Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill: Final Stage
The next item of business is final stage proceedings of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have bill SP8A, as amended at consideration stage; the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that I have selected for debate; and the groupings that I have agreed. For the first division, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate and 30 seconds for all other divisions.
Section 1—Authority to construct works
Group 1 is on the requirement to construct the whole railway. Amendment 5, in the name of Bristow Muldoon, is the only amendment in the group.
Before I speak to amendment 5, I refer to my entry in the register of members' interests. I am a member of the Transport Salaried Staff Association, which, along with the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, has a constituency agreement with Livingston constituency Labour Party. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers used to have such an agreement before it made the unwise decision to hitch up with another political party.
I point out to Parliament that I worked in the railway industry for 13 years and strongly support the Scottish Executive's aspiration to expand the rail network, including the bill's aim to re-establish the Waverley line.
The 2003 Labour manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections, which I helped to develop, made it clear that we would give full consideration to the Borders railway line once the plans were fully developed. Moreover, in the current Labour policy consultation document—which, again, I helped to draft—we make clear our support of the project as part of a range of policies designed to improve the competitiveness and sustainability of Scotland's economy.
I highlight those points as they show that I am hardly someone who wishes to damage the prospects of re-establishing the Borders railway line. Indeed, the aim of amendment 5 is to make the completion of the line more rather than less likely.
I want a robust railway line that has been constructed with due consideration to value for money to the public purse and with a process that ensures good governance. At consideration stage, the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee agreed to insert section 1(3) with the good intention of trying to ensure that the project was fully completed. However, good intentions are not always enough. I and many rail industry professionals feel that because section 1(3) sets out a legal requirement for the promoters to construct the whole railway as defined in schedule 1, including all the stations, it will reduce the prospects of the project being completed.
That concerns me, because it was not deemed necessary to include such a provision in the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Act 2004, the legislation establishing the Edinburgh tramlines or any other private railways legislation. More important, it gives the promoter less flexibility to vary the project from schedule 1 to deal with any cost pressures that might emerge.
Quite right.
If, before construction started, the promoter found that it could not construct the project within the available budget, it would have only three options open to it. To Mr Rumbles, who just shouted out, "Quite right", I say that the first option is not to commence construction at all, which would be very damaging for the Borders. Under the second option, the promoter would have to raise additional resources from the partner councils either through council tax increases or through developer contributions above and beyond those that have already been identified. The third option is to seek further funding from the Scottish Executive. Amendment 5 would give the promoter a fourth option, and one that has been allowed to every other rail project approved by Parliament: the ability to vary the detail of the project.
What Bristow Muldoon really means, of course, is that it would give the developer the flexibility not to build the Borders railway.
Mr Rumbles seems to doubt my intent in that regard, but surely it is not my intent that he doubts, but that of the Waverley railway partnership. The power that I would give is to the Waverley railway partnership, so what Mike Rumbles is saying is that he thinks it likely that Scottish Borders Council would want to withdraw from the building of the project. If that is not the case, there is no other mechanism by which the outcome that he predicts would happen.
Not to give the promoter that fourth option would be akin to the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews telling Tiger Woods that, because it had such confidence in his ability to avoid bunkers for the whole of the tournament, it would not let him carry a sand iron. I know that Tiger did once win the open championship without going into a bunker all week, but he does not manage it every week, and neither does the Minister for Transport.
Varying the detail of the project does not mean, as some have claimed, that the project would not proceed beyond Gorebridge. Anybody who doubts my intentions, as I said to Mr Rumbles, doubts the intentions of the promoter of the bill. Given that the promoter has sincerely pursued the reopening of the Borders rail line for many years, I have no doubt at all that it will be determined to see the project completed to Tweedbank. The sort of flexibility that I would be giving the promoter would mean, for instance, that it could choose not to proceed with the proposed station at Stow. I will go into more detail about why that station would represent poor value for money, but the promoter itself recognises that.
If amendment 5 is opposed by the minister, as I understand it to be, I ask him to advise Parliament what contingency plans he or the promoter has if the cost of the project rises above its current budget. Would the risk lie with the Executive or with the promoter? Does he recognise that, if neither is prepared to bear the additional cost, there is a danger that the project could fall?
Without accepting the premise of his argument, I ask Bristow Muldoon to name a transport project that has not gone over budget. I am now involved in considering the Edinburgh airport rail link, whose cost is so far estimated at £650 million, well over what was projected.
The budgets for major transport projects in other parts of the Executive's portfolio are well developed and I believe that those projects will be deliverable within their budgets. Is the Scottish National Party pouring further scorn on the proposals to link Edinburgh airport and Glasgow airport to the railway network? Those are by far the most significant railway projects in Scotland and it would be extremely damaging to the Scottish economy for the Parliament not to agree that those projects can proceed.
I repeat that I want the minister to make it clear where the risk lies. The Executive's commitment to the project in policy terms is well known, but I ask the minister to clarify absolutely what the Executive's commitment is in cash terms and to say what, if any, legal exposure the Executive would have if there were any increase in the cost of the project. In addition to the value-for-money issue, I am also concerned that, if the Executive contribution were to rise substantially, that could have an impact on many of the other projects upon which Christine Grahame has cast doubt, such as the Edinburgh airport rail link and the Bathgate to Airdrie rail line.
I ask the minister and the members who inserted section 1(3) to respond to the points that I have already made and to indicate whether they advocate that a similar section be added to every subsequent railway bill that comes before the Parliament. If their case is so strong, the principle underlying it would presumably translate to those projects too.
I want the project to succeed. I want the line to be constructed all the way to Tweedbank, but I want it to be based on value for money, a reliable railway and good governance.
I move amendment 5.
I cannot claim to have Bristow Muldoon's level of experience of the rail industry. I have a modest request: I just want to be a rail passenger from my home in Galashiels to Edinburgh.
Amendment 5 seeks to remove from the bill a commitment to build the whole railway from Edinburgh to Tweedbank. I do not dispute the sincerity of Bristow Muldoon's contribution to the debate, nor indeed his record of supporting transport infrastructure projects. He is right to point to the reference in the Labour manifesto, although the reference in my party's manifesto was considerably stronger. There was no reference in the SNP manifesto. If there is doubt about the promoter's view of his amendment, ask Bristow Muldoon whether the promoter supports it. It does not.
Bristow Muldoon referred to other transport schemes, such as Edinburgh tramline 2. I was the deputy convener of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee. Funding was not in place for tramline 2, which influenced the emphasis of our scrutiny of the bill. As a member of the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, I will give the same level of scrutiny to that proposal. I am sure that Bristow Muldoon will be delighted to hear that, given that the line will affect his constituents.
When Sarah Boyack, then Minister for Transport and the Environment, committed funding to examine the Waverley line's feasibility and to bring a business case and a bill to the Parliament, she did so on the basis that it would be a Borders railway. I am the MSP for half of the Borders and a quarter of Midlothian. This is the scheme that Parliament was asked to consider and it is the scheme that Parliament supported unanimously. It is the scheme that Christine May said in committee
"must, as well as serving the Edinburgh conurbation, serve the Borders and … therefore a station at Stow is required and the line should go to Tweedbank." —[Official Report, Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, 24 May 2006; c 934.]
I could not have put it better myself.
The argument that it would be easier to build the line without the requirement that the entire route be built is flawed. Anyone who knows what is happening in the Borders, and in Galashiels in particular, would know that the work on the inner relief road and commercial development in the town means that it would be easier for any contractor to put together tenders and commence construction in the Borders first, but as part of an overall route. That is better for the scheme and will be much cheaper than a staged process. A staged process would fundamentally undermine the business case that was presented to the Parliament and scrutinised by the committee. The approach that is outlined represents better government and more sensible procurement, especially as construction companies, some of which already work in the Borders, have made expressions of interest.
I want rail services in Midlothian and the Borders. It is not a case of either/or. There is a positive net present value for constructing all parts of the line. The whole emphasis in respect of the line has been on integrated transport. That is why there has never been any deviation on the part of the local councillors in Edinburgh, Midlothian and the Borders from promoting a whole line. Rhona Brankin and I, as the two Midlothian MSPs, have worked together to deliver a rail link to the county and beyond and to promote road improvements such as the Dalkeith bypass and the Sheriffhall roundabout, which is crying out for investment. An announcement has been made today on Leadburn junction in Midlothian.
I say to Bristow Muldoon that this is integrated transport planning. There is investment in rail, roads and bus development. For the entire route to be built is environmentally beneficial, economically sound and vital for connecting the Borders to all parts of Scotland by rail—including Edinburgh, with its airport rail link. I ask Bristow Muldoon to withdraw his amendment. I do not doubt his sincerity, but his arguments are fundamentally flawed.
As Jeremy Purvis reminded the Parliament, on 1 June 2000 the entire Parliament unanimously voted for reinstatement of the Borders railway line, not only to Gorebridge, Galashiels or Tweedbank, but to Carlisle. It was remitted to four committees of the Parliament to examine the necessity for this transport link through the Borders to address economic issues, social inclusion and the other issues that arise in a much-deprived area. The area has the lowest wages in Scotland. People earn £150 per week less if they live in Galashiels than they do if they live in Edinburgh. The railway line is essential.
Bristow Muldoon's argument is ridiculous. This is the only line that has to pass every single test in the book. No other transport project—let alone the Scottish Parliament building project—has had to pass such tests: the project must come in exactly on budget and it must be done in a certain way. Why has this project gone through more hoops than any other? Because there is not the political will on the Labour benches for the line to proceed. Labour members are happy for it to go to Midlothian, which has a Labour MSP, but they will ditch their Liberal Democrat partners now as they are not happy with them. They will leave them swinging in the wind. They are making a political decision in advance of an election year.
I point out to the member that Gorebridge is not mentioned in my amendment nor have I mentioned it in any of the statements that I have made about my amendment. If Christine Grahame is so concerned about my amendment, does she know something that we do not? Does she know that the budget will be way over the current projection?
I said that I was not conceding that point. The Waverley project would be the only transport project to be put through the kind of test for which Bristow Muldoon argues. Of course his argument means having only a Midlothian line—dot the i's and cross the t's—it has always meant trying to get the project done as a staged process. If it was a staged process, not a single bit of track would be laid past Gorebridge into the Borders, which would be an insult to the 20,000 Borderers whose signatures brought the Waverley proposal from the streets of the Borders to the Parliament.
Mr Purvis must sit down; he has had his bit.
Those Borderers brought the proposal to the Parliament on the basis of having a line to the Borders. How can it be a Borders line if it does not go to Gala, Tweedbank or Stow, but has four stops in Midlothian? In that case, it becomes a Midlothian line. The arguments of Bristow Muldoon and others point towards a single issue: the election next year. The Liberal Democrats have been making hay, saying that they are getting all the good things for their people. The Labour Party is being left with all the bad things, so it has decided that it is time for the reckoning: ditch the Liberal Democrats on the Waverley proposal. That will ultimately sacrifice a Borders rail line that is worth more than the two Executive parties put together.
Scottish Conservatives support the bill's aims and the committee's report in full. As a committee, we made it crystal clear that a Borders railway had to service the whole of the Borders, which includes having a station at Stow. Without a commitment to ensuring that that happens, the project is at risk of failing. If there is support only for a railway that goes to Gorebridge, a bill for that purpose should have been introduced—it was not.
One of the founding principles on which the Parliament is built is the sharing of power. The consultative steering group that produced the blueprint for how the Parliament and its committees should work was clear on the importance of the committees' role. They have been given the authority to scrutinise and investigate issues relating to bills brought to the Parliament and, on the basis of such scrutiny and investigation, to amend them as necessary.
That process is particularly relevant to private bills and the wide-ranging role that private bill committees have. Private bills do not normally raise issues of a party political nature. We as a committee maintained our position of considering and reporting on the basis of evidence being taken in a neutral and impartial way, as required. We at least have been true to those objectives.
On the basis of the 108 witnesses from whom we heard, the 4ft-high pile of written evidence and paperwork associated with the bill that we carefully considered, and the 29 committee meetings held, we collectively reported last month with informed and balanced reasons for amending the bill in the way that we have suggested. It is on that basis, and with that level of competence and knowledge that the committee brought the bill in its current shape to the chamber today.
That overall purpose has not changed. A phased approach to constructing the railway would be more expensive and would be against the will of the Parliament.
Will the member give way?
I am just concluding.
It would also bring into question the function and purpose of the bill committee, which has spent nearly three years considering the project. I urge members to reject amendment 5.
Our decision on amendment 5 will, I think, determine whether the Waverley railway will actually be built in order to provide better transport for people in the Borders and Midlothian, or whether the act will just sit on a shelf somewhere for the benefit of certain politicians who like that kind of thing.
I live in the Borders and I used to represent the former county of Berwickshire, which includes Earlston and Lauder, in the House of Commons. I understand the aspirations of people in the Borders and I am a keen supporter of good railway projects. I, too, used to be sponsored by a railway trade union.
The Waverley project is an ambitious one by any standards, so it is fraught with risks. It is absolutely inevitable that costs will escalate much further. The prospects for passenger numbers on the Borders section are questionable, given the long journey time, and there must be a real risk from growing resistance by the majority of Borders council tax payers who do not live near Galashiels. I urge members who represent that area to listen to what citizens are actually saying around the Borders.
I hope that the member is reassured that I am listening, but I am also listening to the private developers who are actually contributing to the Borders element; it is not council tax payers, which is one of the fundamental misunderstandings. Does Mr Home Robertson agree that, with regard to construction, the easier part is actually the Gala water part and not Midlothian?
Mr Purvis has had his speech. That was a cautionary note.
My point is that the Borders section of the project is a marginal and delicate proposition that needs to be nurtured. I believe that section 1(3) makes it extremely difficult for any part of the line to be constructed. As Bristow Muldoon said, the subsection is not necessary. It contributes nothing to the bill and yet imposes an all-or-nothing statutory obligation on the promoter that could sabotage the option for phased progress towards successful completion of the line. Without that subsection, the Waverley line can be built as an asset to Midlothian and the Borders and as a credit to the Scottish Parliament. However, most members know that its inclusion in the bill means that it is very likely that the resulting act will be a dead letter.
There are two kinds of politician in this world: those who want to achieve practical results for people and those who are more interested in political manoeuvres and media soundbites. The decision on amendment 5 is important; it has the capacity to affect people's livelihoods. The choice is between making a political gesture or effecting the construction of a railway; it is between an unimplementable bill that can only ever be the basis for acrimony and disappointment and one that will achieve better transport provision and prospects for Midlothian and the Borders.
We all know what is going on: members in all parties are aware of each other's private views on the subject. I will not betray any confidences, but I know that Christine May is one of several committee members who have very serious concerns about the risk that the subsection poses to the project. I heard the minister on the radio this morning saying some wise words. He said that a good Government recognises when it makes mistakes. The same principle should apply to a good Parliament. Like the rest of us, the minister knows that the subsection is a potentially fatal flaw. If we are serious about the Waverley project, this wrecking subsection should be removed.
The consideration of the bill reminds me of the story of the king with the invisible suit: we all know that the subsection is nonsense, but Christine May alone has had the courage to say that until now. This Borderer intends to vote for amendment 5. That way, if the subsection is retained, and leads to the failure of the Waverley project, my conscience will be clear.
The Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill was before the bill committee for nearly three years, during which time we took evidence from 108 witnesses and held 29 meetings in Edinburgh, Galashiels and Newtongrange. I hope that today we deliver what we have worked on for nearly three years, which is a Borders railway—not an Edinburgh commuter line or a Midlothian railway, but a Borders railway.
As the bill makes clear, what we should be about is
"the reconstruction of a railway from … Newcraighall … to Tweedbank in Scottish Borders".
If there was support for only a Midlothian railway, that is what should have been brought forward, but that is not what happened. At the preliminary stage, the Parliament voted in favour of a Borders railway and a Midlothian railway—a railway that would run all the way through to the end of the line.
We have had six years in which to make the decision to build the line. In our preliminary stage report, we supported the building of the full line and signalled our support for the further station at Stow. At that point, Christine May produced a minority report, but it was rejected by the committee and the Parliament last September. That is why the committee lodged amendment 1 only three weeks ago, at the consideration stage; that, and the fact that, behind the scenes, civil servants and others were continually telling us that they would never build the full line and that the station at Stow would remain a figment of our imagination.
The committee wants to make it clear that the unanimous will of the committee and the clear will of the Parliament should not be thwarted. I remind John Home Robertson and other members that, at our meeting of 24 May—only three weeks ago—Christine May, who is one of the co-sponsors of amendment 5 said:
"if the railway is to be put in place it must, as well as serving the Edinburgh conurbation, serve the Borders and … therefore a station at Stow is required and the line should go to Tweedbank."—[Official Report, Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, 24 May 2006; c 934.]
She could not have made it any clearer.
Will the member give way?
No. Christine May will have her chance. John Home Robertson would not take an intervention from me on the point.
Having heard all the evidence, we decided unanimously that it was right after 40 years to reintroduce the Borders railway. It was clear to us that the project is about more than pure economics; it is about the socioeconomic benefits that the railway could bring to the only part of the Scottish mainland that is denied access to the national rail network. It was also clear to us that the project was about opening up the Borders in terms of social inclusion, employment, tourism, inward investment, increased spend and the retention of younger people who will choose to live in the Borders, many of them in the thousands of new homes that will be built, in part, because of the project.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
Furthermore, it was clear to us that the project is about encouraging those who live in the Borders and Midlothian, particularly those who commute to Edinburgh, to switch to public transport. That will benefit not only the Borders and Midlothian, but the capital.
To misrepresent this project as being simply about the financial case for or against the railway line is to some extent to miss the point of the whole project. We felt that to build a Borders railway but to have only two stations in the Borders or, if Bristow Muldoon and Christine May had their way, no stations at all, would be wrong and would represent a missed opportunity. To say that we could return to the project in a phased manner begs the question how much more it would cost to build the line in future if we leave it undone now. The entire line has the support of the Executive, Network Rail, First ScotRail and all three promoters from the three local councils. There is only one reason why members should support amendment 5, which is if they want to wreck the bill. We have the chance to do something important today: to build a railway to reconnect the Borders of Scotland with the rest of our country. I urge members to seize the opportunity with both hands and to reject amendment 5.
Three more speeches, each of three minutes please.
Three minutes is more than enough. After three years on the bill, I had not intended to speak at all.
I wish to disagree with two things that have been said. I am sorry to disagree with my colleague John Home Robertson, but I do not for one minute believe that section 1(3) means that the railway will never be built. I do not accept that we have to remove section 1(3) to stop the project being put on the shelf. Having spent three years communicating with the promoter, I have no doubt that its commitment to build all of the railway will not for one moment be affected by having to build a station at Stow. I believe in the station at Stow; I voted for it in committee because I thought that it was the right thing to do. However, even if it is the wrong thing to do, I have no doubt that the railway will go ahead even if a station at Stow is required. That scaremongering is not helpful.
The other thing that really got me angry—well, almost angry—was Christine Grahame. I cannot remember the words that she used, but she implied in her outburst that there was an agenda to build the railway only in the Lothians. That is simply not true. Going right back to the Labour Party manifesto, there has never been that agenda. I sat on the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee for three years and supported a railway right down through the Borders. Not once in that time was there pressure from any Labour minister, any Labour group or anyone in the Labour Party to wreck the bill or for the railway to go only into the Lothians.
No, I have heard the member. Many of us sat on the committee and operated in good faith. We are still operating in good faith.
There might be one or two individuals who do not agree. I have not changed my position one bit, and I resent the accusation that the Labour group has an agenda to stop the railway being built. That has never been our position; it is not our position now. The railway will go ahead, and I for my part look forward to a station at Stow.
I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks. Christine Grahame's contribution was unhelpful. I respect the point of view that was eloquently expressed by Bristow Muldoon, but I prefer the point that Gordon Jackson made, which is that the bill committee has spent three years considering the bill. It has gone into it in infinite detail and, as has been adequately explained, it has engaged with the promoter.
My constituent John Home Robertson said that the inclusion of section 1(3) will, in effect, wreck the bill, but I do not accept that. It will not wreck the bill. It will serve as a confidence measure so that Borders people can understand that the railway line will be built in its entirety to Tweedbank. It is important that the railway line goes to Tweedbank for the simple reason that some of us believe that it should go beyond there to other parts of the Borders: to Kelso, Hawick and eventually, in years to come, to Carlisle. We will not do that immediately, but it is an aspiration that we still hold within the Borders and one that we will campaign for after the bill has been passed.
I urge the Parliament to remember that, on two previous occasions, it has voted unanimously that the project should proceed. The first was way back when the Parliament sat in Glasgow; it also occurred in October last year, when there was one abstention.
Section 1(3) is right and proper. It was inserted in the bill after due consideration by committee members, and I do not understand those who have changed their minds—perhaps we will hear from them. Section 1(3) is valid and important to the confidence of the people of the Borders that the line will be constructed to Tweedbank.
I start by being the first to congratulate Madge Elliot—the instigator of the Borders railway campaigns—the Campaign for Borders Rail, the Waverley Route Trust and all the others, such as the Stow station supporters, who worked for decades before parliamentarians in the Scottish Parliament came to do their work.
Amendment 5 is a wrecking amendment that is designed to stop the railway at Gorebridge, regardless of what Mr Jackson said. Are the Labour members who support the amendment seriously suggesting that we should build the Tweedbank to Stow stage first, then build the bit to Gorebridge and then, if we get round it, connect the railway up to Waverley and, if we do not, that we should leave ourselves with two unconnected railways? Of course they are not. They are suggesting that the railway should go to Gorebridge and stop there. That is the agenda behind amendment 5. If Labour members are trying hard to scupper a railway going into the Borders, will the Liberal Democrats—and the minister in particular—now try to scupper the Labour M74 extension, which is projected to cost several times as much as the Borders railway?
Amendment 5 is a wrecking amendment and the Scottish Green Party will not support it.
I suspect that Bristow Muldoon and I share a passion not only for railways, but for golf. At times this afternoon, I would rather have been debating golf than railways. However, we are where we are.
I understand Mr Muldoon's intentions for amendment 5 and his commitment to the railway infrastructure throughout Scotland and the Waverley line in particular. He and I want the same outcome—that we build and operate a rail line between Edinburgh and Tweedbank—but the Executive does not support amendment 5 and I hope that I can provide sufficient reassurance to avoid division.
The partnership agreement commitment is to support the building of the whole of the Borders railway. We have committed £115 million in 2002 prices—that is, an anticipated cost outturn of £155 million—to the project as a whole, not in part. The budget for the Borders rail project has been set and our contribution will remain capped, but colleagues want to know about the contributions from other project sponsors. They amount to £19 million at 2002 prices. Scottish Borders Council, Midlothian Council and the City of Edinburgh Council are contributing £11.3 million, while developer contributions from Scottish Enterprise Borders, Shawfair Developments Ltd and the Currie Road developments amount to £7.6 million.
We will work with the project sponsors to manage the project effectively and procure the entire project in a way that ensures value for money and secures maximum benefit and a successful project. I agree with the committee's conclusion that the whole railway is justified, not solely on economic benefit grounds but on the grounds of social inclusion—which is a key Scottish Executive policy objective—and improving accessibility to the Borders.
The Parliament has asked, fairly, that the business case be robust. I reiterate an often-made point: for Government funds to be released, the business case must continue to be robust, be positive and represent value for money. Transport Scotland will continue to test that business case and the assumptions that underpin it. As part of its broader, Scotland-wide rail responsibilities, Transport Scotland will also ensure that the assumptions about performance and the timetabling of services take account of the need to integrate successfully with the overall rail network.
It is a matter of how we manage the process and the delivery of the whole railway on time, within budget and for the benefit of the Borders, Midlothian and Edinburgh. We will work with the promoter to manage the project effectively and to procure it in a way that ensures value for money and secures benefits that will deliver a railway that works.
Turning specifically to amendment 5, I wish once again to state the importance of the project passing the four key tests that the Government agreed in supporting the Waverley line. The most important of those tests is that the assumptions underlying the business case must hold, including those on the achievement of patronage levels, the containment of costs, the active management of risks and the housing growth projections that are achievable and based on identified market demand.
We must be satisfied on all those counts. The development of the business case and the assumptions underlying the scheme are critical. If the business case is not robust, we will not release funds. Given those checks and balances and the consistent financial scrutiny that is in place, I ask Bristow Muldoon to withdraw amendment 5.
The remit that the Parliament established for the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee was:
"to consider and report to the Parliament on the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill".
That the committee has done, fully and thoroughly, producing two reports that set out its conclusions and recommendations on what it viewed to be the main issues. The process has taken three years. Ted Brocklebank mentioned the 108 witnesses and the 4ft-high pile of written evidence and associated paperwork, which we considered carefully. On the basis of that lengthy, detailed scrutiny of the issues, the committee concluded unanimously that the railway, if constructed, must go all the way to Tweedbank and serve the Borders community.
Now, an amendment has been lodged by a Labour back bencher. He made no representations to the committee at any stage. He does not represent any of the areas that are affected. He did not even speak in the preliminary stage debate, when it was made clear by the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, and agreed by the Parliament, that we expected the line to be built in its entirety. Being the convener of the Local Government and Transport Committee does not convey any authority on transport matters; it is a position that is given by the Labour Party.
I made it absolutely clear in my speech that I support the completion of the line all the way to Tweedbank. My contention is that Tricia Marwick's proposed approach would put that at greater risk.
My contention is that Bristow Muldoon has got that completely wrong. His amendment 5 is supported by Christine May, the deputy convener of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee. Others have said this, but it is worth saying again. Just a few short weeks ago, Christine May said:
"Amendment 1 is extremely important and reflects the committee's view in our final discussion and our report that if the railway is to be put in place it must, as well as serving the Edinburgh conurbation, serve the Borders and that therefore a station at Stow is required and the line should go to Tweedbank."—[Official Report, Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, 24 May 2006; c 934.]
The bill is too important to the people of the Borders for the debate to degenerate at this stage into an infantile squabble by Labour and the Liberal Democrats about who holds more sway in the coalition. They are supposed to be the Government of Scotland. On the basis of our detailed scrutiny of the issues behind the case for the Borders railway, we concluded that it must go all the way to Tweedbank.
To cite the long title of the bill as introduced, its purpose is
"to authorise the reconstruction of a railway from … Newcraighall … to Tweedbank".
Parliament supported that aim when it agreed to the general principles of the bill, which no member voted against.
A phased approach to constructing the railway, as Bristow Muldoon proposes, would be more expensive; it would also be against the will of the Parliament. It would call into question the function and purpose of a committee that spent nearly three years considering and reporting on the issues.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not.
The committee, like successive ministers and the promoter, has repeatedly stressed the point about the costs being robust, and we have repeatedly been assured that they are.
Bristow Muldoon argues that amendment 5 brings flexibility to the project so that it can be built in stages. It does not. It brings uncertainty. Bristow Muldoon's proposal would wreck the project and would allow for a railway to be built no further than Gorebridge. That is what the member wants, and he should have the honesty to say so in the chamber instead of pretending that he is helping the bill to progress.
I have no doubt that a railway—[Interruption.] Please excuse me while I clear my throat.
Will the member take an intervention now?
Tricia Marwick indicated agreement.
That was divine intervention on my behalf.
There is an issue of parliamentary consistency. The SNP voted for the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill scheme to be built in phases; there was no requirement for a compulsion section in that bill. Is the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill of less importance?
I do not think so, but it was up to the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee to make its own decisions on that. It was open to that committee to insert in the bill a requirement that the line would not be built in phases, as the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee has done.
I have no doubt that a railway from Gorebridge to Edinburgh is desirable, but the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill is not a bill to construct such a railway; it is a bill to construct a railway to and from the Borders. It should not be converted by one member's amendments into a bill that excludes the Borders.
The bill at it stands, as amended by the committee, provides clarity and purpose to all parties, particularly people who will lose their land or property to make way for the railway. I urge members to listen to some of those people, who have been blighted by the prospect of a railway. They cannot be left for another five, 10 or 15 years with the uncertainty that the line might or might not go from Gorebridge to the Borders. They need to know whether they have a future, according to what we do. We have waited far too long to give those people the reassurance that they want. It is time to make the decision. I urge the Parliament to reject amendment 5 in the name of Bristow Muldoon.
The debate has been illuminating. Some members have taken part in a constructive and reasoned way, among whom I draw attention to Euan Robson and Tavish Scott. Others have made up what my amendment aims to achieve and ignored completely my record of support for the project.
For the information of Ms Marwick and her SNP colleagues, for the past five years I have been chair of Labour's Scottish policy forum, which included the Borders railway line in our manifesto in 2003. The economy document on which we are consulting, which I largely drafted, included an on-going commitment to the line. That shows Labour's commitment to the project.
I have had my good intentions doubted, but I have been fair enough to say that, although I think that the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee has got it wrong, I also think that it has the best of intentions. I believe that the committee wants to see the project delivered and work. I regret that members such as Tricia Marwick and Christine Grahame doubt the good intentions of others.
As I said, Euan Robson made a fair contribution. We do not agree on the detail of amendment 5, but I acknowledge that he wants to see the bill proceed, as I do.
The minister made a balanced contribution. I acknowledge that we want to see the same outcome—an efficient railway line delivered within budget along the whole route from Edinburgh to Tweedbank. I welcome the information that the minister gave us that the Executive stands by its position on the various tests that the project needs to meet in relation to the continuing robustness of the business case; the achievement of patronage levels; the containment of costs; the active management of risk; and housing growth projections.
Jackie Baillie pointed out effectively the inconsistency of the SNP in relation to section 1(3). I note that no member addressed my challenge on whether we would have to have a similar section in every future railway bill.
However, given the constructive nature of the minister's contribution and his assurances, I am prepared not to press amendment 5. I seek permission to withdraw the amendment.
The member has sought permission to withdraw amendment 5. Is that agreed?
No.
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division. In accordance with the standing orders that govern these proceedings, the division bell will now sound in the chamber—sorry, in the building other than the chamber—and the Parliament will be suspended for five minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will now proceed with the division.
For
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Ind)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
After all that excitement, the result of the division is: For 2, Against 114, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Section13—Authority to acquire land
Group 2 is on Stow station. Amendment 19, in the name of Bristow Muldoon, is grouped with amendments 20, 21, 6 to 11, 22, 13, 14, 14A, 15 and 18. I point out that if amendment 22 is agreed to, amendment 13 will be pre-empted.
In speaking to amendment 19 and the other amendments in my name on Stow station, all of which must be considered together, I wish to explain the effect of the amendments and then the reasoning that supports them.
The amendments would remove the authority for the promoter to construct a railway station at Stow and return the bill to the proposals that were initially made by the Waverley railway partnership. I make it clear that the amendments in my name in group 2 are linked. If the Parliament supports amendment 19, it will be necessary to pass all the consequential amendments as well so that the bill is consistent. If the Parliament does not support amendment 19, I will not move the subsequent amendments.
I propose that we remove the authority for the promoter to construct a station at Stow for a number of reasons—value for money, operational effectiveness, the impact on the overall journey time and the impact on the business case for the project. The promoter itself dropped the idea of a station at Stow because it did not believe that the idea represented value for money. That was recognised by the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee in its preliminary stage report, paragraph 131 of which states:
"The promoter's forecasting, which it claims is based on a ‘detailed, econometric stated preference interview survey using industry best techniques' was that only 10 passengers a day would use the station, rising to 48 in 30 years time, causing a negative economic impact of £718,000 over this period. It firmly concluded that no business case existed for a station at Stow and that a station there ‘would represent very poor value for money for the public purse'."
I acknowledge that some groups dispute the promoter's analysis but, given that the prime advocate of the project, after carrying out a thorough assessment of the case for a station at Stow, believes that it would represent
"very poor value for money",
it is unfortunate that the committee chose to disregard the promoter's view and insert into the proposals a station at Stow. At best, that would seem to be gold plating. At worst, it could damage the whole project.
The population of Stow is about 600. Although some stations on the network are situated at places that have populations that are smaller than that, the railway industry would not advocate building a new station to serve such a small population. Also, Stow is only about 7 miles from Galashiels.
The member seeks to take the bill back to its original form, as put forward by the promoter. Should I warn my constituents in West Lothian who are campaigning for a halt at Blackridge on the Bathgate to Airdrie line that there is a member who wants to take railway bills back to their promoter's original proposals? Should I warn them that he has done that once and that he might do it again?
First, the communities in West Lothian and Lanarkshire that are campaigning for additional stations are many times bigger than Stow. Secondly, it is not for me to make that case. I am not the constituency member for either of the areas that were mentioned. The constituency members are my colleagues Karen Whitefield and Mary Mulligan and I am sure that they will make an active case in support of their constituents.
The committee justified its support for a station at Stow partly by referring to
"A large catchment area … in the town of Lauder, some six miles east of Stow".
However, the population of Lauder is only 1,000. It does not seem to me that it is a large community.
Will the member give way?
I wish to make progress. I am sure that Tricia Marwick will have the opportunity to speak later.
The cost of the station, which will serve 10 people a day, will be £1 million. That is not good value for money for the public purse.
I am advised by contacts in the railway industry, and I understand that the committee was told by Transport Scotland, that having a stop at Stow would add three to four minutes to the end-to-end journey time. Given that many people, including many strong supporters of the project, believe that the original end-to-end journey time is too long to be attractive to many car users, it is wrong that Parliament should add a requirement that would increase the time.
In operational terms, the additional stop could add to the frequency with which trains are terminated short of their destination—Tweedbank—to allow the service to be returned to schedule when it runs late. That is not a theoretical danger, as Mary Mulligan's constituents could testify from the frequency with which Bathgate services terminate at Livingston North because of the timetable's inflexibility.
As I said, Damian Sharp of Transport Scotland warned the committee of that danger. He said to the committee:
"The likely consequence is that late-running trains would have to be terminated at Galashiels and would not get to Tweedbank, which would have a very bad impact on the perception of the railway."—[Official Report, Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, 27 March 2006; c 896.]
Alternatively, if such action did not return the service to schedule, that would have consequences for the east of Scotland rail network in and around Edinburgh Waverley station. Not having a station at Stow would leave more operational flexibility to deal with such eventualities.
As recently as 27 March, the Minister for Transport, Tavish Scott, shared my concerns about the proposal. He advised the committee that his
"biggest concern about having a stop at Stow is that it will impact not just on the Borders line, but on the rest of the network … it is crucial that the service that has come north from the Borders and through Midlothian hits the east coast line, and gets into Waverley, at the right time."—[Official Report, Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, 27 March 2006; c 895.]
My final reason for removing authority for a station at Stow from the bill is that building a station at Stow would have an impact on the business case as a result of the factors that I have mentioned.
I am sure that the member has read the promoter's explanatory memorandum on Stow, which says that, even with a station at Stow, the turnaround time at Tweedbank would still be within what is allowable. That scotches one of the myths that have been put out about an impact on the east coast main line.
Jeremy Purvis misunderstands my position. With a station at Stow, the risk of terminating the service short of Tweedbank on occasions of late running would be higher, because the turnaround time that Mr Sharp advised the committee was likely to be programmed into the timetable was only five minutes. My final reason for not having a station at Stow is that having a station would have an impact on the business case.
A station at Stow would represent poor value for money, would lengthen the journey time, would be detrimental to the rail network's operational integrity and could undermine the business case for the project. To protect the project's integrity, I urge members to support the amendments in the group that are in my name.
I move amendment 19.
I ask for speeches of three minutes. I will call as many speakers as I can.
Amendments 6 to 8 and 13 to 15, which are in my name, are technical. They will correct land referencing and plot references in the bill and provide an interpretation to the Stow station maps, plans and sections, which form one of the bill's accompanying documents. The Stow maps, plans and sections identify land plots that have been revised as a result of new Ordnance Survey mapping of the area and provide an update of the details that are shown in the maps, plans and sections for the entire scheme that were lodged with the bill on introduction. I urge members to support my amendments.
I oppose the amendments that Bristow Muldoon lodged. He seeks to overturn the amendment that the committee unanimously agreed—that there should be a station at Stow. The committee made it clear at the preliminary and consideration stages that there should be a station at Stow. Of course, Mr Muldoon made no representations on that matter or any other in the preliminary stage debate in Parliament or to the committee. He should have made much of the case that he has made today at the preliminary stage, but he chose not to.
The promoter gave evidence that it had taken a hard-hearted economic business view of Stow. My committee looked beyond the business case and focused on maximising the social benefits that the railway can bring to the wider Borders community. If those benefits are to be maximised, the railway must serve a wider catchment area than just that around Galashiels. The railway cannot be called a Borders railway if it has only two stations at the bottom end of the line and then 20-plus miles of track until it reaches Midlothian, which will have five stations.
I hope that the Local Government and Transport Committee, which Bristow Muldoon convenes, does not make all its decisions based purely on the financial case. If we do that, we might as well close every railway in Scotland and not build another. As I recall, the evidence from the Strategic Rail Authority remarked on the difficulty of finding viable railways in Britain. Broadly speaking, railways are not profitable in London or Glasgow and are unlikely to be profitable in the Borders or, dare I say it, between Airdrie and Bathgate.
The creation of a station at Stow will provide scope to draw additional passengers to the railway from commuters and travellers from towns such as Lauder and Clovenfords. Widening the social and economic opportunities and improving the area's accessibility to the capital are the prime reasons why the committee amended the bill to provide for an additional stop at Stow.
Bristow Muldoon suggested that timetabling would be a difficulty for the proposed station. However, I can assure him that the committee was told that time had been saved on the line. As a committee, we reckoned that the time that had been saved was more than adequate to serve the station at Stow.
In its evidence the promoter, which did not support a station at Stow on purely economic grounds, suggested that such a station could be added at a later stage. The committee's decision to include provision in the bill at consideration stage for a station at Stow was not inconsistent with that position. The bill as it stands does not require a station at Stow—although that is what we want—but enables the creation of such a station by providing for all the powers and permissions that would be necessary for such a station to be built. The amendments in the name of Bristow Muldoon would remove those powers and permissions. It is clear that he has no intention of ever providing a station at Stow.
The opportunity to build a railway comes very rarely. If the railway is to be built without a station at Stow, does anyone seriously believe that the station will be built at some time in the future? I do not, and I doubt that many other members believe that. That is why the Parliament should oppose the amendments in the name of Bristow Muldoon.
I have discussed the issue of whether there should be a station at Stow with many constituents over the many years in which I have lived in the community. There are strong voices in favour of the station and there are strong voices opposed to it. One concern among others is the proposed station's proximity to the school. However, on balance, it is absolutely right that we should have a station at Stow. I say that as one who has sat in the living-rooms of constituents whose houses would be bulldozed under the scheme, which has been hanging over them for a long time. I understand the concerns, but I also appreciate the benefits.
Bristow Muldoon's concern is seriously flawed. I believe that there is a business case for Stow. I agree with the committee and, in particular, Christine May, who said:
"a station at Stow is required."—[Official Report, Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, 24 May 2006; c 934.]
The principal objections to the station are that it lacks a robust patronage forecast, its capital costs are too high and it would have a negative impact on timetabling for the line and the rest of the network. In all the evidence that the committee heard, it was clear that the capital costs for any change in plan after the construction of the rail line would be considerably higher than those for the construction of a station at Stow from the start.
In my view, the patronage forecasts are too pessimistic. In addition, they do not take into account the positive economic impact on Stow and its surrounding communities. I know that the committee visited the area, but I suspect that other members who have referred to Stow have not done so. The Gala water, which is a beautiful part of Scotland, will be 35 minutes from Edinburgh for recreation and outdoor sports. Stow struggles to sustain its existing economic activity. The Waverley project, with a station at Stow, will have a major economic impact.
As we heard from the minister, the Executive's commitment is to provide funding uprated with inflation. If the promoter and the Executive can work together to accelerate the next stage by moving towards procurement and if, with the necessary geological and topographical work, the project can be delivered early, the savings in construction industry inflation will mean that the station could be incorporated within the existing funding package. That would be extremely positive.
Scotland has 340 passenger stations, of which 59 are in Glasgow and 58 are in the Highlands. That situation has evolved. Accepting that rural areas have the same need to be connected as urban areas have, we would all be surprised if MSPs from urban areas made moves to close Highland stations.
The promoter's evidence from 9 January scotches many of the myths that we have heard about value for money and engineering. New modelling was carried out in 2005 to improve the timetabling and journey times that were suggested in September 2003. The committee was right in its judgment on Stow, and the Parliament will be right to adopt the committee's recommendations.
I welcome the Liberal Democrats' support for a station at Stow. They did not always support it. Mr Purvis's predecessor, Ian Jenkins, did not, on the basis that it would prejudice the building of the line. I know that he is sitting in the public gallery, so I thought that I would mention him.
I want to deal with Bristow Muldoon's claim that the station would serve only 10 passengers a day.
Will the member give way?
No—I want to address some pertinent points.
It is a bizarre notion that only 10 passengers a day would use the station. I understand that the promoter got that information by selecting an inconvenient station site three quarters of a mile south of Stow—in the wrong direction—on a narrow back road. That was never divulged and came to light only last year. When challenged by the Waverley Route Trust, Scottish Borders Council did not respond. The figure of 10 passengers provides a misleading indication of usage from Stow.
I will give an example from East Lothian. Drem, on the North Berwick line, with an immediate population one fifth of that of Stow, is used by more than 200 passengers a day. That illustrates the danger of applying a rigid population-based formula. I ask members to take on board the point that my colleague made about uplift in Clovenfords and Lauder.
Does the member appreciate that the station at Drem serves Haddington, which is a substantial town?
I understand that. I am simply making the point that estimates should not be based simply on the population of an area. The day and place that were selected to arrive at the figure for usage must also be taken into account.
We all know about the problem of journey times, which has been compounded by introducing four stops in Midlothian. I have nothing against trains going to Midlothian, but we are trying to build a railway line to serve twa maisters. We want an express line from the Borders to Edinburgh and from Edinburgh to the Borders that will be fast and convenient, and we want a commuter line in Midlothian. The solution is to twin-track the line to Midlothian, to allow an express train to come through from the Borders. That would deal with the impact on the turnaround time of stopping at Stow. The line as envisaged at the moment will serve neither purpose well.
I understand that postponing the construction of the station and building it next to a live line would multiply costs 10 times, although I think that that would never be done.
Christine Grahame is right to say that the projection of 10 passengers a day at Stow came from the promoter's flawed decision to site the station to the south. That decision has been rectified, but the promoter has provided no new figure for usage. It is clear that a station at Stow would take passengers from the surrounding area. It would also take passengers from north Galashiels. No car park is envisaged at the new Galashiels station, which means that motorists in north Galashiels, Clovenfords and Lauder are most likely to drive to Stow to use the station as a park and ride. They could also walk or cycle in from Stow.
Apart from the local market, there is the possibility of exploiting the leisure market from Edinburgh, to encourage tourist use of the line. The station has a strategic importance way beyond the size of Stow. There is an immense outdoor leisure market from Edinburgh to be tapped. At present, the nearest station to Edinburgh where people can get off the train and start walking immediately in the hills and countryside is Dunkeld, which is one hour and 40 minutes from Edinburgh. Stow would be 45 minutes from Edinburgh, even according to the promoter's current rather slow train timetable.
The case for Stow has been well made by the campaigners. The committee spent a great deal of time deliberating on the issue, listened hard to the case that was made and found in favour of a station at Stow. I suggest that we support the amendments in Tricia Marwick's name, on behalf of the committee, to instate a station at Stow.
The committee signalled in its preliminary stage report that in principle it supported having a station at Stow mainly on social grounds, as well as for a number of other reasons. We felt that a Borders railway should have more than two stations in the Borders. We saw the extra station as an opportunity to open up the central Borders, particularly to tourism, as others have mentioned. We did not think it realistic that people living in the central Borders around Lauder, Stow, Fountainhall and Clovenfords would drive south to Galashiels or Tweedbank to get on the train and go back the way they had just come. We felt that the case had been made for a station at Stow by such social inclusion, economic and environmental arguments.
The committee believed that the capital cost of just under £1 million and running costs of £32,000 a year were justified and much cheaper than if a station were built on a live line later on, as Christine Grahame and others mentioned.
I heard the member's argument that it would be good to have a further station in the Borders. Why then not a station at Hawick, from where more people could access the railway?
I am not going to stand here and argue against a station at Hawick, but that is not the proposal in front of us; we are investigating the possibility of putting another station on the line.
We rejected the promoter's patronage figures, which said that 10 people a day would use the station. A consultation undertaken in 2002 by the Transport, Research and Information Network concluded that there was substantial demand for a station in Stow and the surrounding area and quantified it at around 100 passengers a day.
Following our report, we invited the promoter, along with residents and representatives of the local community council and local groups, such as the Waverley Route Trust, to enter into early dialogue about the provision of a station, land take, car parking location and so on. Further consultation was entered into with residents of neighbouring areas as well as Stow, who were asked whether they would use the proposed station. Some 81 per cent of respondents supported the idea of having a station at Stow and 68 per cent said that they would use the station at least once or twice a week to reach work or education.
The new work to include the extra station brought some changes: capital costs were reduced slightly; overall return journey times have pretty much stayed the same because timing improvements have been made elsewhere on the line, about which the promoter told us in January; the station location has been moved from the edge of the village to the centre; and extra car parking has been found to make the station much more attractive to passengers from surrounding areas.
Critics are concerned about extra costs and question the financial viability of the station. Having spoken to the promoter, I believe that it is content to absorb those costs. The Executive is not the only source of funding. As others said, if we were talking only about the simple economics of rail projects, we would be ripping up track and the Parliament and the Executive would not be supporting the expansion of the rail network in Scotland.
I urge members to maximise the patronage of the railway and help this area of the Borders to share the benefits that the reopening of the line will bring by voting against the amendments to remove from the bill the proposed station at Stow.
I thought that Christine Grahame made a bit of a cheap shot by attacking someone who is sitting in the public gallery and therefore cannot answer back. She was also factually wrong on that point. Ian Jenkins is a good friend of mine. Christine Grahame, you're no Ian Jenkins.
The intention behind Tricia Marwick's group 2 amendments is to tidy the bill as amended at committee stage and they can be considered as technical amendments. As they will make the bill work, we very much support them.
We do not support the amendments in the name of Bristow Muldoon, about which I have two comments. After its earlier consideration of the bill, the committee wanted to ensure that a station be instated at Stow on social inclusion grounds. The committee concluded that the whole railway was justified not solely by the potential economic benefits but for reasons of social inclusion, which is a key Scottish Executive policy objective.
I appreciate Bristow Muldoon's point and I remain concerned about the business case implications of a station at Stow. Those implications will therefore be properly and thoroughly tested by Transport Scotland so that a railway that works and presents value for money will be delivered.
I have stated consistently that funding for any additional station on the railway would have to be found from the allocated budget or separately by the promoter. That remains the case and, as I said earlier, the Executive's contribution will be capped at £115 million at 2002 prices. On that basis, I ask Bristow Muldoon to withdraw amendment 19.
First, I must respond to Tricia Marwick's comments. She criticised me for not opposing the Stow station proposal when the committee was debating amendments to the bill. I have to say that, given the minister's adequate statement of his opposition to the proposal on 27 March, I did not think that I had to.
Will the member give way?
No, I want to continue. At that time, the minister was ably supported by his official from Transport Scotland, Damian Sharp. I fully expected the minister to maintain his opposition to the station at the final stage. Disappointingly, he has not done so, which is why I have lodged amendment 19.
My concerns are not simply about costs. I listed a number of reasons why the proposal would be damaging—in fact, my biggest concern is the impact that it will have on the east coast main line, the rail network around Edinburgh Waverley and the network in general. I have not dreamed up those concerns myself: Mr Sharp of Transport Scotland brought them to the attention of the committee, which chose to ignore them. When he gave evidence to the committee, Tavish Scott acknowledged that he had to take into account the impact on the broader rail network, and I wish that the Executive had maintained its opposition to Stow station on those very grounds.
Jeremy Purvis described my proposals as seriously flawed. However, they are precisely the same proposals that his Liberal colleague and Minister for Transport, Tavish Scott, advocated on 27 March. As a result, I am in good company.
In his intervention on Christine Grahame, Mr Home Robertson was right to point out that it was not very useful to compare Stow station with the station at Drem. After all, Drem is close to Haddington, whose population runs into the many thousands.
Does the member not accept the finding that 100 passengers a day would use Stow station, not the 10 that he quoted from the committee report?
Neither the member's colleague Ms Marwick nor the rest of the committee believed that 100 passengers a day would use Stow station. If they do not, why should I?
Everyone is putting their faith in the promoter to deliver the project, but Mr Ballance himself said that the promoter's decision on the station at Stow was flawed. I predict that if Stow station is built, the rail company will manage the risk to the rest of the network by allowing very few trains to stop there. That will not be a victory for the people of Stow or for the MSPs who are promoting the proposal, and I believe that it will bring the decision into disrepute.
I have warned the Parliament against the proposal. However, given that the majority of members support it, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 19.
Amendment 19, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 20 and 21 not moved.
Section 26—Period for compulsory acquisition of land
Group 3 is on time limits. Amendment 1, in the name of Tricia Marwick, is grouped with amendments 2 and 3.
Amendment 1, which seeks to reduce the time period set out in section 26(2) from seven to five years, is consequential to and in line with the amendment that was made to section 26(1) at consideration stage.
I oppose amendments 2 and 3, in the name of the minister, which seek to overturn amendments to sections 26 and 35 that were agreed by the committee at consideration stage. It might assist the chamber if I clarify the purpose of those two sections and why we amended them.
Section 26 confers a power on the authorised undertaker—initially Scottish Borders Council—to acquire land compulsorily. On receipt of that power, it shall kick-start the compulsory acquisition process by serving notices to treat or general vesting declarations on affected landowners stating precisely what land is required.
The consideration stage amendment made by the committee reduced from seven to five years the time period during which those notices must be served. That means not that the land must be acquired within five years—desirable though that might be—but that the process of acquisition must begin within five years. In our view, there will be a question mark over the competent management of the project if within five years the authorised undertaker is not able to firm up precisely the railway's design, identify exactly what land it requires and secure the necessary funding to pay for it.
Members will be well aware of the history of errors made in identifying land and landowners who might be affected by the railway and in failing to notify them. Those errors prolonged the passage of the bill, and such delay cannot go on. Surely, after everything that has happened, the promoter now has all the necessary arrangements in hand to move forward quickly to firm up the identification of land and to negotiate its purchase to allow construction to commence.
Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, would allow the Scottish ministers to extend by order the period for the compulsory acquisition of land from five years to a period not in excess of 10 years. The minister is seeking to insert a provision into the bill that will confer delegated powers on ministers—a provision that will not be scrutinised by the Parliament's Subordinate Legislation Committee within the time available. I note that the minister has chosen not to use the affirmative resolution procedure, which would have required any order to be approved by the Parliament. Where is the evidence for that approach? Why has the minister never made representations to us about those matters? He had nearly three years to do so.
The committee reduced the time period from seven years to five with no scope for extension, but now the minister wants to take it perhaps to 10 years. Why? Had the committee not reduced it to five, would the seven years still have been sufficient? Would the minister have sought to amend the seven years? Why is a period of 10 years needed, how did the Executive reach that figure, and why did it not do so at the outset, when it expected the railway to be built two years earlier than it does now?
I turn to amendment 3. Section 35 confers permitted development powers on the authorised undertaker. It grants planning permission for works subject to the condition that development must be begun—not completed, but begun—within eight years of royal assent. That means that digging excavation trenches might be all the authorised undertaker need do.
Desirable as it is for all concerned that the project is completed by 2011, development is taken to be initiated when operations are begun. The amendment made by the committee at consideration stage gives the authorised undertaker until 2014 to exercise those powers—eight years from now, and three years beyond when the authorised undertaker and the Executive have repeatedly stated that the railway should be constructed and operational. Members may draw comparisons with the time limits provided for in other railway or tram bills, but those are different schemes, with different bills promoted by different promoters, scrutinised by different committees and with different histories and backgrounds.
I reiterate that people need clarity about the project. The minister's amendments do not provide clarity, but extend the suffering and uncertainty. I urge members to support amendment 1 and to reject amendments 2 and 3.
I move amendment 1.
Some of Tricia Marwick's arguments are inherently reasonable, and I shall try to provide her with the explanation for which she asks. The committee amended the bill at consideration stage to reduce the time limit for the power to compulsorily acquire land required for the scheme. The time limit for the exercise of compulsory purchase powers was reduced from seven years to five years after the date of royal assent, as she indicated. The committee also made a consequential amendment to limit the authority to develop land that is given by the bill to development begun within eight years of royal assent. The committee was of the view that five years should be sufficient time to finalise the required land take and to make the necessary arrangements for acquisition, with eight years being sufficient time to begin development. I absolutely agree in principle, but experience shows us that, in practice, those time limits could be too inflexible, because we must take into account the wider implications for the rail industry.
Our priority is to deliver all of our major rail projects on time and within budget, and the Waverley project is no different. Amendment 2 has been lodged to ensure that, for good governance reasons, the time in which to acquire land can be extended by up to five years, although an extension could be much less than that. Amendment 3, in consequence, provides that the authority to develop land that is given by the bill is for 10 years.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I would like to finish this point and to answer Tricia Marwick's central question.
There are factors outwith the scope of individual projects that can delay them and affect the whole of the rail industry. For example, the start of the construction of the Larkhall to Milngavie line came within six weeks of the 10-year period expiring. That happened because of a number of factors that were outwith the direct responsibility of the scheme's promoters, including the restructuring of the rail industry and revised safety standards following the Hatfield train derailment. The second fundamental reason was that a new regime introduced by the rail regulator meant that more time was needed to resolve some issues related to the scheme. The issue is not so much a delay in the context of a particular project but the need to deal with wider rail issues that might have implications for such a project.
Does the minister accept that there has been a fundamental change in policy to drive forward rail projects? That drive did not exist at the beginning of the 10-year period for the Larkhall to Milngavie railway.
I accept that, as Karen Gillon says, aspects of overall rail policy have changed.
We want to take a reasonable step to avoid the potential for the scheme to be at risk over its lifetime because of circumstances that arise that have a direct impact on the project and that could result in time for compulsory purchase and development expiring. We recognise the arguments put forward by the committee; our amendment is a reasonable and practical compromise. Scottish ministers will only extend the time available if it is the right thing to do for a particular project.
Will the minister give way?
No.
I will conclude on this point. The period of extension can be much less than five years. There is a precedent for this solution, as it has already been used in the Edinburgh tram bills. The possibility of an extension of up to five years means that amendment 3 is required to increase the time to develop the land to 10 years to ensure that the bill remains technically correct.
The Executive's amendments 2 and 3 balance the needs of those affected by the railway with the recognition that large-scale construction projects can be subject to delay. In the rail industry in particular, that can be due to factors that are external to the project.
The line will have considerable net benefits for my constituency, but it will also make some people's lives a misery—it has already done so for a number of years.
The amendments are about the length of time between the act coming into force and the compulsory purchase powers and land-take powers ending. Like the bill committee, I have met my constituents who will be subject to the provisions in the bill and I have discussed the matter at length. They have had the scheme hanging over them for six years and it is time that their position was clarified. Discussions and negotiations have begun with the promoter; I hope that they are resolved speedily.
I have been vocal in supporting a resolution for my constituents, especially those who want to enter into a voluntary purchase scheme in advance of the compulsory purchase powers being granted. The process has been too slow; I want the matter to be resolved quickly. The Executive and the promoter must ensure that my constituents' rights are upheld.
A judgment must then be made about the correct timeframe when agreements have not been reached. How long can the matter hang over constituents' lives? The committee wanted a short period. I appreciate its reasons for taking that view, but there is a second aspect: we must also protect the project against people who may seek to delay it and prevaricate. If people who are negotiating with the promoter know that there is a short deadline, having the option to extend the period—only with the consent of Parliament—is a sensible approach. Amendment 2 is preferable to amendment 1.
It is understandable that there should be consistency across schemes when it comes to negotiating with potential tenderers for large-scale construction projects. However, it is irresponsible to say—as some people who have an interest only in raising more concerns among my constituents who have waited for a number of years have said this week—that there should not be clarity for people who want finality in respect of their homes.
Amendment 3 is a technical amendment that extends by two years the maximum time within which the promoter needs to construct the line. To state that that represents an overall delay in the project of up to 10 years is irresponsible. It sends the wrong message from this Parliament and it does not provide clarity and finality—which is exactly what they want and deserve—for my constituents who will be affected.
The delay is, of course, of the Liberal-Labour coalition's own making. I endorse the comments that have been made about the uncertainty hanging over people's lives in relation to whether their house is to be demolished and so on. However, let us consider the matter. The line was at first to be constructed by 2008, but that has now slipped to 2012. The minister's amendment 3 would mean that it would not be constructed until 10 years after the bill received royal assent, which would be 2016. We have had seven years of a Liberal-Labour Government and we have a Liberal Minister for Transport. It does not seem to me that there is any political will to accelerate construction of the Waverley line, but there has certainly been a political deal.
As for the minister's amendments—I am not surprised that Bristow Muldoon did not move his amendments—I smell a compromise agreement, following the minister's long meeting with his colleagues in the Labour group, so that we can kick the Waverley project into the long grass past the coming election and perhaps the next election. However, they will not be in power then. It is long-distance sabotage of the Waverley line. If that is not so, why were the minister's suggestions not made earlier? Why did he leave them so late?
I hear what the minister says about bringing in the project on time and on budget, but he proposes to extend the project to 2018. As for on budget, what are the prospects of railway costs 10 years down the line not being far in excess of what they are now? That gives plenty of scope to the Bristow Muldoons of this world to say, "It doesn't wash its face." I do not think that what the minister suggests is in the interests of the Borders people, but it might be in the interests of the Liberal Democrats saving face again.
I am disappointed that the minister did not take my earlier intervention, because I wanted to make a brief point and have a reply to it. It is the case that the cost of land in the area covered by the railway has gone up by a much greater rate than inflation and that it continues to go up. That in itself puts extra pressure on the business case, which provides good cause for the Parliament to give legislative encouragement to the promoter to go through the process as quickly as it can without further delay. The project has been delayed too much already and we need it to happen as quickly as possible, so I will oppose the minister's amendments 2 and 3 and support the committee's amendment 1.
The Waverley proposal has been nearly six years in the planning, development, refinement and implementation. Importantly, for those six years people have had the possible acquisition of their land or home hanging over them. Under the minister's proposed amendment, it could be at least another 10 years before work on the Waverley project even starts.
The promoter's notification errors along with delays by the Executive in making decisions on the advance and voluntary purchase schemes have created enormous uncertainty and great anxiety among people along the proposed railway route. Put simply, people are asking, "Am I going to lose my home and, if so, when?" The distress that that is causing such people is clear. The committee heard about and saw at first hand the emotion that has been stirred up. People are trapped; they cannot sell up and move even if they want to. That situation is made considerably worse by the Executive dragging its heels on the voluntary and advance purchase schemes.
After what we on the bill committee have read, heard and seen, we believe that it is time for clear decisions on the project's future timetable. Parliament has the opportunity to support the committee in that and in doing what is right for the people affected. Frankly, they have suffered enough. The Executive believes that the project is being competently managed and that suitable risk management strategies have been developed and put in place to monitor what happens and when. That is to ensure that the project comes in on time and on budget. If all that is as robust as the Executive has led us to believe, why does the promoter require compulsory purchase powers that go beyond 2011, by which time the railway should be operating?
Our consideration stage amendments struck an appropriate balance in seeking to alleviate uncertainty and delay while not imposing too great a burden on the promoter. If the timescales that we set cannot be met, it suggests that the papers that the promoter provided us with were incorrect and that the project is not being competently managed. That being the case, the granting of any statutory powers would be premature at this time.
It is unfortunate that Christine Grahame, Ted Brocklebank and Chris Ballance did not listen to the argument, which is that my proposals are about the external factors that can influence any rail scheme in any part of Scotland. This is not just about the Waverley project; it is about the external factors that can influence any such project, whether that is a Hatfield-style situation or a change in a regulatory aspect that affects the whole rail industry. I ask the members to whom I referred to bear that in mind. I seek to achieve consistency in how we move forward all of our capital rail projects and ensure that the measures that I seek are in place.
My only other point is that I seem to remember that Christine Grahame moved an amendment at consideration stage to get rid of the promoter, so it is a bit much to get a lecture from her about delay.
The bill has taken almost three years to go through the scrutiny process, but that was not the fault of the committee. Before that, the Scottish Borders railway feasibility study, which was commissioned by the former Scottish Office, was published in October 2000. The Executive then allocated funding for a further study into the resurrection of the Borders railway. We are talking about a period of almost six years.
Ted Brocklebank referred to the objectors who came before the committee, some of whom were in great distress. For almost six years, they have been wondering whether the railway will affect their homes.
Does the member not accept that, from genesis to construction, building a railway project is hugely complex? If the project is going to be the right project, it has to be done properly. Can the member name one railway project since the Parliament was set up that has come in on time and exactly as it was initially envisaged?
I accept what the member says; these things are hugely complex. However, in fairness to the objectors, we have to give them some sort of timescale. They need clarity on the timescale within which they will know whether or not their properties will be bought. That is the least that we can do for them. Many people who will suffer personally because of the project also support a Borders railway; they know that it is needed.
The committee heard about the state that some of these people are in. In our consideration stage amendments, we struck the appropriate balance between the needs of the objector and the promoter. On behalf of the people who will be directly affected by the railway, I ask the Parliament to reject amendments 2 and 3 in the name of the minister. I ask the Parliament to support amendment 1 in my name, which will allow some clarity to be brought into the process.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
After section 26
Amendment 2 moved—[Tavish Scott].
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Ind)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 61, Against 51, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Section 35—Saving for town and country planning
Amendment 3 moved—[Tavish Scott].
I understand from the clerks that we have a problem with the electronic voting system. I suspend the meeting until the problem is resolved.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Ind)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 61, Against 51, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Section 43—Interpretation
Amendments 6 to 8 moved—[Tricia Marwick]—and agreed to.
Schedule 1
Railway works
Amendments 9 to 11 not moved.
Schedule 6
Acquisition of land, etc outside limits of deviation
Amendment 22 not moved.
Amendment 13 moved—[Tricia Marwick]—and agreed to.
Schedule 7
Land of which temporary possession may be taken
Amendment 14 moved—[Tricia Marwick].
Amendment 14A not moved.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
Amendment 15 moved—[Tricia Marwick]—and agreed to.
Schedule 9
Listed buildings and conservation areas
Group 4 is on buildings authorised to be demolished. Amendment 4, in the name of Tricia Marwick, is the only amendment in the group.
I will be brief. Amendment 4 is a technical amendment that removes from the bill a power for the authorised undertaker to demolish the listed footbridge at the former Eskbank and Dalkeith station without obtaining listed building consent. Following representations by Historic Scotland that the listed structure ought to be retained, the promoter has satisfied itself that the demolition is not necessary for the purposes of the construction of the railway.
Amendment 4 moved—[Tricia Marwick]—and agreed to.
Long Title
Amendment 18 not moved.