Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill: Preliminary Stage
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2459, in the name of Jackie Baillie, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill and that the bill should proceed as a private bill.
I will be pleased to move the motion in my name on behalf of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee. Last week, the Parliament agreed to proceed with the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill; now, in a situation slightly reminiscent of "Groundhog Day", we debate whether to proceed with the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill, a private bill that is promoted by the City of Edinburgh Council. The bill, I might add, has the unenviable record of having the highest number of objections that have been lodged against a private bill so far. The last time we looked, there were 206 objections.
With the bill, the promoter seeks to construct and operate a tramline, running in a loop from St Andrew Square, along Leith Walk to Leith, west to Granton, south to Haymarket and then back to St Andrew Square along Princes Street. From the start of the preliminary stage, we recognised the valuable contribution that objectors could make to our consideration and, as a result, we endeavoured to seek the views of objectors wherever possible. I put on record my and the committee's thanks to the objectors who provided written and oral evidence.
For the uninitiated, the private bill process can seem daunting and highly technical. Over the past few months, we have had to grapple with technical issues such as the role of prior approvals and the finer points of mode-choice modelling. I now know more about highway and public transport modelling than I would ever have thought would be possible or, indeed, desirable. That would not have been achievable without the support of the committee's advisers from Bond Pearce, Casella Stanger and Arup, who are all experts in their respective fields. They provided us with robust and independent analysis of the proposals that we were considering. I would also like to thank the promoter for its professional responses to the committee's requests for additional evidence, of which there were many. Finally, I thank the clerks to the committee and my fellow committee members for their hard work and diligence.
We began our consideration of the bill in June 2004 and completed our deliberations only on 17 February with the publication of our preliminary stage report. The committee had three key roles to play in the preliminary stage: to report on the bill's general principles; to report on whether the bill should proceed as a private bill; and to give preliminary consideration to all 206 objections. I will try to provide the Parliament with a whistle-stop tour of the committee's performance of those three key functions. I will stop at key junctions to provide further insight into the committee's recommendations, before arriving safely and—I hope—on time at the committee's main conclusion.
The committee gave preliminary consideration to 206 objections. In doing that, we had to decide whether the objector had demonstrated that it was clear that their interests would be adversely affected by the bill. Of the total number of objections, 203 passed that first hurdle and will be the subject of detailed scrutiny at the consideration stage, when we will consider issues such as the environmental impact of the tramline on the Roseburn corridor; suggested alternative routes, such as that which would allow trams to stop at the Western general hospital; and the particular sensitivity of a route that will run through a world heritage site.
The 100 objections to the whole of the bill raised a number of valid concerns about matters such as project cost, viability of bus services, traffic congestion and visual impact, as well as a number of broad European convention on human rights issues. Although we rejected those objections, we considered many of them at length during our scrutiny of the bill's general principles. Objectors were invited to give evidence directly to the committee. That was very valuable.
Following its examination of the evidence, the committee is satisfied that the promoter has demonstrated why a private bill is necessary. We are also content that the accompanying documents satisfy the technical criteria of standing orders and will allow for proper scrutiny of the bill at the consideration stage.
That said, there were two areas of concern that merit further comment. First, we continue to have concerns about the enforceability of the environmental statement and the draft design manual in the event that the bill is passed by the Parliament, so we have agreed to return to the issue at the consideration stage. Secondly, the promoter's approach to consultation was a matter of substantial concern to the committee. We received evidence from numerous objectors who felt that their opportunity to contribute to the debate in a meaningful way was limited because the promoter sought their views when it had already decided on the majority of the proposed route alignment. Although we acknowledge that the promoter employed many methods to engage with the public, we feel that the chance to get buy-in to the project from local communities has been missed. In short, for some people the process was more of an exercise in being given information than a consultation, which involves being listened to, with a view to changes being made.
That said, we recognise that standing orders do not provide guidance to potential private bill promoters on the spirit of the consultation in which they should engage. As that point has featured in previous private bill committee reports, we agreed to refer the matter to the Procedures Committee, to establish whether further guidance can be provided through changes to standing orders.
During our consideration of the bill's general principles, we were mindful of the National Audit Office's recent report, which was extremely helpful in providing an analysis of light rail projects in England and—more important—assessing whether they had delivered the benefits that had been predicted.
You have one minute to arrive on time.
From our consideration of all the evidence, on balance we agreed with the NAO that trams could provide a fast, frequent and reliable service—I am speeding up, Presiding Officer—and that they enjoy a better public image.
However, like the NAO report, trams do not operate on steam and we have less confidence in their ability to deliver a number of other significant benefits. We therefore examined the general principles of line 1 in the light of those areas of concern and focused on four key areas—economic development and regeneration, congestion, social policy and environmental issues—with which I know that my colleagues will deal further.
We continue to have reservations about the scale of the benefits that might result from the proposed project. Central to those reservations are our concerns about patronage—in essence, whether the trams will be used to the level that the promoter predicts and deliver the level of benefit that will make the project good value for money.
On the subject of money, I assure members that the committee will return to the financial case. At this stage, the financial information is as robust as could reasonably be expected, but more questions need to be answered before the committee will be content that it stacks up.
It is clear that there will be substantial work for the committee to do at consideration stage, when it will also take evidence from objectors on how the detail of the bill affects them. That said, we recommend that the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill proceed as a private bill and that the general principles be agreed to.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill and that the Bill should proceed as a Private Bill.
We are asked to debate the general principles of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill, which sets out the strategically important proposal to reintroduce trams to the streets of Edinburgh. The proposals in the bill parallel those of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill, which we agreed last week should proceed to the next stage.
Although we are asked to address only line 1, we cannot easily consider each line in isolation. The tramlines form part of a proposed tram network that is fundamental to tackling Edinburgh's transport problems and to sustaining and expanding growth and prosperity in the city and the wider area around it. The obvious relationship between lines 1 and 2 is highlighted by the common concerns that both the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee and the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee have identified, to which I will come shortly.
Last week, much was said about the burden that falls on the committee members, who are required to steer and report on these important private bills. I know that transport bills such as these contain major proposals and are often, by their nature, complex and time consuming. I want to express how grateful MSPs are to Jackie Baillie, as convener of the committee, Phil Gallie, Helen Eadie, Rob Gibson and Jamie Stone for their sterling endeavours on the bill thus far.
We have long understood that our cities are the key drivers of the Scottish economy, a factor that was highlighted most recently in the Executive's review, "Building Better Cities: Delivering Growth and Opportunities". One of the most pressing constraints on Edinburgh is traffic congestion and the lack of a high-quality transport system. Much of what I am saying has already been said in respect of line 2 and west Edinburgh, but it is equally relevant to north Edinburgh.
We are addressing the principles of the proposed tramline that will circle around Leith, St Andrew Square, Haymarket and Granton. During the past two weeks we have heard more about Edinburgh's plans for the waterfront redevelopment around Granton and Leith—the biggest regeneration programme since the development of the new town more than 200 years ago.
The challenge that we face is how to support and sustain the necessary infrastructure that the growth in Edinburgh's economic activity and population will require. In the case of tramline 1, we must factor in a good proportion of the predicted 43,000 additional new jobs and almost 70,000 new homes that are planned for Edinburgh by 2015.
Tramline 1 is a key factor in Edinburgh's waterfront master plan, but the benefits of the line are not all about new developments, new housing and new jobs. It is also important that tramline 1 create new opportunities for the established communities along the route, opening up access and creating new connections and better employment prospects. In some areas, those benefits are very much needed.
Better transport is vital to Edinburgh's continuing success. The proposed tram network will create a fast, reliable service that will help to transform the city's transport image. As Jackie Baillie said, much detailed work needs to be done before the tramline becomes a reality. However, I believe that we have got off to a strong start and that the case for the principle of the tramway is a positive one that is widely supported by local businesses, people and communities.
The Executive supports the Edinburgh tramline 1 project and the committee's recommendation that the general principles of the bill be agreed to. I am sure that MSPs across the chamber will support the bill at decision time.
I am the member of the committee who has been involved with the bill for the least amount of time. However, for my sins, I was on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, so I feel that railways and light railways are becoming part of my curriculum vitae.
From the point of view of the economic arguments and the congestion issues, it is interesting that, as Jackie Baillie said, the National Audit Office indicated that tram systems in England have contributed to economic development and regeneration, although it acknowledged that that contribution is difficult to quantify. Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian and the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, which represent the local business community, support the bill on economic grounds.
The waterfront development that will be served by the tram is acknowledged to be one of the largest urban renewal projects that has been undertaken in Scotland. SEEL felt that that development could accommodate some of the pressures of the expanding Edinburgh economy and the promoter considers that it could bring up to 17,000 jobs to the area. However, I hope that the part that the Forth Ports Authority is playing in the process will emerge in the later stages of the bill.
Objectors have questioned whether there would be any linkage between trams and future economic development, given that the tramline is circular and goes no more than 2 miles from the centre of Edinburgh. The committee is persuaded that, on balance, an economic benefit will arise from the project and that the project will be a positive factor in attracting economic development. However, the figures for working out the ways in which congestion will be reduced are far more complicated. The promoter predicts that severe congestion in Edinburgh will increase as car use increases by 50 per cent between 2011 and 2021. Trams will constrain that congestion to current levels by encouraging drivers to use the tram. The promoter acknowledges that tramline 1 is forecast to bring about a reduction in car and van trips of only 1.5 million by 2026—a mere 1 per cent reduction—but it argues that that reduction will result in a disproportionate improvement in travel conditions for the remaining cars, which will experience quicker trips. The promoter has calculated that that improvement contributes 50 per cent of the overall benefit of the tram proposal.
The committee acknowledges that the potential impact of the tram in limiting road congestion to current levels would represent a considerable success and that, therefore, there is a benefit in introducing the tram. However, the committee remains concerned that much of the benefit is based on a projected 50 per cent increase in car traffic between 2011 and 2021. Some 50 per cent of the benefits of tramline 1 are attributed to the trams constraining that car traffic to current levels. The committee has agreed to revisit that issue if the bill progresses to the consideration stage. I believe that it is incumbent on the Scottish Parliament to ensure that we have clear and unequivocal answers to the questions about the issue. That will enable us to be sure that the tramline 1 proposal will work for the north of Edinburgh.
If one thinks that trams can solve specific problems, the tramline 1 proposal is great. However, trams must be viewed as part of an integrated strategy. The consideration stage will tease out some of the issues in detail and I hope that we will have clear answers for the Parliament at the end of that period.
It is helpful that we can now discuss the merits of the tram proposals and other proposed public transport improvements in Edinburgh without making constant reference to the hugely contentious issue of congestion charges—or road tolls, as I prefer to call them. I will not pretend that I am anything other than delighted about the demise of the City of Edinburgh Council's plan for tolls, although frankly I would prefer the Parliament to repeal the legislation that authorises councils to introduce such tolls in case the Liberal Democrats happen to stumble on a particular scheme of which they approve. However, for the moment, we must look ahead to a toll-free Edinburgh.
One of the many council canards that were flown during the recent referendum campaign was the idea that those who oppose tolls have no alternative plan to improve public transport in Edinburgh. That was always a smokescreen. The council deliberately played down the substantial measures that have already been proposed to improve Edinburgh's public transport system and it did so as a ploy to encourage a yes vote. Proposals that are in place and in the pipeline were presented as a mere base investment, as if they were of no consequence at all, with the meaty stuff to follow only when we had all signed up to the tolls plan. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fortunately, the public saw through the strategy.
We have just heard from Rob Gibson that the impact on traffic levels of tramline 1 alone will be fairly minimal and that it will not do enough to reduce congestion and traffic growth in Edinburgh. Surely that goes against what the member has just argued.
It does not, because that supposition is highly debatable, as the evidence that has been presented demonstrates. Indeed, all the forecasts for the growth of traffic volumes are highly speculative. I do not accept them as fact and neither did the public, who saw through the council strategy and were simply not prepared to pay tolls today for projects that are way down the line. In effect, people said to the council, "Show us what you can do with the taxpayers' money that has already been pledged to you by the Scottish Executive." That is a sensible response.
Throughout the campaign, we and others who campaigned for a no vote made it clear that we support moves to improve public transport in Edinburgh. It is just that we do not think that such improvements should be conditional on, or linked to, the introduction of trams. Trams have a part to play in those improvements, and the two bills that are being considered by the Parliament will provide the legal framework for the construction and operation of a tram system in Edinburgh.
The final decision on the tramlines will be taken only when the full financial and economic case has been examined and appraised, not least by the Scottish Executive, which has made a funding commitment conditional on a robust business case being presented. There are serious financial questions that still need to be answered, such as whether the passenger numbers on the proposed routes stack up and whether revenues will match running costs. It is right that the taxpayer should finance a significant part of the capital investment, but it is definitely not right for there to be an annual revenue cost to the local council tax payer. It will not be possible to determine whether there will be such a cost until the business case has been fully devised and critically examined.
I make a plea for a measure of flexibility in the consideration of transport improvements in the city, which should not be only about trams. We might also care to consider the use of the funding allocation for more modest but perhaps more cost-effective projects, such as the south suburban railway, the cost of which is estimated at only £17 million to £18 million. With the right commitment, that railway could be up and running before the tramlines. In addition, it may be that only parts of the proposed tram routes make financial sense.
Although we can rightly approve the general principles of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill at stage 1 today, we must keep our options open and consider whether alternative measures might deliver more cost-effective and beneficial results than the totality of tramlines 1 and 2. With that, and with the plea that other options be given serious consideration by the City of Edinburgh Council and the Scottish Executive, I support the principles of the bill.
I was going to open by saying how constructive all the previous speeches had been, but Mr McLetchie has sorely tried that comment. If I had half an hour to spend, I would enjoy dissecting his speech.
Jackie Baillie commented on the approach and the procedures by which we have to abide. I do not think that any of us thinks that the current process is the best way in which to consider such proposals, but we are stuck with it. Having said that, I believe that the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee has done an outstanding job in addressing the detailed, complex and lengthy submissions that it received. In particular, I thank the committee for its efforts to engage with and listen to people who were unhappy or who wanted to object formally to the proposal in principle or in detail.
Everybody in the chamber accepts that Edinburgh has a major congestion problem and that we have real challenges in expanding our public transport networks. No easy solutions sit in anybody's bottom drawer. The proposals for tramlines 1 and 2 must be considered in the context of every other European city that has light rail, a suburban railway network or an underground system, which Edinburgh singularly lacks. I suspect that if one issue has been raised with every member who represents the Lothians in the past five years, it is our inability to transform Edinburgh's transport opportunities. Today, we have a chance to help to get part of that system right.
The consensus is that we need alternatives for people who travel into and out of the city in cars, but the choices must be of high quality. The distinctive feature of trams is their capacity to move many people efficiently and with few environmental problems of emissions or noise. Crucially, trams can contribute to modal shift, so they must be part of the system in Edinburgh.
The proposal must be part of wider public transport investment. Investment by Edinburgh, with the Executive, in rail and buses has generated big improvements in passenger use when high-quality services are put in place. I would not argue that constructing tramline 1 or 2 will be like waving a magic wand to tackle congestion or economic problems in Edinburgh, but the lines are part of a wider longer-term strategy and it is important that they are part of the mix. The proposed development for Granton and the waterfront is, in effect, a proposal for a new town in the north of the city. Without a light rapid transit system, the city will experience a huge economic downside.
I will focus on three key issues that the committee raised, on which we will need much more debate at the consideration stage. The integration of buses, cycling and concessionary fares needs to be addressed. I would like a guarantee on the design manual issue; Edinburgh is one of Europe's most high-quality and historic cities, so we must have a tram that is not only modern, but appropriate to Edinburgh's design quality. Route issues must also be considered in depth.
Matters that relate to the Roseburn corridor and the wildlife impact must be examined in depth. Access to the Western general hospital must also be considered. Neither matter has an easy solution, but I ask the committee to explore in depth those matters, on which I have received more letters than anything else that relates to the trams.
The practicalities must be examined in detail—that is what the consideration stage is for. We should proceed with the project to get things moving and the committee should consider all the issues in depth at the consideration stage. In detailed discussions, some objections will be negotiated away, but others will remain until the last day of consideration of the bill. Anything that the committee can do at the consideration stage to examine objections and see what can be taken on board will be welcome. A balancing act will need to be performed between financial resources and the routes but, on the basis of the preliminary stage report, I am confident that the committee will achieve that.
By considering the objections, I hope that we will develop a scheme with which people in Edinburgh will be happy. I am asking not for every citizen of the city to be happy, but for most of us to be happy.
I am not very happy. Please sum up.
In the business case, maximising the routes is important for the tram project's long-term financial viability. I hope that members will support the motion and allow the detail to be examined at the consideration stage.
The Executive has confirmed that it will fund lines 1 and 2 to the tune of £375 million and has made it clear that the promoter will need to find any additional funding. The committee heard objections about a possible funding shortfall because of artificially high projected patronage levels and the low level of optimism bias that the promoter set. My committee colleagues are also concerned about a potential shortfall, so we have asked the promoter for a list of sources from which it expects to accrue additional funds should they be needed.
The committee is content that the financial information that the promoter has made available is as robust as can reasonably be expected at this stage of the process, as Jackie Baillie said. We have had advice from Arup and we have also asked Transport Initiatives Edinburgh to provide us with regular updates as costs evolve, especially given the result of the congestion charging vote.
On the environmental and pollution front, we looked long and hard at the environmental effects of the tram scheme. There will be several environmental benefits, which I will outline. It is clear to us that trams produce virtually zero pollution, although the committee acknowledges that they will use fossil-fuel energy, which means that there can be pollution where the energy is generated. It is worth remembering that a tram can carry double the number of people that a bus can. Trams should also help to limit congestion and thereby constrain the pollution levels that arise. Finally, by operating on busy corridors, and with regeneration and redevelopment areas such as Granton on the route, pressure on the green belt could be reduced because of the ability to accommodate more people in the city.
That said, the committee acknowledged the NAO report, which said that existing schemes have had only limited success in achieving improvements in pollution levels, because there has been only a partial reduction in congestion. The committee also remains to be convinced about the levels of patronage that the promoter says tramline 1 will achieve. We will definitely return to that issue at the consideration stage.
Objectors to the bill informed us of concerns about the visual impact of the tram infrastructure on the streetscape of Edinburgh, which is, we concede, mostly a world heritage site. We acknowledge the promoter's acceptance of the need to minimise the visual impact of the infrastructure and note that TIE has created the draft tram urban design manual, which it aims to follow. We recognise that the manual has no formal status, so we remain cautious about it. We have asked the promoter and Historic Scotland to liaise closely on the visual impact of the scheme, given its importance to Edinburgh and Scotland and all over the world.
I know that the subject of wildlife is close to Margaret Smith's heart. There are several concerns about the impact of the tram on wildlife, particularly along the Roseburn corridor and the Firth of Forth. Individual concerns will be picked up by the committee during the next stage of the process and will be examined closely. We have also asked the promoter to liaise closely with Scottish Natural Heritage to address those concerns.
I endorse Jackie Baillie's remarks and pay tribute to the committee clerks who have worked very hard. The process has been interesting as far as it has gone. Much work remains to be done. I welcome Jackie Baillie's endorsement of the motion and I thank George Lyon for his kindness in putting me on the committee.
As Jackie Baillie has said today, we are talking about the principles of the scheme, not the details of the proposal. I take this opportunity to reiterate my support and that of my party for new tramlines for Edinburgh. I also emphasise to the Minister for Transport the need for funding for those sections of the network that are not funded, such as tramline 3, especially after the congestion charging vote. It is vital that we end up with an integrated system of public transport. The two tramlines cannot stand alone; they need to be integrated into a wider tram system and into what is and will remain the predominant mode of public transport in Edinburgh, the bus. We need an integrated system with the through-ticketing that other members have mentioned.
I reiterate a point that I have made and on which Sarah Boyack touched. Better public transport will not be enough to deal with the ever-increasing traffic growth in Edinburgh. We need a system of traffic restraint. I am disappointed by the failure of the congestion charging proposal, but it does not take away the need for traffic restraint to go alongside better public transport to deal with Edinburgh's transport problems.
Does the member agree that taking the public with us in future, not least in relation to this bill, will be crucial, as the decision made last week indicates?
I agree strongly with that point. We must also bear in mind the fact that many people felt that the consultation on tramline 1 that TIE initiated was inadequate, as Jackie Baillie said. She was right to say that consultation must be not simply information sharing but an open process in which it is possible for decisions to be changed. That is how to make the public feel involved and take on board the project's proposals.
Nicol Stephen talked about the need for the tram to serve local communities. Given the concern about the predicted levels of patronage, which committee members have raised, it seems odd that the scheme will not initially serve some of north Edinburgh's most deprived communities, such as Pilton and Muirhouse, which are just to the west of the proposed tramline. As people in those areas use public transport the most, arguably they would benefit the most from the scheme.
I share the concerns that have been expressed about the proposed tramline's failure to serve adequately the Western general hospital and other locations on Crewe Road South, such as the police headquarters at Fettes. I look to the committee to investigate thoroughly the suggested route.
As a user of the Roseburn corridor, I know how narrow that route is and the value of that amenity to walkers and cyclists and for wildlife. I urge the committee to look into whether the Roseburn corridor is an appropriate route for a tramline. The tram will need to serve the whole of north Edinburgh, including communities beyond the beacon developments at Granton and at the waterfront. I hope that the committee will investigate thoroughly the issues surrounding the proposed route and the predicted levels of patronage.
After the National Audit Office report, we need to ensure that we get a tramline that meets people's needs and achieves the benefits that a tramline could bring to the people of north Edinburgh.
Like many members, I am sorry that we do not have more time in which to debate the bill, if only because I would like to give Sarah Boyack the half-hour that she wanted to dissect David McLetchie. However, I welcome the opportunity to put on record my support for tramline 1.
I echo Jackie Baillie's comments about the lack of enforceability of the design manual and about the inadequacies of TIE's consultation with my constituents. Along with others, my constituents have expressed concern about the patronage figures, which I still think are quite high despite all the explanations that I have been given time and again by TIE modellers.
I am grateful for all the hard work that has been put in by committee members, especially Jackie Baillie, who has always been ready to listen to my constituents' concerns about the substance and the process. I also thank members of the public, including many of my constituents from Groathill and Craigleith, who have given evidence to the committee. That is an onerous task for ordinary members of the public, who do not have access to the professional resources that are available to the bill's promoter. Many questions have gone unanswered, so people will look to the committee to get the answers that they have been unable to obtain.
I welcome tramline 1 and, indeed, tramline 2. For Edinburgh's economy, which is performing well, and for the quality of life of the city's growing population, it is essential that we have a world-class integrated public transport system that delivers the transport choices that our citizens are looking for. That is one message that has come through from the congestion charging debate. The tramlines and, I hope, the south suburban line will play an important part in encouraging a modal shift away from cars.
I welcome certain aspects of the proposed tram route. The stop that will serve the new waterfront development presents the city with a fabulous opportunity to regenerate that area and to put public transport options in place first, for a change. However, I am seriously opposed to other aspects of the proposed route. A crucial issue is the concerns that Jamie Stone and Mark Ballard highlighted about the impact of the tramline on the Roseburn wildlife corridor. That issue is linked to the most contentious and worrying aspect of the tramline for me and my constituents, which is the fact that it will not serve the Western general hospital. If the route was changed to provide a stop in the hospital grounds, that would divert the route away from the wildlife corridor.
The National Audit Office report highlights the fact that patronage levels are a key determinant of success. I know that there is a balance to be struck, in that extra time might be required to take the tram into the hospital rather than have it stopping two streets behind the hospital, at a back entrance that is not intended for safe patient access. However, for patronage, revenue and health and safety, it makes sense for the tram stop to be in the hospital grounds. If it is delivered in the wrong place but close enough to lead to a potential reduction in local bus services, it will have a negative impact instead of a positive impact on patient care and transport.
Re-routing the tram via the Western general will take it past Crewe Toll, businesses such as BAE Systems, the housing that replaces Telford College, the Western general, Lothian and Borders police headquarters at Fettes, Fettes College, Broughton High School, Flora Stevenson's Primary School and—I hope—residual health care facilities, including a day hospital, on the Royal Victoria hospital site. Alternatively, we could stick with the existing route and take it down a wildlife corridor. Is it me or, if the issue is all about patronage, has the wrong route been picked? TIE considered the option late in the day, but there was not enough detail, so I urge committee members to consider it.
Private bill procedures are not perfect, but there is the power to consider alternative routes and we must get things right. A lot of public money is involved, which I support. There will be an impact, but the line will have a crucial part to play in public transport provision in Edinburgh and throughout the region, so we must get the route right.
That strong concern should be noted, but I support the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill and committee members' efforts to date.
I joined the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee quite late to replace my colleague Sylvia Jackson. The committee's work was well under way and I had missed a significant amount of work and visits to see new tram systems in situ.
Jackie Baillie's comments about knowing more now than she ever thought necessary or desirable chime with what I thought when I saw two committee clerks heavily laden with files and books—I sank back in my chair, unsure about what to think or expect.
I echo the convener's thanks to everybody who is helping to progress this important bill. Their expertise and professionalism is much valued by the promoter and members of the public, who impressed us all in presenting their evidence.
The learning curve has been steep. The committee has heard evidence from North Edinburgh Area Renewal, which heads up the social inclusion partnership. It supports the bill and thinks that the line will provide better connectivity between areas of social deprivation in north Edinburgh, such as Pilton—which has been mentioned—Muirhouse and Granton, and the city centre and new waterfront developments. Better connectivity should help to create new employment opportunities for deprived groups, including the unemployed and people on low incomes. Such opportunities will be further enhanced by direct links to tramline 2 to the west of Edinburgh.
Concerns have been expressed about the need to ensure that tram fares are comparable to bus fares and to extend the concessionary fares scheme to trams. Extending that scheme is a matter for the Executive and the City of Edinburgh Council, but the committee strongly expects that the same level of concessionary fares for trams will be delivered. Of course, that expectation creates financial implications for the Scottish Executive and the Parliament.
Objectors raised issues with us to do with the lines of the routes and whether social inclusion benefits could be enhanced by changes to them. In particular, members—including Sarah Boyack and Margaret Smith—have mentioned the Western general hospital and the Roseburn corridor. When we visited those sites, we understood exactly the message that was given to us. The committee must consider that matter at the bill's next stage, and I know that it is concerned that the bill's promoter should address such issues at that stage.
The committee was pleased to learn about the efforts that are being made in Edinburgh to have an integrated transport system, which include the creation of Transport Initiatives Edinburgh to bring together bus and tram operators. From the evidence that the committee has received, it believes that a competitive response from private bus operators is unlikely.
Of course, integration is not only about physical infrastructure; it involves having in place a fare structure and a ticketing system that allow passengers to transfer between modes of transport. Such integration would encourage increased patronage.
The committee believes that park-and-ride facilities are necessary to help to increase patronage and to encourage people out of their cars. That such facilities are also crucial to integration came out strongly in the evidence. However, the committee is aware of the limitations in that regard, given the city-centre nature of the loop. We expect the promoter fully to integrate line 1 with such schemes at appropriate entry points to the city.
I look forward to the next stage of the bill.
I call David McLetchie, who has four minutes.
You have already had some good stuff from me. Have you not had enough?
Well, if you do not wish to speak, that is a matter for you, but I certainly—
But I have spoken.
Yes, and I am calling you again in the winding-up speeches. You have four minutes, but you can negate that, if you wish.
I think that Mr Gallie is meant to be winding up, not me.
Your name is down here as well, Mr McLetchie.
I beg your pardon. I think that I have already contributed substantially to the debate.
I think that that might be the case.
Many of the speeches have made a great contribution to the debate and I fully echo the comments that Sarah Boyack and Margaret Smith made.
The difficulty is that, at this juncture, we are debating principles, not practicalities, and it is the practicalities that are causing significant concern. First of all, I repeat the comment that I made in the previous debate, which is that the method of dealing with these issues has to change. In saying that, I am not criticising anyone in the chamber; after all, every party has signed up to changing these matters. However, change they must.
Margaret Smith remarked on the route, and we should take cognisance of the fact that there has been much opposition to it, as Jackie Baillie pointed out. The people in question believe that their quality of life will be greatly affected and that there will be much disruption to their homes and adjacent areas. Their views must be considered appropriately at the next stage.
The difficulty is that the concept of trams raises two issues, the first of which involves nostalgia. Almost everyone who resides in Edinburgh has either travelled on a tram in the past or heard from fathers, mothers, grandfathers or grandmothers about the benefits of a tram system. Secondly, people who have visited modern European cities acknowledge the benefits of such systems there. If we look back at the past and look forward to where we want to take the city, it is clear that trams have been and are important. They have delivered for our city in the past and now deliver for other cities. The problem is that the devil is in the detail.
My main question is whether this is the right time for trams and whether the money that is available could be used to meet other priorities, if that is what is ultimately decided. In the previous debate, the minister had a spat with my colleagues Mr Ewing and Mr Crawford over regional transport partnerships, and we have clearly set out why such partnerships should be empowered with proper resources.
However, even the Executive's preferred method meets the difficulty that we raised in the earlier debate. We still need to address the question of who should make the decision. For example, even if we decide to build line 2 now and the various problems are resolved at the next stage, a regional transport partnership might decide that the line is not a key priority. In that event, will the money for the tramline be made available to meet the RTP's own key priorities?
Everyone in Edinburgh accepts that trams would be a good thing; however, are they the best thing at this point in time? As I said in the previous debate, people might think it more appropriate to fill in all the potholes; ensure that the infrastructure is maintained; and expand the bus network and improve bus services. As Mark Ballard pointed out, buses are and will remain the principal method of public transport in the city and we should take the opportunity if not to expand the Waverley link in full then certainly to take that service out to Gorebridge.
If, as the minister accepts, we live in a world of finite resources, we should allow the proposed regional transport partnership to decide the city's key priorities. If it decides that other priorities are higher than the construction of tramline 2, will it have the money to spend on them? For example, many people in the city believe that it makes more sense to construct tramline 3 than to construct tramline 2. Will they have the opportunity to spend the money on tramline 3 instead? Surely we should be able to decide on the vision that we want to achieve, the structures with which to achieve it and the strategy with which to implement it. That means creating regional transport partnerships with power, delivering the strategy for what we want to do and allowing those who are empowered to make the decisions to decide where they should spend the money.
With that caveat, we support the principle of trams. As I said, the devil will be in the detail.
Margaret Smith and Sarah Boyack made some important points in their comments, which I am sure will be considered seriously at consideration stage. It is right for members to be concerned that the scheme will be delivered in the right way, on time and on budget and about the financial viability and patronage. Those are fundamental issues for the Edinburgh tram network as a whole.
As we have heard, other concerns focus on the impact of the tramway on the environment and on the historical and natural heritage of Edinburgh's city centre and on the steps that must be taken to meet the reasonable objections that have been made. Much progress has been achieved on those issues, thanks to the work of the committee. As I have made clear, the Executive can agree further major expenditure for the development of the project only if the promoter is able to clear up those issues for the final business case.
That said, I believe that the principles of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill will be unanimously supported by the Parliament this evening.
Will the minister accept an intervention?
I was about to stop, but perhaps there is time for one intervention.
Will the minister perhaps indicate whether the robust business case that the Executive will be considering in the context of assessing the final allocation of funding for the tram project will be based on the tram operating on a revenue basis without further public subsidy?
The subsidy is a separate issue for TIE, the promoter, to look at. When we consider the business case, we will consider all the issues in the round, but our responsibility will be for the capital element.
Will the minister accept a further intervention?
I am sorry, but we are running short of time.
I am sure that the bill will be unanimously supported by the Parliament. Most important of all, it will be strongly supported by local businesses, local communities and by the people of Edinburgh.
It is my lot to wind up on behalf of the committee. I start by thanking Jackie Baillie not only for the way in which she has convened the committee but for her comments at the beginning of this debate, when she outlined the limitations that the committee was faced with in addressing the bill. We were confined to looking at the tramline 1 circuit only. Nicol Stephen referred to the fact that perhaps we should not look at the lines in isolation. That is right, and the minister has the luxury of making such a statement. However, that was not a luxury that was conferred on the committee when we were considering the bill. I would like members to keep that in mind throughout my closing speech.
I would like to pick up on points made by Kenny MacAskill and David McLetchie about the routes and about alternative routes. I remind members that the notes attached to the committee's report contain some suggestion by the promoter that it may well, at some stage, like an extension to tramline 2. If that were to happen, it would open up questions that also affect tramline 1.
I commend Margaret Smith for her comments on circular routing. The committee was aware of the situation, particularly with respect to Roseburn, and we were certainly made well aware of it by her constituents, who presented their case most capably. If that loop were indeed to be seen as all important, perhaps one of the issues that the committee should consider when we move on—presuming that the Parliament agrees that the bill should proceed—is the detailed provision of that routing. I had every sympathy, as I am sure all committee members had, with the comments that were made about the Western general. That seems to have been a gross omission in the original thinking on the route.
Sarah Boyack referred to the impact that the tram would have on the image of a city such as Edinburgh. I think that there is some foundation to that, particularly given what we saw during our visit to Nottingham. The Nottingham service offered a good, attractive service that gave added appeal to the city itself. However, we must bear it in mind that the National Audit Office report demonstrated that all was not glossy or quite as it would seem with the provision of tramlines. There are inherent difficulties, which have been experienced in other schemes. If the bill goes forward, I would like to think that those matters will be addressed not only by the committee but by the promoter.
I say a word of thanks to the promoter for the way in which its representatives provided information to us—sometimes at the drop of a hat under intense questioning.
I go back to Margaret Smith's comments and congratulate even more those objectors who probably started with very little legal expertise and knowledge of the issues behind them but who presented their cases tremendously. The committee will have an onerous task in taking the bill forward and in assessing the 203 objections that were referred to by Jackie Bird—[Laughter.] I mean Jackie Baillie—I recognise that Jackie Bird is the red-headed one.
I will pick up on a couple of the comments made by my colleagues Rob Gibson and Jamie Stone. Rob Gibson referred to congestion. I believe that the basis for some of the arguments that the promoter advanced on congestion was less than accurate. Some of the assumptions that were made were far from accurate and we will have to consider those issues in the future. Some of the claims that were made by the promoter were, to my mind, exaggerated, such as those on the environment. Without a doubt, air pollution in the city of Edinburgh will be reduced as a consequence of the introduction of trams, as there will be a reduction in the number of buses in particular. However, I cannot see—and a number of committee members agree with me—that with this particular circular route there will be a similar reduction in the number of cars. That argument will advance in the future. On the environmental issues, Jamie Stone said that the problem will be transferred from the city to external areas where the energy will be generated using fossil fuels.
There is much to be expanded on in the financial case; the economic benefits and the patronage figures that have been referred to by a number of members certainly merit further consideration.
Mark Ballard referred to consideration of wider aspects. When he did so, I think that he referred in particular to what he considers to be problems along the Roseburn corridor. We all have concerns about the wildlife issues and about the use made of that corridor in recent years by citizens of Edinburgh. I feel that I can give an assurance, on behalf of the committee, that we will consider those matters in greater detail if Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill today.
In my final comments I refer again to Jackie Baillie's words. Overall, the committee's conclusion was that the promoter had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the benefits claimed are attainable. We therefore recommend that the Parliament should agree to the general principles of the bill and that the bill should proceed as a private bill.