cent of the population of the Borders live more than 30 miles from any rail station. As a consequence, car ownership is the highest in mainland Scotland, despite the area being one of low wages and low domestic product.

The first reason for which the rail link is important is getting people to work. I have been involved in a campaign in my constituency to introduce an early morning train from Lockerbie to Edinburgh. Incidentally, it looks like that might have been successful. That will allow people in Lockerbie to work in Edinburgh but live in beautiful Dumfriesshire. That must be good for the economy of the area, as well as being good for the people who live in Dumfriesshire. The same is true for the Borders, as a good train service would encourage people to travel to work by public transport, rather than taking their cars. As Ian Jenkins said, that would be good for Edinburgh, as it would reduce the capital's congestion problems, which exercise the minds of many MSPs as we travel around the city.

Reinstating the rail line would also be good for tourism. As we know, the Borders, which is within striking distance of Edinburgh and Glasgow, has splendid and varied scenery and a rich history, but tourists can access the area only by car. As some of the more traditional industries decline, it will become increasingly important for the area to realise its tourist potential.

The promotion of the south of Scotland generally as a tourist destination must be much improved. Recently, I attended the Scottish Tourist Board's fair in Glasgow, where I was depressingly struck by how poorly represented the south of Scotland was. While the area tourist boards were present, very few industries were represented, in comparison with the efforts put into the fair by the cities, the Highlands and Islands, the western isles, Orkney and so on. The south of Scotland remains neglected, and it is unfortunate that it is often seen as that bit of Scotland between the English border and the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow. We must do much more to promote the area, and reinstating the rail line is an important part of that work.

I will argue the case for the reinstatement of the entire line from Edinburgh to Carlisle, although I recognise that that would take a long time. I heard, and was encouraged by, the minister's comments that she recognised the potential of reinstating the entire line. I support the idea of "to Galashiels and beyond", although that sounds rather like a misquotation of Buzz Lightyear. That would link the Waverley line into the Dumfries and Galloway network by allowing people to change trains at Carlisle. The Dumfries and Galloway network reaches up into Upper Nithsdale and passes through Ayrshire into Kilmarnock, Troon, Prestwick, Ayr and Girvan. While people are able to travel by train throughout parts of the south of Scotland, reopening the Waverley line would give visitors a great opportunity to explore the Borders. That would also allow residents in the south of the Borders to commute by train to work in Carlisle, although I do not think that that is as major an issue as commuting to Edinburgh.

Most of all, reopening the line is important for freight, particularly given the increase in timber traffic in the south of Scotland and the Borders. Recently, some serious—and fatal—road accidents have taken place in the Langholm and Sibbaldbie areas in my constituency. In one case, a timber lorry was directly implicated in the deaths of two people and the state of the roads used by timber lorries seems to have contributed to another accident. We must learn the lessons of those accidents because more and more trees in the south of Scotland are reaching maturity and will be harvested. Therefore, it is essential that, as far as possible, freight is transferred from road to rail. Although some timber will always travel by road, it is important that we promote the use of rail.

As other members said, funding is the main issue. I believe that any and all possible methods of funding for the reinstatement of the Waverley line must be investigated. I hope that the SRA will have a significant involvement in funding, but, like Alex Johnstone and Ian Jenkins, I realise that probably we will have to seek other funding partners. Nevertheless, we have today an opportunity that is important to the Borders and to the south of Scotland and that we must seize.

I have not deliberately moved away from my colleagues in some split over this issue. Apparently, the Parliament's equivalent to leaves on the line is dust in the consoles, which are not all working.

There is only one question to discuss today. It is a disappointment to Christine Grahame, to all the MSPs who represent South of Scotland and the Borders and to me that that question has not been answered yet today. That question is, "When will this railway line be built?" There is no other question. We know that the case for the railway line is unanswerable—it is highly unlikely that any member will rise to their feet in the chamber today to say that there should not be a Borders railway. From the strength of feeling within the Borders, from the 20,000 signatures on the petition, from the meeting held by the Public Petitions Committee on this issue, from the lobbying that we have received and from the long-term campaigns, we know that the question, "When will this railway line be built?" is the only one.

Mr Tosh put that question in the correct context of a list of transport priorities—both the priorities of UK money, which comes from south of the border, and those of the Minister for Transport and the Environment, who is not here. It is her transport priorities that she has to answer for. People who listen to or read her speech will be tremendously disappointed, because almost her first comment was that she must avoid making rash promises. It is not difficult for Sarah Boyack to avoid making rash promises—it is her lifestyle. She avoids making any promises at all. Nowhere in her speech did she say where a Borders rail link lies in her priorities. There was the usual lengthy new Labour-speak about reports, consultants, issues and taking things slowly.

Will the member give way?

I will give way to the member in a second. He always gets excited when he is defending the partnership Executive.

In her speech the minister gave no indication of whether she wanted to see a Border rail link this year, next year, some time or never. That is the first disappointment.

Is a Borders rail link the SNP's No 1 transport spending priority? Has the member discussed that with his transport spokesman?

That is a very interesting question. No 1, No 2 or No 3—it is a priority. It does not appear to be a priority of the Executive.

I believe that the time has come to build the Borders rail link. Tavish Scott's colleagues believe that, too. Mr Jenkins appeared to indicate—

Will the member give way?

Not just now. I know that the member is a regular rail traveller, but he goes north. We are talking about southerly routes.

At the end of his speech, Mr Jenkins indicated in his usual elegant and gentle way that the partnership might be at risk if this line was not built. However, he did not say whether that would happen this year, next year or the year after that. He is now tapping his nose as if he knows—somebody has told him when the partnership is coming to an end, thank goodness. We must know when this line will be built.

By saying that this is a long-term game, the minister added insult to injury. This is a very long-term game. I will not insult the Presiding Officer, but at the beginning of this debate he revealed to us that he was on the last train from the Borders, and he is no spring chicken. This has been a 30-year game. Even if the funding for a Borders rail link were found today, it would be four or five years before it was built.

We must get answers today. It is excellent that this is the second debate on this issue to be held by this Parliament, but it is not, as Mr Jenkins said, an historic debate or an historic day. The historic day will be when the line is built, when the Borders is opened up once again to the rest of Scotland, and when the terrible mistake of 30 years ago to which Mr Jenkins referred is overcome. On that day the people of the Borders will be able to open their newspapers and no longer see a list of national transport priorities that includes tramlines for Manchester, investment in Nottingham, a Docklands light railway, double-decker trains and a Borders railway about which the Executive says, "We are committed to this, but we won't tell you when, we won't tell you how, and it won't happen." That is the problem with this debate.

Mr Mike Russell is absolutely right to say that a Borders rail link is a very high priority for all of us and that it should be built as soon as possible. This Parliament expects action and the people demand nothing less.

Today's debate is both unique and significant. It is unique because this is the first time a public petition to this Parliament has resulted in a full parliamentary debate. It is significant because a reinstated Borders rail link is of crucial importance not just to individuals and communities in the Borders and to commuters from Edinburgh, but to the wider aim of achieving a viable and effective rail service in Scotland. It is relevant to people who live in Edinburgh and commute to the Borders for work and, more important, to people who live in the Borders and commute to Edinburgh. Virtually all those persons commute by bus or car, and many would opt for rail if that choice existed.

I congratulate warmly the members of the Campaign for Borders Rail on bringing this vital issue to the Parliament's attention. The fact that the campaign, which started less than 18 months ago, was able in less than three months to collect more than 17,000 signatures for its petition is testament to the strength of feeling that exists throughout the Borders concerning the reopening of a commercially viable rail line. I add our wholehearted support to that extremely worthwhile and important cause. I do so, in part, in the interests of lessening traffic congestion in and around Edinburgh.

Of much greater importance, however, is the role that a rail link would play in enhancing the industrial and employment prospects of people throughout the Borders. It would afford an important boost to the region's tourism industry and to its general well-being. Those advantages are made all the more apparent with the conclusions of the recently published Borders rail report, which made it clear that a re-established line would be economically viable and bring substantial social, economic and environmental benefits. We should now take this matter forward and re-establish the rail line running from Edinburgh to Carlisle. Re-establishing such a link would have important benefits from Edinburgh to the Borders. It would make the area much more accessible for industry and development and help to create badly needed job opportunities.

The Borders has recently been badly hit by factory closures. It would benefit from a rail link, which would provide an alternative to the congested road system. New businesses have unfortunately perceived the Borders as somewhat remote from suppliers, markets and business contacts, but with a rail link they would be far more likely to invest speedily in the area. A recent study found that the Borders is at the bottom of the weekly earnings table in Scotland. A rail link would undoubtedly address that situation. Such a link would be environmentally friendly and improve access to the Borders for tourism. It would reduce social isolation in Borders communities and reduce the net loss of talented young people who are moving elsewhere for educational purposes.

Great North Eastern Railway Ltd produced a report this year which said that rail-linked areas enjoy better prospects socially, economically and industrially than areas that are not rail linked, as rail use by passengers and freight increases. A fully reopened route would provide direct and fast links not only to England, but to Europe and its markets. It would benefit Edinburgh, Midlothian and Scotland, as well as the Borders.

There is great potential in the Borders for all kinds of freight traffic: timber products, agricultural produce, aggregates and fuel and oils, to mention a few. Borders forests are set to produce 750,000 tonnes of timber a year for the next 20 years. That timber has to be moved from the forests to the consumer. At present, there is only one option: to send such produce along the region's congested roads. That must be changed. Beattock yard is an example of what can be done. Six days a week, a 20-wagon train leaves there for north Wales pulp mills. That is the equivalent of 120 lorry loads a week. That only scratches the surface of what could be moved from pick-up points in the Borders on the Waverley route.

The history of reopened and newly constructed lines has been one of success, an example of which is the reopened Bathgate line. The re-emergence of the Settle to Carlisle route as a major line for freight and passenger traffic is another example.

In 1869, folk from Hawick travelled to Edinburgh by train in two and a half hours. In the 21st century, Hawick folk can take two and a quarter hours to travel to Edinburgh on public transport. We clearly have to give all the support we can to the resurrection of a viable Borders rail link with a much faster service. The technology exists. The track bed largely remains. The local and regional will is strong and the resources would be available if the political will existed. This could be a flagship project for Edinburgh and for Scotland, not only making the Borders a well-serviced area, but bringing investment and economic prosperity to individuals throughout the area. I hope that the Scottish Executive and ministers will see this as a strategically important economic, industrial and social issue in Scotland and will give the proposals for a Borders line all the necessary support to achieve the desired solution in the best interests of the Borders and Scotland.

We are curious about the time when Lord James was transport minister in the Conservative Administration. He says that re-instating the Borders railway as soon as possible is a priority. What measures did he take to do that?

We made many advances with regard to the road infrastructure in Scotland. Rail was not the responsibility of the Scottish Office, so it was not my personal responsibility, but I wish to make it clear that the evidence is plain and unmistakable: the rail link should be a high priority. If the Parliament endorses this motion, I hope that the Executive will respond. Incidentally, I do not see any minister of the Executive in the chamber. On an issue of this importance they should be summoned to the chamber immediately.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This is about respect for the dignity of this Parliament and respect for its committee process. Can I have your guidance on the appropriateness of no minister from the Executive being present to hear the debate at this moment? It is not appropriate that that should be the case. Can you do anything about it?

There is nothing in the standing orders that requires the presence of a minister. That is a matter for the judgment of the chamber.

I would like to take the place of a minister, but I do not think that the Scottish Executive would be entirely happy at that prospect.

I will begin by paying tribute to everyone who has made this debate possible. I return the compliment to Christine Grahame, who first suggested that the Public Petitions Committee go to the Borders to receive this petition and set the parliamentary ball rolling. We have secured a debate in Parliament in much quicker time than it has taken Glasgow Celtic to replace John Barnes as manager. We should be proud of that, although I hope that Celtic will get its act together sooner or later.

The meeting in March in Galashiels was the first occasion when the Public Petitions Committee ventured forth from Edinburgh; it was a quite extraordinary occasion. Top of our agenda that day was the 20,000 strong petition for the reinstatement of the Borders rail link. As Christine Grahame said, it attracted an astounding public attendance at the committee. At the time I described it as amazing—more than 200 people were packed into the Volunteer Hall in Galashiels. Without a word being uttered, the strength of feeling across political parties and across civic society in the Borders that, as a priority, this rail link has to be reinstated by those in power—whether in this Parliament or at Westminster—became obvious to everyone present.

We heard a lot of evidence that day from a wide range of witnesses. Many of them were members of the Campaign for Borders Rail. The people who gave evidence included older people, middle-aged people, young people and even a teenager. MSPs from all parties—not just members of the committee, but other MSPs from the Borders—were present. We even had MPs in the form of Archy Kirkwood and Michael Moore who—unlike some of their Westminster colleagues—have no problem giving evidence to a committee of this Parliament. All of them spoke with one voice: which stressed the urgency and necessity of reinstating this rail link.

What struck me was the common theme throughout all the speeches: the deeply felt sense of injustice and grievance that the Borders should be the only mainland region in the United Kingdom that is without a rail service. I was struck by one comparison the witnesses made: that between the Borders and the Highland region. The Highland region has a population of around 220,000 and is sometimes thought of as a neglected area. It has 57 railway stations. The Borders, which has more than half that population, does not have one railway station in its area. That is not fair, it is not right and it is unjust. As a member of the Public Petitions Committee who had the privilege of being in Galashiels that afternoon, I give my full and unqualified support to the campaign to make it a priority that the rail link be restored in the Borders.

Some people would say, "You are not from the Borders. You are an exiled Glaswegian who has chosen to spend most of your life in Scotland's other great city—Dundee. What has this got to do with you or the constituents you represent?" It might seem obvious to say that it does not have a lot to do with me or my constituents directly. What seems obvious is not always right. It seems to me that this as much an issue for the rest of Scotland as it is for the Borders. We must ask ourselves what kind of Scotland we want to live in. Do we want a Scotland that is decent, inclusive and offers fairness and justice to every Scot, wherever they happen to live in Scotland, or do we want a Scotland where individual MSPs look after only the region they come from? What kind of MSPs do we want to be? Do we want to be 129 atomised individuals who clash against each other all the time and always put ourselves and our constituents first, or do we believe that sometimes we have to think of the whole of Scotland rather than a part of it? I think that Scotland is a better country than that; supporting the reinstatement of the link would be an important signal that Scotland is different from other countries and that it wants to be inclusive.

Ultimately, we return to the matter of money. The resources that are available to the Parliament are scarce. Murray Tosh is right to say that it will not be easy to find funding, but we have all seen leaked reports of the announcement that is due to be made next month about the £140 billion that will be released by the Westminster Government to overhaul the creaking transport system. According to the press this morning, Scotland's share of that sum will be £12 billion over the next 10 years.

Of course, not all the money will be spent on railways—some of it will be spent on roads—but the SRA is letting it be known that it regards the future railway investment as meaning big improvements to the links between Glasgow and Edinburgh to London on the east and west-coast main lines. As I have said before, Scotland is more than the Glasgow-Edinburgh axis. The other parts of Scotland, including the Borders, deserve their share of resources. The time has long passed when the Borders deserved this investment.

At time for reflection this morning, Captain Christopher Connelly of the Salvation Army reminded us about Neil Armstrong setting foot on the moon more than 30 years ago. It was about then that it became impossible to travel from the Borders to Edinburgh by rail. Sometime in the past 30 years, we got our priorities drastically wrong. It is time for us to put them right again by supporting the campaign and finding the money to make the Borders rail link happen immediately.

As I was born and brought up in Patna, I agree with John McAllion that Scotland is much more than the Glasgow-Edinburgh axis.

I will concentrate on the benefits of the Borders rail link to the wider Scottish economy. The current pressure on the Edinburgh economy, which is likely to be exacerbated over the next two decades or so, has not been mentioned. The City of Edinburgh Council produced a report a couple of months ago that predicted that up to 25,000 new jobs will be created in Edinburgh over the next few years. We all know about the pressures on the property market in Edinburgh, as young people in particular find it extremely difficult to find accommodation that is within their reach. We also know about the pressures on the labour market in Edinburgh. Businesses often find it difficult to recruit people, particularly those with the skills they require.

We are in danger of recreating in Scotland the position of the south-east of England vis-à-vis the rest of the country—one small pocket becomes overheated while the rest of the country certainly does not overheat and, in some places, such as the Borders, is in a state of depression. The economic conditions in the Borders are the opposite of those prevailing in Edinburgh. The Borders has an average wage level that is 10 per cent below the Scottish average and a level of unemployment that is high and rising. It faces the prospect of major deindustrialisation and depopulation, particularly among the young people who are required to resuscitate the local economy.

I hope that the rail link will help to regenerate the economy of the Borders and take some of the pressure off Edinburgh. It would give people who are unemployed in the Borders greater access to the wider labour market in Edinburgh and the surrounding area. It would also allow companies that can no longer expand in the Edinburgh area because of lack of accommodation or appropriate labour to examine the Borders as a realistic alternative location for investment. It would allow the property market in the Borders to develop while removing some of the inflationary pressures in the property market in Edinburgh. On this occasion, what is good for the Borders is also good for Edinburgh and the wider Lothian and Scottish economy.

It is important to register that this is not a parochial issue about how we link up the Borders or tackle its economic problems; it is a national issue about how we maximise the resources and potential of the Scottish economy and the Scottish people. Neither is this only a transport or railway issue; it is a wider issue of economic and social development and ensuring access for people in the Borders to greater economic and social opportunities.

Mike Russell touched on the key question of when the link will happen. There are two points. First, when it happens is unfortunately not the decision of this Parliament, although it should be. The minister referred to the McLeish settlement, part of which was that the minister would be able to issue instructions to the rail authority. That has now been reneged upon. The minister should reinstate the word and spirit of the McLeish convention so that this Parliament controls the decision making.

John McAllion has already covered my second point, which is about the money. There are two reports in the papers this morning, the first on the UK transport budget for the next 10 years. We are told that £140 billion will be made available. Scotland's share of that should be roughly £14 billion. Surely out of that £14 billion we can find the money for the Borders rail link.

Will the member give way?

I am winding up.

Who are you winding up?

I am obviously winding the minister up.

We are told that Scotland's share of the comprehensive spending review will be £12 billion over the next few years. The money is available—money should not be the argument.

Today's debate is a litmus test of the Parliament. Are we an assembly that is able to debate the issue, full of motherhood and apple pie, or are we a Parliament that can deliver for the people of Scotland?

That was a good fundamentalist speech from Alex Neil. It contrasted with Mike Russell's gradualist speech, which is presumably why he has gone. I thought Mike Russell had gone to sort out whether this is priority No 1, No 2 or No 3, but it is now obvious that he left because he knew what was coming next.

As Murray Tosh said, this is Scotland and we need to sort this out in the context of the Scottish budget. I thought that Murray, in an uncharacteristically calm performance, put his finger on many of the important factors about the overall budget.

Ian Jenkins's point about the Scottish Parliament getting on to the front foot and doing something positive and important, not only in a local or regional sense, but in a Scotland-wide sense, was important too and I hope that it will be considered.

I support the motion lodged by Alex Johnstone and the Rural Affairs Committee. It is important that the Parliament has the opportunity to debate the Borders rail link. I note also that there is a pretty good turnout, which has not always been the case for committee debates. Usually, just committee members turn up. It is good to see colleagues from across the political spectrum here to make a contribution.

In an increasingly competitive world, transport and infrastructure links are important for the vibrancy and sustainability of many communities. That applies to the Borders as much as it applies to any other part of Scotland. I share the desire of the multitude of campaigners on this issue—national and local politicians and the people involved in all the campaigning efforts mentioned this morning—to see the Borders rail link reinstated.

My grandparents used to live in the Yarrow valley. They were constituents of the local MP who was, as my grandmother reminded me on the phone last night, a young David Steel. It was he who intervened 30 years ago to stop a local minister in Newcastleton, who had said that he was going to block the line, being arrested. Direct action may not be the appropriate mechanism today, but in times past they have been considered.

Today's politicians must work with local agencies and all involved in the process to make progress towards reinstatement of the link. My colleagues in this Parliament, Ian Jenkins and Euan Robson, have augmented the work of Michael Moore and Archy Kirkwood.

John McAllion mentioned the progress of the Transport Bill at Westminster. Some important comments on the strategic rail authority and what could happen have been made there. When the bill went into committee on 21 March, Michael Moore proposed an amendment that would have added two purposes to the SRA: to identify unmet needs for railway services and to expand the railway network where appropriate. The amendment would have put the onus on the SRA to be involved in the process. That follows on from the Scott Wilson study.

During the Westminster debate, Michael Moore pointed out that the SRA's director of external relations visited the Borders on 20 March to discuss the findings of the feasibility study. Considerable progress has been made as a result of the efforts of the campaign. It is worth quoting Keith Hill, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. In reply to Michael Moore's amendment, he said:

"The SRA will have powers to assist reopenings and will consider proposals, taking into account a range of factors including the environment, accessibility and value for money against competing demands . . . Where schemes appear to the SRA to fit its strategies for securing the development of the railway network, it will need to consider how the new scheme could be encouraged."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Standing Committee E, 28 March 2000; c 1193-94.]

It would be helpful if the minister could give us some assurances that the Scottish Executive is applying pressure to ensure that the helpful answer given in Westminster and other such points are being pursued.

The SRA is one part of the equation, but many others must be involved in the financing of the plans. The Liberal Democrats do not have any ideological opposition. We want the line to be reinstated and to ensure that the necessary finance is available. As Murray Tosh said, there is considerable pressure on the Scottish budget; all options must be considered carefully. Midlothian Council might want to consider whether the £18 million that is currently earmarked for the A701 might be better spent on an integrated transport solution including the Waverley line.

Reinstating the Waverley line is a key component of local transport strategy for the Scottish Borders. If the project does not progress, the Borders will not be part of integrated transport options. The Executive and several publications support the contention that we must give people transport options. As colleagues have said, that choice is not available at present. In addition, the forthcoming Scottish transport bill may give local authorities a power to introduce city road pricing. If that happens in Edinburgh, Borders drivers will have no option, because they will be paying a charge to get into Edinburgh. It is important that options are available to people travelling from the Borders for work or leisure activities.

It is important that the Parliament and the Executive take a lead on the issue by supporting the Waverley line. We must give the funding bodies the encouragement to drive the need and begin progress on the reinstatement of the Borders railway without delay.

I, too, welcome the debate. I thank all those honest, decent Borders folk who have campaigned tirelessly to re-establish the line and who have brought us to this point. Their case was taken up by the Labour Government in 1997, when Gus Macdonald commissioned the feasibility study. That study has moved the re-establishment of a Borders rail link from a nice possibility to a real agenda for change.

For 20 years I lived, studied and, very occasionally, worked in the Borders, in what is no doubt the most beautiful place in Scotland—Jedburgh. My mother still lives there. She does not drive, does not have a car and is wholly reliant on public transport. It takes a four-hour journey for her to come to visit me in Lanarkshire—a journey that costs one fifth of her weekly wage. The case for a Borders rail link is one of which I am personally aware.

As a child, I remember walking with my grandparents along the old line, past Riverside park up to Bonjedward. We could walk for miles along what used to be the railway. My grandparents talked about the days when the railway was there. My mother remembers the Spittal trip and the train journey through the countryside to the seaside. I will never forget taking my eight-year-old godson up to Edinburgh for the day and his joy in riding on a train for the first time—although we only went as far as Haymarket. However, that is the only way for a Borders boy to go on a train. I do not need to be convinced by outsiders of the need for a rail link in the Borders.

I had to leave Jedburgh to go to university; I did not have the choice of commuting. Once someone has moved away, it is hard to find a job that enables them to come back. That is why so many of our young people are not able to return. Believe me, I tried.

I will not take any lectures from the Tories about the priority that they attach to a Borders rail link. During 18 years of Tory misrule, they did absolutely nothing—

Sit down, Murray. Actions speak louder than words. What did the Tories do—

Will the member give way?

I will not take any lectures from you lot either.

The Tories did nothing to reinstate the Borders railway. The railway is not, and must not become, a political football.

Will the member give way?

No. Sit down.

The railway is far too important to be used as a political football, and it cannot become part of a false argument that pits Scotland against England. If extra money is to go to transport in the rest of the UK, we will get consequential cash in the same way as usual.

I am surprised that Kenny MacAskill sets so much store by press speculation. If everything in the press is true, as Kenny MacAskill made out, I assume that he is getting ready to challenge Alex Salmond for leadership of the nat pack.

I welcome the minister's honesty in saying that she will not promise something that she cannot deliver. Borders people will respect that.

I point out to Alex Neil that the McLeish settlement is established in the UK Transport Bill and that we have statutory authority for Scottish services.

When extra cash becomes available, we will all vie for that cash for our constituencies. I will campaign for cash for the Larkhall rail link; Mike Russell tells my constituents that that is his priority. Lewis Macdonald and John McAllion will campaign for extra cash for the east coast main line; Kenny MacAskill tells their constituents that that is his priority. Ian Jenkins and Euan Robson—rightly—will campaign for the Borders rail link to be the No 1 priority; Christine Grahame says that that is her priority. Mike Russell says the same, and Kenny MacAskill says that it is his No 1 priority. There will be extra cash—we will all vie for it—but the cases will have to be put.

Let us be in no doubt that the case for the Borders rail link—

Will the member give way?

I must finish; I have only two minutes.

The Borders rail link is a priority for the Labour party. If it had not been, we would never have undertaken the feasibility study or put measures in place to work out whether the link could be feasible. The real debate is not about where the Borders rail link should end, but about the very fact that it begins. My personal preference is that if the line is to stop somewhere in the Borders, it should stop at St Boswells. That would connect the bottom part of the Borders to the rail link and mean that shuttle bus services could run from Kelso, Hawick, and even from Jedburgh, up to St Boswells to make the important journey north to Edinburgh.

Ideally, in future, the link should be extended to Carlisle, if that is feasible and economically viable. The important point is for everyone to continue to campaign, and work together—as we have done over the years—to make the rail link happen. If the rail link does not start, it will never finish. For the Borders people, the railway is far too important to be pitted as one person's priority against another's.

I welcome the minister's comments that she will continue to look at the issue, and I know that Ian Jenkins and Euan Robson will not let it go. Together, we can make the Borders rail link a reality, not just a pipe dream.

There is a good teaching maxim that we could use—on this issue and others—vis-à-vis the Executive: "Tell them. Tell them again. Tell them you've told them."

The reopening of the Carlisle connection through the Borders is without doubt the most telling and important contribution the Executive could make to the rejuvenation of the rural economy of southern Scotland.

First, what is the alternative? Improvement in transport and infrastructure is vital if tourism, agriculture and manufacturing are to flourish in the Borders, but would major road-building projects be the answer? The terrain is such that such projects would be hugely expensive and unsightly and would destroy the feel of the landscape. In the long term, a new road would do no more than provide an alternative to the east and west coast routes that would, inevitably, fill with through traffic and, as a consequence, have negative impacts on the Borders. We do not need to encourage the idea of a third fast road route south.

There is a bigger picture to consider. We have signed the Rio and Kyoto international agreements, which bind us to preserving our biodiversity and reducing CO2 emissions. I repeat again and again that the Executive should be choosing to reduce road transport. Driving a motorway through the Borders would effectively undermine and attack both agreements.

We must build this railway as soon as possible. I have selected six sound arguments for reopening the rail link. In light of my opening remarks, I do not apologise for repeating points that have already been made.

First, on efficiency, mile for mile, width for width, rail can shift two to six times as many passengers per hour as road car use options. Mile for mile, it is cheaper to build and maintain and is much the best option.

Secondly, although pollution obviously depends on use, it can be reduced by a factor of 12 in the case of passengers. I am not sure about the present figures for freight.

Thirdly, rail is far safer than road. It is sad to reflect that far more people were killed on Britain's roads in the two weeks following the Paddington rail disaster; however, that fact did not hit the headlines in the same way.

Fourthly, if we do not make an effort to persuade tourists on to trains in Scotland, our national parks and scenic areas such as the Borders will become swamped with road traffic, which will reduce enjoyment of the experience and make life impossible for people attempting to go about their daily business. Tourism is projected to double in the next 10 years. As we cannot absorb such an increase on our roads, rail transport in Scotland must be seen as a major new player in the development of tourism, which could also deliver a significant boost to the Borders economy.

Fifthly, there have been enough detailed comments about the advantages that the rail link will bring to logging and manufacturing industries.

Finally, on house prices and commuting, there is much pressure on green-belt land around Edinburgh, some of it from people who wish to live in a rural atmosphere and commute into town. That produces far greater pressure to build more roads. I do not have time to enter into the case for compact cities, but if we wish to retain green belts and protected interior green space in our cities, it is important to recognise that the only alternative to compact cities is spur or wheel-spoke development.

As many European cities have demonstrated, rail is the only way to deliver—sustainably, environmentally and efficiently—the amenity of small-town or village life coupled with city working. Although I am no great advocate of the model, the spur principle would deliver it far more sustainably than uncontrolled city sprawl. Rail is the only solution to the transport problems posed by such development.

For the Borders, a rail link is not just necessary and vital; it is the only and obvious answer to the region's social, employment and transport problems. I support the motion and have no reservations that the concept must be "Carlisle or bust."

Sir David Steel began this debate by declaring that he was one of the passengers on the last train from Waverley station to the Borders. So was I, although I do not think that members in the chamber will believe that I was in my pram in the goods wagon. It was 1969. In the same year that man walked on the moon, we closed a vital transport artery in Scotland.

I will never forget that terrible day. All on board that train who were interested in rail—and who remain interested in rail and loyal to that cause 30 years on—vowed that they would seize any opportunity to try to reopen the line. Feelings were running so high in the Borders—and in Edinburgh—that there was a bomb threat to that train. Such threats were unusual in 1969. I remember a policeman on the train coming out with the immortal line that is guaranteed to panic the public, "Don't panic." Being staunch Scots, we all did the natural thing and panicked. Eventually, after being searched, the train pulled out of Waverley and made that heartbreaking journey into the gold and green borderland for what was thought to be the last time.

Karen Gillon referred to Gus Macdonald and said that the reopening of the Waverley line was a priority for the Labour party; others have paid tribute to Gus Macdonald's supposed intervention. Anyone's intervention is welcome, but I must remind members that it was a nationalist—me—who helped kick-start that survey by involving Richard Branson. I challenged him at a public function at which he had been sitting next to Gus Macdonald. Mr Branson stated that he had not heard of the Waverley line, although he had been talking to Gus Macdonald for two hours. At that moment, Mr Branson said to Gus Macdonald and other members of the Government that they should all do something about it. The feasibility study is a result of that discussion.

Many have remained more loyal than I am to the cause of the Waverley line. The great Borders campaigners have kept going. Today, the minister talked of time capsules. She believes that reopening the Waverley line is a good idea. We all know that it is a good idea. We do not know what she is going to do about it. We listened with hope to her early remarks, but she calmed us down by pointing out that the Victorians had taken 17 years to link up part of the Waverley line. Is she proposing that we—living in the 21st century—should resort to crinoline thinking and crinoline time scales? What does she mean by that comparison? That we should wait for the next millennium before getting that line?

The minister must give us a date and impress upon her colleague Mr Prescott that he must open his box and give us the money. The money is peanuts: £74 million for half the job or £200 million for the full job. That is peanuts compared with the £1,200 million that has been spent on the extension of the Jubilee line, which will enable the public to go to the millennium dome and observe with great pleasure the waste of even larger sums of public money. More than a thousand million has been found for one corner of London, but we are unable to find a few tens of millions for a vital artery in a part of Scotland that has suffered an economic Flodden in loss of jobs and which should, geographically, be one of the most economically viable areas in Scotland.

I call on the minister to give us the timing for the reopening of the Waverley line and to tell us when she will get her friend, John Prescott, to open his box and give us the money that we deserve.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the link between railways and rural development and to congratulate those here and elsewhere who have worked hard to put forward the case for a rail link to the Borders.

As John McAllion said, the case for the rail link was brought before Parliament in the form of a petition. I want to reflect on the objectives of that petition in the context of the objectives of the Rural Affairs Committee to promote the social and economic development of rural Scotland. The petitioners said that a rail link would make the area more accessible for industry and development, create desperately needed jobs and opportunities, provide an alternative to the road system, promote a more sustainable transport system, reduce social isolation and improve access for tourism. Those are all objectives that will be widely recognised and supported the length and breadth of rural Scotland.

Improved access for industry and development is critical to maintaining populations and sustaining skills in the north and south of Scotland. This week, the Rural Affairs Committee heard from Locate in Scotland about its efforts to attract inward investment and to create jobs. The representatives of Locate in Scotland faced hard questions about their traditional focus on the usual suspects—locations close to Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, they made it clear that they recognised the need for change—a rural investment team has been set up in the past year—and the importance of transport and communications when investment decisions are made.

Railways are particularly important in meeting the other objectives of the petitioners—providing an alternative to road transport and promoting a more sustainable transport system. As Robin Harper said, those are not just local issues. The UK has clear commitments to reducing CO2 emissions and to slowing the global warming that threatens to wipe out much of the Scottish rural economy over the next century. There is a good case to be made for continuing to find ways—as the Executive has done—of reducing road transport costs for rural areas in which there is no alternative to road transport. There is also no way of avoiding our wider international obligations, and increased rail transport, where that is possible, offers one way in which to square that circle.

I hope that existing routes in the north and north-east of Scotland will be improved, and that routes will be extended when there is an economic case to be made for that. Reducing social isolation and promoting tourism are also objectives that railways can help to meet, not only in the Borders but throughout Scotland. The point has been made a couple of times that the Borders is the only area that lacks rail transport. It is certainly one of the areas that lacks rail transport, but, without presuming to speak for the constituency members for Deeside, Buchan, Ullapool and Loch Ness-side, I suggest that there are other areas in which economic development could be supported by further railway development. The proposal for a Borders rail link is to be welcomed not as a uniquely deserving case, but as a case for the role that railways can play in promoting development in rural Scotland.

I welcome the minister's comments, and hope that she will take the proposal forward as part of a basket of measures for discussion with national and local bodies, recognising that both national and local investment have a role to play and that railway investment throughout Scotland can help to achieve economic development, sustainable transport and social inclusion.

I had the unusual pleasure of coming to Parliament today by train. That is not something that I can do from Kelso, where I live, but I long for the day when I shall be able to do so. This important debate marks a further stage in the re-establishment of the railway in and through the Scottish Borders, which was cruelly and unjustifiably removed from our midst over the years leading up to 1969.

I echo Ian Jenkins's thanks to all those who have brought the campaign so far, many of whom are in the public gallery today, and to the many members who have attended. It is important that as many people as possible should hear the case.

In the Borders, we work in partnership. It is a natural instinct for us to work closely together, and one that has been reinforced by the economic troubles that we have endured over recent months. One of the responses of the Borders working party to our economic ills was to say, in the new ways economic strategy, that the Borders should become "a connected place". That is a multifaceted concept, but the restoration of a railway line is an objective that fits perfectly with that and thus would fulfil an existing Government policy. The Scott Wilson feasibility study was a direct consequence of the working party's efforts.

The restoration of a rail link would bring many economic benefits, several of which have been mentioned today. It would bring jobs—although we should not over-emphasise the number of jobs—and development along the corridor of the line. It may well attract commuters to live among us and work in Edinburgh or further afield, whose disposable income would boost the local economy. The railway would also bring freight opportunities, and our people would have greater access to employment, education, leisure and cultural activities in other parts of Scotland. So many things would be far better if we had the railway line.

As Karen Gillon eloquently said, our young people—who are perhaps one of our biggest exports—would be more likely to remain with us. Incidentally, I do not think that Karen's mother will let her have investment in the Larkhall railway line before there is investment in the Borders railway, but we will see.

In the Borders, we do not consider the railway as being of benefit only to the Borders. The line would relieve Edinburgh of traffic congestion. That is a vital point and it should be stressed; I was grateful that Alex Neil eloquently did so, and that Robin Harper mentioned the effects on Midlothian as well.

The minister recently funded increased capacity on the railway line from Fife to the capital; she was right to do so, but she should remember that in the Borders we do not have the option of using a railway, except for a few of my constituents who live within reach of Berwick-upon-Tweed in north Northumberland. However, as we have said in Parliament before, a blind person who lives in that part of the Borders cannot use his or her concessionary travel ticket from Berwick-upon-Tweed.

I have told the Parliament on a number of occasions how difficult—or impossible—it is to commute from Hawick or Duns, for example. It takes more than two hours and costs more than £6 to travel from Jedburgh to Edinburgh by bus. Think of all the people who have to visit relatives or friends in hospital, and think of the patients. When we consider the cost of rebuilding our railway line, we should contrast it with the cost of perhaps building another Forth crossing.

We should bear in mind the fact that this great project to restore our railway line could win for this Parliament the gratitude of the people of the south of Scotland. As many members have said, it should be seen as a national project: national because it could create a third rail route into and out of Scotland, and national because it would join the people of the south more closely with the rest of the nation. It is for that latter reason that so many people from outside the Borders have joined the Campaign for Borders Rail. I certainly want a through route to Carlisle, and the minister did not rule that out. However, I am not interested in saying where the line should stop; the key thing is to get the line started.

I thank John McAllion for his help, for his chairing of the Public Petitions Committee in Galashiels, and for his remarks during the debate. It is good to have his support.

The feasibility study has shown us the way. The local authorities have set up an inclusive working group in which powers from a parliamentary order could be invested; the business case will be made and the environmental impact assessment and other preparatory work will be done; but we need the help of the Scottish Executive to fund the effort. I trust that the minister will look favourably on the application for finance from the public transport fund. As long as the Executive is seen to be a willing participant, others who have been reluctant in the past will stay with the project. That is an essential ingredient for success.

Getting parliamentary orders is not necessarily easy. There might be objectors, and they will have the right to be heard in a public inquiry. While that is happening, we can look to a variety of funding arrangements. At this stage, nothing should be ruled in or out. Simplistic solutions are unwise.

The minister said that she wanted the railway network to grow. She said that we had to demonstrate that the project offered value for money, that we had to consider our priorities in the context of an integrated transport system, and that we had to look towards reduced congestion, improved access, increased inclusion, and social, economic and environmental gains. We in the Borders fit the minister's requirements, her paradigm. She was talking about the hopes of my relatives, neighbours, friends and constituents—Borders people. I urge her to back us.

I will start by highlighting the process from which many other campaigners across Scotland could learn, I believe. I am thinking particularly of the people in Dumfries and Galloway who are campaigning for the reinstatement of the Paddy line from Dumfries to Stranraer, who could learn a great deal from the way in which campaigners for the Borders rail link have used the Public Petitions Committee of this Parliament and have brought together parliamentarians of all parties.

This has been a genuinely cross-party effort, so it was rather disappointing that Karen Gillon sought to claim credit for Labour for the initiative. It has been good to see MPs and MSPs working together, and it is important that that should happen. Archy Kirkwood and Michael Moore are to be congratulated on working with the committees of this Parliament. They are also to be congratulated on their continuing work with the A7 action group.

Nothing in the feasibility study or indeed in today's debate suggests anything other than that the reintroduction of the line would be of widespread benefit, not just for the Borders but for Scotland. However, as others have said, the recreation of the line would not in itself solve the transport problems of rural Scotland. The economy of a large chunk of rural Scotland—as Mr Morgan said, the gap on the map, Dumfries and Galloway—will not be regenerated until its serious transport infrastructure problems are addressed.

Elaine Murray highlighted the important issue of timber freight. Villages and towns throughout the south of Scotland are subjected to lorry after lorry carrying timber. A rail link is the most sensible way to transport timber from, for example, Kielder, the largest man-made forest in Europe, to Carlisle and the markets in the south and elsewhere. As Elaine also said, the accident on the Auchenrivock section of the A7—an accident that everyone knew was waiting to happen—when timber came off a lorry and crushed fatally the two occupants of a motor vehicle, demonstrates the need to get the timber off the road and on to rail. The southern section of the Borders rail link would do that.

Others have talked about a multitude of priorities. The priority that the Minister for Transport and the Environment gives to upgrading the southern section of the A7 should not be diminished. Members from the south of Scotland from all parties want to see that section of the A7 upgraded. I hope that she will reconsider Elaine Murray's invitation to come to the Langholm area and see the road for herself.

I agreed whole-heartedly with Ian Jenkins when he said that people will judge this Parliament on the basis of concrete achievements. There could be no more concrete achievement than the rail link. I hope that in her summing up the minister will be more enthusiastic about it than she was when I proposed the reopening of Beattock station for passenger travel.

The debate on the Borders rail link has gathered a momentum that, as Christine Grahame said, many people a few years ago believed would be unlikely, and which I hope will continue. Today is an important point, but only a point in a journey—a journey that I hope will take us by train from Edinburgh to Carlisle.

We have had fine words and eloquent speeches—explanations and exhortations as to why the railway to and through the Borders is needed. Let us be clear: we are talking not about building a new railway but about restoring a previous network that, as a result of underfunding and short-termism, was wrongly closed. We are not coming cap in hand to ask for special treatment but seeking to restore to a constituent part of our nation what was theirs and is theirs by right.

There are two clear reasons why the Borders rail link must be reopened. As others have said, it is a prerequisite for social and economic progress in that distinctive area. If jobs cannot be taken to the people, the least that can be done is to take people to the jobs. Initially, the work opportunities available in Edinburgh could be taken up by people from the Borders. In the longer term, it would allow the economic boom in Edinburgh to resonate outwards and southwards.

In the 21st century, we pride ourselves on looking forward, but let us learn from history. In the 19th and early part of the 20th century, opening up the rail network allowed the economic expansion of the industrial revolution. Rail lines opened up investment and towns and communities were born. It was not the cavalry but the iron horse that opened up the west, in the USA.

The corollary to social and economic expansion is social and economic decline. That is what has been happening, in substantial part as a result of poor transport infrastructure. We owe it to the Borders to restore the rail link in order to revitalise its economy and to bring it into the social and economic hub of a vibrant Scotland in the 21st century.

The Borders rail link is a strategic part of Scotland's economic future. It is not simply a Borders issue, but an all-Scotland issue. As the Borders is geographically isolated within Scotland, Scotland is geographically isolated from its economic markets. As a nation, we are located on the periphery of the economic trading block in which we operate—location has advantages in some fields, but disadvantages in others.

We need to trade to survive, for no one owes us a living. We require access to our markets. In a global economy, transportation time is vital. We require to ensure that we have the capacity to transport all our goods, and on time. Business demands it and our customers expect it.

We look forward to improvements on the east coast and west coast main lines. We envisage a time when the railway to London and points in between competes with airlines. I can see advantages in being able to walk to Central or Waverley stations, and pick up a train, on the hour, which will get me to London in three hours or thereabouts.

However, there is a downside. The more passenger trains that move, the more difficult it is to move our freight. The strategic economic advantage and the reason, touched on by Elaine Murray, why the line to Carlisle must be restored, is to allow an alternative line to ease capacity problems, if not in the short term, most certainly in the long term. The restoration of the rail line is necessary for all the Borders and for all Scotland.

What then is to be done? We could end this debate basking in the glow of the hot air created by the rhetoric, but that rhetoric will not lay one sleeper nor advance the track by one mile. We need to ensure that we lay the solid foundations on which the line can be restored, and that we fuel the engine that will run upon it.

In Scotland, the tragedy is that our Government has washed its hands of responsibility for rail. Power has not been devolved to this elected Parliament but given away to an unelected quango, outwith our land. That organisation will be dealt with in other debates, but at present, that is the body which holds the purse strings and which has the power to restore the railway or not.

The money involved is small beer compared with what has been spent elsewhere. For example, £2.5 billion has been spent on the Jubilee line. As I mentioned in the intervention that Murray Tosh kindly took, one station costs between £70 million and £100 million. The Channel tunnel link cost £1.8 billion. Yesterday, Prescott pledged £140 billion over 10 years. I read that the programme will include

"a £500m extension for Manchester's tramlines, a new £180m system in Nottingham and extensions to the Docklands Light Railway in London and the similar Tyne and Wear rail network."

Before the cacophony of voices rises in protest at yet another spending pledge, answer me this: how come John Prescott can think so big, yet the minister aspires so small?

Will Mr MacAskill give way?

I am winding up.

Let the resolution of this Parliament be that we welcome progress south of the border towards an enhanced rail network, but we insist upon similar progress and similar aspirations in our land. If the strategic rail authority is supposed to represent this United Kingdom, it has a duty to be equitable in the dispensation of its largesse.

In summary, we are saying that it is time to stop the talking and start the constructing. We are not satisfied with a dream, but wish to make the dream a reality. Let us tell the strategic rail authority that the settled will of this Parliament and of the Scottish people is that the authority restore the Borders rail link as a matter of priority.

I am delighted to wind up today's debate and to be positive at the end: members have been unanimous about the need for the Borders railway line.

Several members have asked when the line will be completed. The critical issue is that the work has started; the clock is already ticking. We have already had the feasibility study, which was commissioned by the Labour Government in 1997, and which was delivered and is now available in the Scottish Parliament information centre. I am sure that every member in the chamber has taken the time to look at its conclusions.

We already potentially have the support through the public transport fund; Scottish Borders Council has already begun the process of working up its bid for the project. To suggest that nothing has happened, and that we are at the vision stage—and that we are not talking about realities—is not true: the work has started and the commitment has been made.

The Scottish Executive has spent money already on getting the Scottish Borders rail link started. We must ensure that that work continues and that we give the support that Euan Robson asked for, encouraging the parties that are pursuing the project, such as Scottish Borders Council, Midlothian Council and Scottish Borders Enterprise, and telling them that we want to start the work on the line.

However, it is not real politics to suggest that one can deliver overnight the sort of investment required to build the line by simply demanding it, nor is that how to build a railway line.

I will not give way, as I have only a short time.

The first steps are being taken and money has been spent already. Important work is being done, which was recognised by all members in the chamber.

I want to correct a number of the points made in the debate. Let me be absolutely clear—we have powers over services in Scotland, in relation to the ScotRail franchise. Nothing in the UK Transport Bill waters down those powers and we will use them to the full. Several nationalist comments were made about press speculation on John Prescott's transport investment proposals. We have already received money as a consequence of the budget, and we are spending that money in Scotland. The priority is for that money to go into rural transport and safety issues. The Nottingham link, to which Mr MacAskill referred, has funding already. When he examines packages of expenditure, he should be careful to ensure that he does not simply believe the press speculation.

This summer, there will be a comprehensive spending review, which will give both the Scottish Executive and the UK Government the opportunity to decide our spending priorities. Rail and transport investment must be part of those priorities—that will be my job as Minister for Transport and the Environment.

Will the minister give way?

No.

The SRA is already investing in Scotland, and the idea that it is not aware of our priorities is absolutely ridiculous. We have already received money for the Edinburgh crossrail scheme. That money is to be spent on the ground, to open up the scheme. The SRA has met Scottish Borders Council and the other parties involved in the project to open up the Borders railway line, and is due to meet them again on 12 June. The SRA is not a remote body—it is engaging with our priorities in Scotland, and we are clear that one of our key priorities is the Borders railway line.

Several comments were made about the need to promote links across Scotland. I agree that we need an integrated approach and more investment in our rural infrastructure. The Executive is addressing those issues through our rural transport fund and our public transport fund. New railway stations are opening up across Scotland and more money is going into our railway network to provide extra capacity for services in Fife, for example, and to fund new freight facilities grants. Only this week, I announced another £1 million for those grants.

Although we are making that investment, the Borders railway line is on a different level. All members accepted that point. The Borders railway line will be delivered not by a magic wand but by a package of funding. We have an opportunity to deliver that funding, and it is a great pity that members have talked down the fact that we are getting going on the line.

Will the member give way?

No.

The work is happening already, and solid foundations are being built. I say to Mr MacAskill that before one can build a railway line, one must follow a series of procedures, such as planning procedures, and one must abide by important democratic principles. [Interruption.]

Order.

The point is that Scottish Borders Council has started doing that work—[Interruption.]

Order.

Can I be clearer? I am using the present tense, because this is not about the future. That is the important message that we must send to people in the Borders, not that the Borders railway line is on a wish list or that it will not be built for a long time. The Scottish Executive is working on the project with the rail industry, Scottish Borders Council, Midlothian Council and Scottish Borders Enterprise. I am fully behind the enthusiasm that exists for the building of the railway line. We are working together, and it is a great pity that people talk down that fact. Rather, we must talk it up, while remaining realistic.

When?

I have answered the point about time—it is now, as the work is on-going. That is the message from the debate which must be taken to people in the Borders, and no one in the chamber has disagreed with that message.

It is good that there is unanimity on that point and that all members accept that there is a need for the economic investment in the Borders that the railway line will bring, which will enable people in the Borders to attract new investment. We are fully behind that opportunity, and I am happy to support the motion that was moved on behalf of the Rural Affairs Committee.

I call Alasdair Morgan to wind up for the Rural Affairs Committee.

When I was preparing for the debate last night, I found on my bookshelf a document—which I am not sure all members will have seen—entitled "The Reshaping of British Railways" and published in 1963 for the princely sum of £1/-/-. It is better known as the Beeching report. In 1963, when the railways were hugely uneconomic and we had a legacy of lines in the wrong place, some radical surgery to our rail network was needed. That was supposed to be balanced by growth elsewhere. Dr Beeching stated:

"The building of a Channel Tunnel will also have a favourable effect on the railways".

That was in 1963, so he had to wait a wee while for it. I hope that we do not have to wait quite as long for a Borders rail link.

In the end, the cuts went much too far. They went even further than Dr Beeching had proposed. Lines that were not on his list, such as the Perth-Edinburgh direct line and the Dunfermline-Stirling line, via Alloa, were closed. One of the last closures was the Borders line.

We are now in a very different era. Rail travel is booming and, if the 7.45 this morning from Edinburgh is anything to go by, we need a few extra trains. Former lines and former stations have been reopened. The Edinburgh-Bathgate line, which is such a success story, was originally such a basket case that it was closed even before Dr Beeching produced his report.

I now refer to the specifics of the Borders railway. The case for the northern section, wherever its terminus is, is very strong and similar to that for the Bathgate line, which was reopened some years ago. Alex Neil and others pointed out that it would benefit not only the Borders, but Edinburgh and the Lothians. We seek an early commitment to that line—not just to employing some consultants, but to employing some navvies, or their modern equivalent. In her closing speech, the minister said that work had started. We want a commitment that it will finish.

The southern section is said to be more problematic. It is dependent on timber traffic out of Kielder along the old Borders county line to Riccarton. We are told that there are problems with the currency—we know all about those from several other debates. There are problems with dumping of timber by the Baltic states. However, the trees will not stop growing. They reach maturity at a certain stage and they need to be felled and taken out. All of us who represent constituencies with a fair amount of afforestation hear constituents express concern about the total inadequacy of the current road network. We need rail to take the timber out of our major forests, not just in the south of Scotland but elsewhere.

The case for the central section, which would complete the through-route, is said to be even less strong. It is probably true to say that less freight and passenger traffic would be generated by the central Borders section than by the other sections. However, there is another argument for building it, to which Kenny MacAskill alluded. It concerns the strategic route from Scotland to England. We have two main passenger routes, on the east coast and the west coast, but already increased passenger traffic means that there is less capacity for freight on those routes. Virgin's proposals for tilting trains on the west coast and the proposals of whoever wins the new franchise for the east coast line—whether it be Great North Eastern Railway or Virgin—for faster passenger trains will reduce still further capacity for the slower freight trains. The Nith valley line, which is the only other option in the west, is already full to capacity, mostly with coal traffic.

If we are to fulfil our ambition of moving freight to rail, we will need another route to take that. We have only two choices—we can either build another high-speed passenger link, or we can build another line that is capable of taking some of the freight. A Borders link would be an obvious candidate for that. Railways are not built quickly—we have been told about the difficulty of getting planning permission and so on—so if we are to fill the gap for freight traffic, we need to make a start on it now.

I do not want to add to the minister's woes, but, like David Mundell, I want to indulge in a bit of me-tooism. There are 90 miles between Millerhill and Longtown. That compares very significantly with the 75 miles from Stranraer to Dumfries, all of which is in my constituency. The south-west of Scotland, which has a higher unemployment rate than the Borders, is just as railless.

In conclusion, whether the Borders rail link figures in the priorities not just of the Executive but of the strategic rail authority will be a crucial test of whether that authority is a cross-border body that works.