Laurencekirk Railway Station
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-600, in the name of Mike Rumbles, on Laurencekirk railway station. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the recent announcement made by Aberdeenshire Council and Scotrail on the possibility of reopening Laurencekirk Station; recognises the support in Laurencekirk and the north east as a whole for the station's reopening; notes the Scottish Executive's commitment to encouraging the increased use of rail transport as an alternative to the car, and encourages Aberdeenshire Council, Scotrail and the Scottish Executive to continue to make progress towards the station's reopening.
First, I will say how pleased I am that more than 20 colleagues from all six recognised political parties in Parliament have signalled their support for the reopening of Laurencekirk station by signing my motion. I know that widespread all-party support is important on issues such as this, and I know that it is much appreciated by the people of Laurencekirk.
The campaign to reopen Laurencekirk station has a long history. I am especially pleased, as the constituency MSP for the area, to be highlighting the development of the campaign to the Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen. I do not need to remind the minister of the case for reopening the station—he will recall a campaign on the matter back in 1991, in which he was at the forefront. As the member of Parliament for Kincardine and Deeside, the minister may have been convinced of the need to reopen the station back then. Indeed, the campaign since has gone from strength to strength, and as Laurencekirk itself has grown in size, so too has the case for reopening the station.
I got involved in calling for the reopening of the station five years ago, back in 1998, when I was first adopted as the prospective candidate for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine in the first elections to the Scottish Parliament. At this point I must draw members' attention to local people such as Norman Banski, who has been involved for many more years than I have. Indeed, Norman Banski came to Edinburgh just a few weeks ago to speak to a petition on the issue in Parliament, which was well received. I was there, as was David Davidson, who is a regional list member for North East Scotland, to support the petition.
The case that is presented to Parliament for reopening the station is strong. Earlier this year, ScotRail sponsored a study by Scott Wilson Ltd, which developed the previous demand estimation work into a Scottish transport appraisal guidance level 1 cost-benefit assessment for reopening the station. That assessment has been submitted to the Executive and considered by Aberdeenshire Council.
Before any funding bid for the project can be made to the Executive, it is necessary to undertake a more detailed assessment of the costs and other implications of the project, and to produce a STAG level 2 assessment. I am delighted to say that, as a result of a meeting on 27 November, Aberdeenshire Council has allocated the bulk of the funding that is necessary to proceed with the work. There is no doubt in my mind that Aberdeenshire Council, the Scottish Executive and ScotRail are all making positive noises. The project fits neatly into the Scottish Executive's policy of getting cars off our roads and getting people to use public transport, it fits into the Scottish Executive's policy of helping to end social exclusion, and it fits into the Scottish Executive's rural development policy.
I will say a little more about helping to end social exclusion. Last Saturday, I was in Laurencekirk and I was given a copy of the video "Friday Night, we're goin' nowhere", which was directed and produced by the youth of Laurencekirk. Its aim is to improve facilities in Laurencekirk and to raise the profile of young people in the area. If members watch the video—I can lend it to them—they will see the old railway station and hear the comments of the youth of Laurencekirk on what reopening the station could do to help them. Sue Briggs, the local community development officer, says on the video that the number 1 clear priority for everyone in Laurencekirk is better transport links. Reopening the station is at the top of the list: it would bring not only economic benefits to the area, although many such benefits would accrue, but social benefits. If members have any doubts about that, they should just watch the video.
I welcome the opportunity that the debate presents to keep the reopening of Laurencekirk station to the fore. I know that when the STAG 2 work is completed and Aberdeenshire Council makes its application to the Executive—as I hope it will—the minister will give the application a fair hearing. That is all that we ask for.
Iain Gabriel, who is Aberdeenshire Council's director of transportation, has said:
"The Scottish Executive has made it clear to us that they will consider a proposal for Laurencekirk Station and, as for any transport project, an agreed robust business case in line with the STAG appraisal criteria will be required before they can make any decision on funding."
That is exactly as it should be. I am confident that a robust business case exists to meet the expectations of this rapidly developing and expanding area of the Mearns. I know too that the need and demand to use the station are terrific, not only for business and commuting, but to meet that rural community's social needs, as I said.
I am proud that we in Scotland are considering expanding our rail network, building new railways, opening new stations—did not the First Minister do just that earlier this week?—and regenerating our communities. I am also proud that after many years of campaigning, we seem to be nearer to the end than we are to the beginning. Laurencekirk and the people of the Mearns have the prospect of good news in 2004.
I am delighted to be here with Mike Rumbles tonight to support the movement towards reopening Laurencekirk station; that campaign has lasted a long time. As Mike Rumbles said, Norman Banski's name appeared on a petition that I had the privilege of presenting to the former Public Petitions Committee convener—it was the third petition on the subject.
Apart from supporting the campaign—as I think everybody in the north-east does—I played a little part in it by holding a public meeting in the Dickson Hall in Laurencekirk, at which the number of people present might have broken fire regulations. That evening, the plea from the community was for all local politicians—MSPs and councillors—to work together for the common good. That plea must have been heeded, because the Executive and committees of Parliament have paid attention to the subject.
Plans, of which I have copies, have existed for a long time. I have seen the video that Mike Rumbles mentioned—I received a copy of it at my surgery a week before he received his copy—and it is excellent. Perhaps Mike Rumbles and I could start a lending library, as we now have two copies.
In general, the pleas from all communities in rural areas are for access to public services, to recreation and to work and for public transport access to visit people in hospitals, because not everybody has a car. Young people, many elderly people and many people who are not well-off—Parliament does not always appreciate the extent of poverty and deprivation in rural Scotland—do not have cars.
It is only right to recognise that reopening the station has been a burning ambition for a hard core of people in the village for a long time. The north-east is not well served by railway networks—people who do not live in one of three or four large towns do not have trains. Peterhead and Banff no longer have trains, either. We have the opportunity to tack Laurencekirk station on to the bottom of the crossrail project for Aberdeen, which will provide many more train stops throughout the city and will allow people to go to education establishments, for example. Indeed, people will have a chance not just to go to Aberdeen but to go south to Dundee, Montrose and Arbroath. Many business people have said that they would use the service.
After the meeting at which I launched the petition in the name of Norman Banski, I received signatures from people who lived 20 miles away who would use the station. The evidence shows that the station could serve an area with a population of 40,000, which should guarantee support for the project that Mike Rumbles has already described.
As the video that Mike Rumbles mentioned shows, young people have been most vociferous about the lack of public transport. After all, the A90 lies adjacent to Laurencekirk and I have been very disappointed by the Executive's response to improving safety on that road and its dangerous junctions. Opening the station would take many vehicles off that road, which has seen far too many accidents. Although the southbound journey is not quite so bad, the road all the way up to Aberdeen is becoming a bottleneck, but allowing trains to stop in Laurencekirk would provide safe and reliable all-weather transport and would help to alleviate that problem.
The station is there; it simply needs to be renovated. Furthermore, the points and signals are in place. Indeed, probably most of us who have travelled up and down the line have stopped alongside the platform in Laurencekirk station because of some delay or other. Commercial businesses use the railway sidings for goods. We have an ideal chance to build on what already exists. The only fly in the ointment is that if the council does not retain the old mart site for car-parking facilities, a recycling plant might be built on it.
As I said to the minister in a debate last year, we have a car park—now we want a station to go with it.
I congratulate Mike Rumbles on securing a debate on an issue that is relevant not only to his constituency but to the North East Scotland region that David Davidson and I represent.
The station closed in 1967, but I hope that we can get it reopened by 2007. After all, the campaign to do that has been going on for nearly 30 years. I acknowledge colleagues' comments that we should pay tribute to the small group of people who have pursued the matter. I, too, know Norman Banski—we all seem to be discussing a mutual friend this evening—but many other people have been involved down the years. To some extent, the members in the chamber are Johnnys-come-lately to the campaign.
I know that the minister, who was formerly MP for the area, will be familiar with the Laurencekirk station issue, although I take it that it played no part in his departure from his seat. Perhaps that is why Mike Rumbles was so keen to secure the debate and to get the matter to the top of all of our agendas.
The issue has been raised time and again in the four and a half years of Parliament's existence. Looking back at some parliamentary questions on the matter, I found that one of the first was lodged by my former SNP colleague Irene McGugan in October 1999. It is now December 2003, and we are discussing the same issue. Thankfully, things seem to have moved forward quite a bit and I hope that the matter will soon reach a positive conclusion.
In May 2000, local authorities expressed concern at Railtrack's suggestion on cutting journey times between Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, which would have meant fewer stops between those stations. I hope that the debate has now moved on. In any case, Railtrack itself is no longer with us.
That said, we still face a general capacity issue in north-east Scotland: only one single line runs through Aberdeen and there are only seven stations in the area. In fact, only 12 per cent of the population in the whole area live within 1 km of a station. I hope that opening Laurencekirk and other stations in the area will address that problem.
Moreover, a study that was carried out in 2001 calculated that opening the station would generate 25,000 journeys to and from the town. As Mike Rumbles and others have pointed out, those 25,000 journeys currently take place on local roads. Given that the Executive and Parliament are committed to sustainability and sustainable transport, shifting 25,000 trips off the roads on to local trains would do a great deal to help the environment and the local economy in Laurencekirk and the Mearns.
At a council meeting in November, we heard that it would cost £3 million to open Laurencekirk station. That is not a huge amount of money, so I hope that the minister will look kindly upon that plea. A positive case was presented on transportation, economic and environmental grounds. The local council is addressing some more issues to progress the situation further.
I have two final comments to make, the first of which relates to freight. If Laurencekirk station reopens, we should consider opportunities for getting more freight on to rail in the area. Throughout Europe, the amount of freight that goes by rail has declined. We want to buck that trend in Scotland by getting more freight traffic on to rail and off the roads.
Secondly, we need to ensure that trains will stop at Laurencekirk. It is all very well talking about having a station at Laurencekirk, but we will need to try to get some trains to stop there, because there ain't any point in having a station if trains do not stop at it; I hope that the minister will address that in his summing up. As members know, there are on-going issues to do with getting more local routes up and running in the Aberdeen area and between Dundee and Aberdeen. We want a station at Laurencekirk, but we also want trains to stop there and we want them to do that at appropriate times, when people want to use them. That will give them the incentive to get off the roads and on to the train. I invite the minister to address that issue.
I welcome the debate. My remarks will be brief, as I have already spoken today and will be speaking again tomorrow; I am sure that members would not want to have too much of a good thing.
I congratulate Mike Rumbles on securing the debate and I endorse fully his motion on reopening the station at Laurencekirk, which was closed in 1967. The motion is right to mention support for the measure; that support exists not only in Laurencekirk, but in the rest of the north-east. I am aware that the proposal is the culmination of on-going discussions between Aberdeenshire Council, the rail industry, the local community, local Labour Party members and, of course, Mike Rumbles.
I welcome the assessments that are taking place and the fact that the Executive and ScotRail are providing investment to assess the costs and benefits of reopening the station. I believe that ScotRail has already carried out a study, which has estimated the costs of a basic two-platform station with a footbridge, passenger shelters and up to 20 parking spaces. That study has apparently already indicated that there is a positive business case for the project on the ground that there will be transportation, economic and environmental benefits. Therefore, I am sure that we can be confident that any new studies would find that a station at Laurencekirk would improve public transport accessibility in the area, as well as support the wider economy.
The argument for improvements in transport infrastructure has been well made throughout the north-east. The western peripheral route was argued for successfully and the Executive is supporting the feasibility study for the Aberdeen crossrail project, the case for which I hope will be made successfully. That would open up more possibilities for a reopened station at Laurencekirk which, as members have mentioned, could be linked to the new crossrail service.
I have heard the minister say that it is sometimes hard to make a best-value case for new rail routes and services, but I hope that the Laurencekirk proposal meets that case. It would fit in well with the Executive's stated aim of extending rail services and would improve access to transport in rural areas. I hope that the Executive will look favourably on the proposal. I reiterate my support for Mike Rumbles's motion.
I join other speakers in welcoming the news that Aberdeenshire Council and ScotRail are investigating the reopening of Laurencekirk station. The degree of support from the people of Laurencekirk is particularly pleasing, not only because such initiatives are dependent on local support, but because it sends the right message to the Executive to encourage the continuing demand for the reopening of other stations.
I have been asked to mention the possibility of the reopening of the station at Altens industrial estate, which would encourage many more people to take the train to work. That is just one of the many stations that need to be reopened if we are to encourage a large enough number of people out of their cars and to give those without cars more choice in how they travel.
If the Executive is really committed to encouraging increased use of rail transport as a realistic alternative to the car, the cost of rail travel has to be renegotiated. How can there be a serious commitment to rail transport when rail fares are set to rise by at least four times the rate of inflation on a service that can be described only as adequate—that is, if one is lucky enough to get a seat on a train out of Edinburgh? How many people are prepared to pay Virgin Cross Country's new rate of £523 for a first-class open return ticket from Penzance to Aberdeen? Not many, especially when the heavily subsidised, heavily polluting airlines offer ridiculously cheap flights. Critics of the rail ticket rises have accused the rail industry of trying to ease congestion on the railways by pricing customers off the trains. What business survives by deterring its customers? That is beyond belief.
There is no real commitment to rail travel—not yet, anyway—and there is no point putting the blame on Westminster and the Strategic Rail Authority, because the Scottish Executive has not shown much commitment, either. In the period from 1999 to 2003, the Executive committed £1 billion to new pollution-producing, traffic-generating trunk road building, with just £235 million going to the now-defunct public transport fund over the same period, and very little of that going on railways. In fact, the only railway opening delivered in the Executive's first term was the 0.9 mile Edinburgh crossrail service. With less than one mile of new services serving new locations opened in four years, the Scottish Executive's aspirations for reopening about 60 miles of railways would take 240 years at the current rate of progress.
The Scottish Executive has pledged in the partnership agreement that spending on transport will reach £1 billion per year, of which 70 per cent will be targeted on public transport. Below that high-level commitment are targets to deliver rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, to reopen the Airdrie to Bathgate railway, to reopen the Kincardine-Alloa-Stirling rail link, to construct the Larkhall to Milngavie line, to redevelop Waverley station, to support construction of the Borders rail line and to continue to support feasibility studies into the Glasgow crossrail project, other public transport initiatives in Glasgow and the Aberdeen crossrail link. All that is in addition to £500 million for the M74 extension and £120 million for the Aberdeen western peripheral route. I must be having one of those senior moments, because I cannot see the figures adding up.
Reopening small stations is going to take some radical rethinking for the rail companies. There will be a degree of conflict between the need to provide local services and the desire of the national rail companies to provide faster services to cut travel times on longer journeys. That issue was raised in The Press and Journal just the other week by Great North Eastern Railway. It is an important issue because one of the big selling points of rail travel is the fact that trains can deliver passengers right into cities. Faster rail travel will have an important impact when compared with overall journey times for air travel.
There is a subtle difference between what Shiona Baird is talking about and the matter that we are debating this evening. We would not expect the GNER intercity service to stop at a station such as Laurencekirk, but ScotRail, which holds the current franchise, has already indicated that it could stop trains there once an hour.
I was going to come on to that. That is one of the issues that we need to look at, because that is where the need for smaller commuter trains will come in. Local services will encourage people out of their cars, but we need imaginative solutions to arrive at that situation. Other countries have done it, but we seem to be struggling. There are many issues that need to be resolved, and quickly, if we are to have any impact on slowing down climate change.
I know that I have been a bit negative, but we welcome any positive steps that encourage greater use of the railways, and we would support real action that results in fast-tracking the reopening of stations such as Laurencekirk. We give no premature pat on the back to the Scottish Executive. A pat on the back will be justified only when we have a network of efficient, punctual, affordable trains that truly serve the needs of the people of Scotland, including the people of Laurencekirk.
Before I call the next speaker, I ought to say that I have been a bit lenient, as Shiona Baird strayed away from the subject of the motion—members should really read the motion.
I, too, welcome the fact that we are having this debate, and I congratulate Mike Rumbles, not only on bringing the debate to the chamber but on participating in all the co-operative work that has gone on over many years, with local people and with the local council, to move the project forward and get the station reopened. There is a history of co-operation in the north-east. An exemplar of such co-operation is the integrated modern transport plan that the north-east Scotland transport partnership has produced, which mentioned the Laurencekirk project as one of the projects that it would like to be advanced.
However, we have wider ambitions for rail services in the north-east. The opening of Laurencekirk station would be welcome, but it is only the first step towards rail improvements with much wider implications. A number of members have mentioned the Aberdeen crossrail project, which is the major project that we want to be carried out in the north-east. It has been envisaged that that project would supply commuter services from Stonehaven to Inverurie through Aberdeen, with a phased development of other stations. If Laurencekirk station is opened, we hope that the project will reach from Laurencekirk to Inverurie and perhaps to Insch as more stations are developed.
Development of the crossrail project depends on the Aberdeen to Inverness line being upgraded. We are looking for at least two passing loops between Keith and Inverness to enable an hourly service to be developed, which will enable through trains to run and the crossrail service to be developed. Such work has been recognised as of strategic importance for Scotland, as has dealing with the single-track section at Montrose, which is a pinch point in the east coast main line.
I emphasise that the east coast main line runs from London to Aberdeen through Laurencekirk and in doing so bring myself back to the motion. We accept that changes in the parameters of the matters that Network Rail and the Strategic Rail Authority must deal with have knocked back projects, but projects are still on the books and are still seen to have strategic importance, and we still want them to happen.
I am delighted that progress is being made in respect of opening Laurencekirk station and we hope that the crossrail project and the Newtonhill, Altens, Kittybrewster and Kintore projects are brought to pass reasonably speedily. The Laurencekirk project will be a good start.
I congratulate Mike Rumbles on securing the debate. The prospect of another railway station opening on the Scottish railway network is welcome.
I first became aware of the benefits of reopening railway stations as long ago as 1970. A station was opened specifically for the duration of the Commonwealth games to allow people to catch a train from Waverley to the games stadium. That made the journey to that mass-attendance event much more comfortable.
Benefits to Laurencekirk will be rather different. David Davidson suggested that the reopening of the station will allow the people of Laurencekirk to leave their town, but I hope that there will be benefits in allowing many other people to discover the delights of that fine town on the east coast. I see that Mr Rumbles is agreeing with me.
I congratulate the body that has been responsible for building most of the new railway track in Scotland over the past 20 years—I refer, of course, to the Scottish Railway Preservation Society and in particular to its link to Bo'ness from the Edinburgh to Glasgow line.
There is a paradox. A few new stations have been opened, which is great. However, the process started with Bathgate station, which proved the validity of the model that came with it. In a short time, the station exceeded by a factor of four the passenger load predictions that had justified its reopening after at least a 20-year campaign. In a small way, I was part of that campaign and welcomed the reopening.
Like Nora Radcliffe, I hope that Laurencekirk station will be just one of many stations that will be reopened. David Davidson referred to Banff. Like Banff, Macduff, Fraserburgh and Peterhead no longer have railway stations. I was in Peterhead Academy on Monday when, lo and behold, Liam Geraghty asked me how we can get a railway station for Peterhead. The question illustrates the value that people who have been disconnected by several generations from real rail travel opportunities still see in rail travel; it shows that those people wish to have the benefits of rail travel. I hope that the people of Laurencekirk are on the cusp of experiencing that.
The focus of new stations and railway projects has largely been in the central belt, although there has been one project west of Inverness, the name of which escapes me.
We must focus on the administrative and financial difficulties that arise because various bodies are involved in opening a new station. It took five years to open Edinburgh Park station and, even when it was ready, it took another four or five weeks before the first passengers were dropped off and picked up. We need to work on the way in which the system is organised. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Council for Development and Industry has joined the growing campaign to bring power over railways in Scotland to one point by making the Executive responsible for them. Before anyone says that we could not co-operate with the rest of Great Britain, I should point out that, in Ireland, two countries seem to be able to co-operate across borders. That argument is spurious.
I welcome the fact that Laurencekirk may soon have a railway station; I might even use the station when I travel up and down simply to find out more about the town, which I have passed around 200 times since I was elected, but so far without stopping.
As Mike Rumbles said, I have had a long association with the Laurencekirk station campaign. I congratulate him on the further debate that we are having on Laurencekirk station and on the considerable progress that the campaign has made as a result of his involvement in and commitment to the issue.
I will depart entirely from my speaking notes and speak—as I should on this subject—straight from the heart. I remember on train journeys south from Aberdeen looking out of the window and seeing the stations on the stretch from Carnoustie through Monifieth and Broughty Ferry and into Dundee. We did not always stop at those stations, but I knew that a commuter service existed. No doubt it is not perfect and could be developed, but it is of huge benefit to the city of Dundee and the neighbouring communities. I wondered why we had such a long gap between Stonehaven and Montrose. We now have an opportunity to provide a service for around 40,000 people. The issue is not only about Laurencekirk, which is a thriving and developing community, but about the many communities around Laurencekirk that would benefit from having access to a station.
The issue is not only about people going to work in Stonehaven, Aberdeen, Montrose, Arbroath or Dundee, but about encouraging new businesses and economic development in Laurencekirk. If one walks along the High Street there, one sees real opportunities to kick-start the community and to establish new businesses to get the economy moving. As Mike Rumbles said, there is also a need to try to help young people to access training and jobs and to provide recreational and other social opportunities.
The project's time has come. I am determined to do all that I can as the Minister for Transport to help to make it happen, but it will happen only if there is a partnership. That has been the approach that has been taken so far to the Aberdeen crossrail project, to which I am committed. I would like to see the new stations that Nora Radcliffe mentioned at Newtonhill and Altens in my constituency and at Kittybrewster and Kintore. Any new project of this kind is valuable. The project is not the highest-value project and does not compare to £0.5 billion projects, but it would be wrong if I focused only on big, prestige, high-capital-value projects. We must keep other projects going.
The time scale is tight, and it is not always easy—particularly when there are large projects—to schedule in the small to medium-sized projects; however, I am determined to do that. We will do that only if we move the projects along, and that is what we are trying to do with Laurencekirk station. We are trying to create a sense of momentum and progress, and we are trying to keep the project on track. We all believe that, within our political lifetimes and perhaps within the lifetime of this Parliament, we can make the Laurencekirk station reopening project a reality.
We are doing that with other projects—Edinburgh Park station was mentioned. I would have liked Edinburgh Park station to have been created sooner. It is also one of the great frustrations, in relation to rail projects, that the Larkhall to Milngavie project—which we have announced, and on which work will start in February—has had planning permission for 10 years, which runs out in March 2003. What does that say about our ability to deliver such projects?
The deadline is March 2004.
Sorry, March 2004. I thank Stewart Stevenson for that correction. We are going to beat that deadline, but it has been a frustrating 10 years for those who have been involved with the project.
I am determined to make other projects happen. Tomorrow, we will discuss the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line. We are determined to create several new railway lines—the airport links in Glasgow and Edinburgh, the Borders rail link, the Airdrie to Bathgate line and others.
I am sorry to bring the minister's attention back to Laurencekirk—it is interesting to hear of the other projects—but he will be aware that Aberdeenshire Council is running a fair share campaign, seeking to get a fairer local government settlement that is comparable to those for other councils. That would have a huge influence on the council's ability to fund the project in Laurencekirk as a partner. Does the minister have any views on that?
Absolutely. That brings me back to the issue. I have little time left, and in my closing remarks I shall focus on where we are with the Laurencekirk situation. I have been fighting all my political life for a fair share for the north-east in terms of the politics of Scotland. During my early days in politics, it was frustrating to see most of the campaigns that have been touched on this evening—indeed, most of the campaigns that David Davidson has spoken about—being knocked back predominantly by a Conservative Government. It is great to see some of those projects now beginning and it is great that David Davidson is supporting them. I do not belittle that support in any way, shape or form.
We are starting to make things happen. Meetings on the Laurencekirk project will take place with officials from the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department soon to discuss not only the Laurencekirk station proposal, but the modern public transport system that the north-east Scotland transport partnership is supporting in Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and the whole of the north-east. We need to go through a process in relation to the Laurencekirk station proposal. We have had the preliminary study, in which ScotRail was involved, and that has allowed us to make an excellent start. We now need Aberdeenshire Council to act. It is appropriate that the local council is involved in deciding priorities in relation to these smaller-scale but nevertheless vital transport projects, and Aberdeenshire Council has agreed to take the project forward to the next stage. I have had discussions not only with Mike Rumbles but with Aberdeenshire Council about how we can move things along.
Will the minister give way?
I am almost out of time, but I will give way briefly.
I thank the minister for giving way. Will he comment on the timetable for getting Laurencekirk station reopened? Mike Rumbles mentioned 2004. Is that estimate accurate?
I was mentioning the process. The proposal currently lies with the council to develop the STAG 2 appraisal and to approach the Scottish Executive for support if it wishes. I understand that that will happen, and I give my support to that. We need to consider all the economic, social, safety and environmental benefits that I believe the project will bring. I am committed to doing that as quickly as possible, and I would like to deliver the project soon. Debates such as this help to achieve that, and that is why I am pleased to have been involved in the debate this evening.
Meeting closed at 17:58.