Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4451, in the name of Tricia Marwick, on behalf of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, that the Parliament agrees that the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill be passed.
It is an enormous pleasure to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee.
I draw members' attention to a book that was handed to me today, "The Borders' Last Days of Steam". It was written a few years ago and says:
"The run down of the system"—
that is, the railways in our Borders—
"intensified during the Beeching era, culminating in the devastating closure of the Waverley Route on 6 January, 1969. This closure showed only too well the indifference of government, any government, to the future of the country's railways, closure procedures having been initiated by a Conservative administration and implemented by a Labour administration.
Today, politicians promise a railway renaissance and there is even talk of restoring a service between Edinburgh and Galashiels, but the current railway fiasco, along with a lack of any meaningful financing for what remains of our railway network, does little to inspire confidence in the future."
Today, we have a wonderful opportunity to right the wrongs of years ago and to inspire confidence in the writer and others in the Borders that the Parliament will deliver the Waverley line.
The bill has taken 33 months to get to this stage, and I believe that no other bill has taken as long to go through the Parliament. I am not particularly pleased about that record. However, I thank most sincerely all the committee clerks, including Fergus Cochrane, who has been a star throughout the process. The committee travelled to Galashiels and Newtongrange on cold, windy and wet Mondays in February and sat together through evidence-taking meetings. We now know more about noise decibel levels than we perhaps ever wanted to know.
I will speak about some of the main issues that arise from our consideration stage report. We have debated Stow station and the railway's proceeding all the way to Tweedbank, so I will focus on other issues. In his closing speech, Ted Brocklebank will speak about appropriate assessment and respond to points that were raised during the debate.
I pay tribute to the objectors who engaged with us during our consideration of their objections. We sought to create a process and an atmosphere that allowed them to engage and openly question the railway's impact on them. The clarity and professionalism of their written and oral evidence were a credit to them. We realise that some of them, particularly those on whom land take will have an impact, will be disappointed at the conclusions that we reached in our report, but we had to make difficult decisions. I hope that everyone recognises the care and time that we took and the substantial improvements and safeguards that we introduced to the bill, many of which emerged from objectors' concerns. We had to balance the promoter's desire for the scheme and its preferred route against the impact on individuals. Our overall conclusion is that an appropriate balance has been struck between the rights of those individuals who will be adversely affected by the railway and the project's wider community benefits.
In addressing some of the objectors' most common concerns, we secured an assurance from the promoter that minimal land will be acquired—it will be restricted to the land that is required for the purposes of the railway. We have amended the bill to remove land plots that are no longer required.
We have further amended the bill to ensure that the environmental impact of the railway is no worse than the residual impacts that were identified in the various environmental documents and to ensure that pledges that the promoter made on the provision of environmental mitigation are delivered—for example, the promoter undertook to install a noise barrier at a property.
We have also amended the bill to ensure that the code of construction practice, which sets out how contractors will mitigate impacts during the construction phase of the railway, and the noise and vibration policy, which sets the threshold levels above which noise and vibration mitigation will be provided during the railway's operation, are legally enforced. If the promoter breaches the requirements of those documents, the local planning authority will have the power to enforce compliance to the extent that it could stop the project.
In our report, we were critical of the Scottish Executive over its lack of a decision on whether a voluntary purchase scheme would be supported and over the unacceptable time that it took to make a decision on whether it would support an advance purchase scheme. Objectors contacted the committee to describe the impact that the delay was having on them, yet that appears to have had little effect on the Executive in progressing the matter with due urgency. However, a positive decision has now been made on an APS, and I understand that discussions are now under way with affected property owners, albeit very late in the day. I look forward to hearing what the Minister for Transport has to say to those people—some of whom are in the gallery—in his speech.
On voluntary purchase, in our view, the Executive has paid little regard to people whose property could be bought because of the severe adverse impact of the railway on them. I wrote to the minister on 5 June, asking for a decision. I have received no reply whatever to that letter. I will give way to the Minister for Transport now if he is willing to give a straight yes or no answer on whether there will be a voluntary purchase scheme.
I am happy to take this opportunity to say that there will be a voluntary purchase scheme. We have to sort out the details, but I will deal with that in my speech.
I am grateful to the minister for his assurance. I ask him to move the matter on as quickly as possible.
Before it takes a decision on whether to pass the bill, I should inform the Parliament that, in accordance with the habitats directive, the Parliament must satisfy itself that the works proposed in the bill will not adversely affect the integrity of the River Tweed special area of conservation. Ted Brocklebank will elaborate on the background to that in his speech, but I advise the Parliament that the committee has explored the matter in some detail and has reported to the Parliament accordingly. On the basis of the evidence provided and, in particular, of the recommendations of Scottish Natural Heritage, our conclusion is that sufficient measures are in place to deliver the mitigation required, thereby ensuring that the works that the bill proposes will not adversely affect the integrity of the River Tweed SAC.
This is an historic day. The Waverley line, which was butchered by the Beeching cuts, will at least be partly restored. This is a good day for the Parliament and a good day for the Borders. Let us make the vote at 5 o'clock today unanimous.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill be passed.
We are indebted to the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee—to Tricia Marwick, its convener, and to Christine May, Gordon Jackson, Margaret Smith and Ted Brocklebank—for going through what I think Ted Brocklebank said was a 4ft-high pile of evidence, procedural information and proceedings. I pay tribute to all the committee's members for their work, to those people who supported them in carrying it out and to the promoter, advisers and everyone else who was associated with the delivery of this part of the project. It is only the first stage in ensuring that we, the Parliament, deliver the Borders railway project.
Our commitment to the project is £115 million at 2002 prices, and the railway will be delivered by the end of 2011. The Parliament is aware of the importance that I attach to all transport projects being delivered on time, on budget and in a way that represents value for money. The rail link to the Borders is no different in that respect.
In March 2005, we set out four criteria to be attached to the release of Government funding for the project. The first was approval of the bill by the committee and, in due course, by the Parliament. Secondly, the assumptions underlying the business case must hold, which includes the achievement of patronage levels, the containment of costs, the active management of risks and the achievement of the housing growth projections that are achievable and are based on identified market demand. Thirdly, a clear, comprehensive risk management strategy must be delivered. Fourthly, the railway must be integrated with local bus services to maximise its impact in the Borders and Midlothian.
Those criteria have not changed. We must be satisfied on all counts, and 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 our funds—it is that simple.
An appropriate review mechanism has been put in place for all the major projects, including the Borders railway. A quarterly review of projects has been established; each project is subject to a Scottish Executive gateway review, which examines projects at critical stages in their lifecycle to provide independent assurance that they can progress successfully to their next stage; and the business case for each project is re-examined each time there is a need for a commitment to significant expenditure. Parliament can be confident that public investment will be safeguarded by close monitoring of the project to ensure that value for money is maintained.
I take the committee's point about voluntary purchase, but I am sure that it appreciates that we had to consider the wider implications on our capital rail investment programme. Many people are content to live close to railways and major infrastructure is constructed successfully without voluntary purchase schemes. However, I agree in principle that voluntary purchase should be available, because it offers a fair way of addressing exceptional situations in which properties are affected by the construction or operation of railways.
Following our investigations into the issues involved, we have found that funding voluntary purchase schemes for railway infrastructure requires legislative change. In our proposed public transport and works bill, which we will introduce to Parliament shortly, we intend to make provision that will enable Transport Scotland to fund voluntary purchase schemes for major rail infrastructure projects, should that be required.
We must keep the aims of the bill in our sights.
I welcome what the minister said about the voluntary purchase scheme, but will it apply retrospectively to the individuals who are affected by the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill?
I am happy to get back to the committee on any points to do with retrospection. It is certainly the intention to ensure that any live situation in relation to the scheme is dealt with actively.
The future prosperity and growth of the Midlothian and Borders economies are closely tied with those of Edinburgh. We can choose to strengthen those links through this bill. The railway will provide for greater opportunities and access by increasing the travel choices available. It will offer a sustainable and genuine alternative to car travel for commuters from both Midlothian and the Borders. It will bring faster journeys to and from the capital, by bypassing the difficulty of travelling the A7 and the congestion and parking problems in Edinburgh.
The bill will make a real difference to the people of Edinburgh, Midlothian and the Borders. It is now time to get going with building one of our key transport commitments. I ask the Parliament to support the motion.
I share the minister's view: I am keen to get going and I hope that we do so. I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned since the closure of the line almost 40 years ago and who have never given up hope that they will have their railway link restored. I mention in particular Madge Elliot, who I know will keep campaigning because she wants the line to go to Hawick and beyond. She is a feisty woman who is not to be trifled with.
We got here because of people; because 20,000 petitioners came to the Parliament in 1999 and because the Public Petitions Committee went to Galashiels and had 250 people at the meeting make the case to include them in rail links throughout Scotland. From there, because the petition was seen to be all-embracing, it went to four committees of the Parliament—the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee; the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee; the Transport and the Environment Committee; and the Rural Affairs Committee. The Rural Affairs Committee lodged the motion that we debated when the Parliament sat in Glasgow on 1 June 2000, when we voted unanimously for restoration of the line all the way from Edinburgh to Carlisle, which I hope will be realised one day.
The journey has been arduous and not always easy. The battle for a station at Stow kept having to be won, mainly by the people of Stow. At pretty well the last minute, they convinced the committee of the importance of including a station.
There has been a long battle to have the tourism aspects of the railway considered. Parliamentary questions going back to 2000 asked for an extension of the Scott Wilson report to consider tourism aspects. The transport minister at that time, Sarah Boyack, said that the issue was addressed fully in the feasibility study and that the Executive was not interested in doing more. That changed, but it took time. I asked 32 parliamentary questions to push for the railway line. The Scottish National Party has shown firm commitment to the line. I set up the cross-party group on Borders rail, because the first thing that I realised down in the Borders in 1992 was how essential the line was for the economy and social inclusion of the Borderers.
The Borders has been left by the wayside. A witness told the committee:
"We are in great danger of being seen as stuck down at the bottom of Scotland, and we want to be part of a whole Scotland. We have a new Parliament and we want to be part of the new Scotland, but unless we have proper transport links, we cannot be."—[Official Report, Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, 28 February 2005; c 92.]
When the line was closed, the Borders area was promised better roadways. However, except for a few improvements on the A68 and even fewer on the A7, that did not happen. Anyone who drives on those roads regularly knows the disadvantages that have been caused to the economy and to simple social movement in the Borders. With the possibility of an Edinburgh airport rail link, it is even more important that the Borders be connected to Edinburgh by rail.
Over the years, the 2,000 jobs that have been lost in textile manufacturing have not been replaced and the Borders has been left with the lowest weekly income in Scotland. That should change with the coming of the railway line.
I want the minister to start building the line as soon as possible—that is, if the minister is still in the job at that point; if he is not, we will be quite happy to do it and, to show our commitment, we will start the track at Tweedbank.
Now that the battle dust has settled, I would be delighted to share a glass of wine with the minister to cheer the bill on its way.
I thank the committee for all the work that it has done on this piece of legislation, which concerns a major proposal that is important to the people of the Borders. It is worth reiterating that the fact that the committee has ensured that the line will continue to Tweedbank rather than stopping at Gorebrige has reassured some of the sceptics in the Borders who feared that we were being set up for a Midlothian railway. It is also pleasing to see the progress that has been made on Stow station.
It is worth reminding ourselves about the broader benefits of the project. All members will have noticed the increasing vocality—if that is the right word to use—of the opponents of the project. We should remind ourselves of the importance of joining up the Borders to the Edinburgh economy. Prosperity levels have risen greatly in that city and there is potential for prosperity levels in the Borders to rise as well. We should also remind ourselves of what this railway can do in delivering to people in the Borders opportunities that have been denied to them for years.
The objectors make a number of points. All members will have received briefings containing some of them. One of the primary criticisms is that the railway will transform the Borders by covering the area with housing. However, looking across the area that the railway is likely to serve and the wider Borders area, I have to say that that housing is coming anyway; it is part of a change that will continue regardless of the progress of the railway. The council's figure of about 1,100 additional houses that depend on the railway shows starkly the true extent to which the railway as opposed to broader factors is driving housing. It is a well-accepted fact that, these days, people are more willing to commute further than people a generation ago would have been.
Christine Grahame talked about the wage levels in the Borders. For somewhere that is close to Edinburgh, which is an area of great prosperity, it is ridiculous that the wage levels in the Borders are as low as they are. To the extent that this project can help to redress that balance, it is to be welcomed.
I note the comments that the minister made about other projects and I was glad that he talked about the need to have a degree of consistency between projects, as that is important. It would be easy to sideline this line by treating it as a local project. However, it is a national project that is important to the Scottish rail infrastructure. I think that the cost of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line project increased by about four times—the minister will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the initial figure was about £14 million and it seems to have gone up to about £60 million. The fear must be that the line will not be built if the costs increase, despite the fact that the bill will be passed today. It is important that we are consistent with what has happened before. If the costs increase—it would be good if they did not—it is incumbent on the Executive, regardless of the party that is in power, to consider carefully the possibility of giving the line additional support. It would be unacceptable if the Parliament passed the bill in good faith only to see the project die due to a lack of funding.
The bill is important for the people of the Borders. It will not address all the problems with communications in the area and it will not give endless opportunities to the people there, but it is important and it has a major part to play. I sincerely hope that it will receive the support of all members and all parties.
As others have done during the proceedings, I assure the Parliament that I have no wish to wreck the bill. Rail travel is to be encouraged and the Waverley rail link will allow many people to move between Edinburgh and Midlothian—which will please my colleague Rhona Brankin—and the Borders by train. Jeremy Purvis mentioned my support for the whole line and for a station at Stow and I am happy to reconfirm that support. I will vote for the bill at decision time this afternoon. The line was a manifesto commitment of a number of parties and, given what has been said, I imagine that it will be in the Scottish National Party's manifesto next year.
I have also invested some three years of my parliamentary life in the project. I want to see it finished and I am grateful to the clerks, my fellow committee members and those who gave evidence to us.
It is always difficult to admit to doubts about the validity of a view that one voted for just a few weeks ago, particularly in politics where, in some sectors, the admission that one might have been wrong is regarded as a sign of weakness. However, I have to say that I would prefer to face that accusation than to be asked at a later date why I did not raise doubts. When I and my committee colleagues supported the amendment to compel the promoter to build the whole project, we were convinced that that would strengthen the case for its completion. However, doubts began to be raised with me about whether the provision could wreck the railway rather than ensure that it is completed in its entirety, with the line running all the way to Tweedbank and a station at Stow. I felt that it was right to raise concerns that the committee might have put the project in danger. I believed that there was a 50:50 chance that the provision could wreck the project.
In the interest of exploring the extent to which those fears were founded and the extent to which other members and ministers thought that that was or was not the case, and most of all in the interest of having the Parliament pass legislation after a full debate on all the issues, even the last minute ones, I believe that it was right to debate the amendment to remove the compulsion to build the whole project. I am pleased that the minister was able to give reassurances. The matter has not been easy and it has probably made me the least popular person in the Parliament this week, not least with my committee colleagues. I know that many people, including the minister, did not share my concerns. Nevertheless, I am glad that I raised them, glad that we had the debate and glad that, when the Parliament passes the bill, as I know it will, it will do so having discussed all the concerns.
I welcome the minister's assurance that we are not signing a blank cheque. I was pleased to hear what he said because it is important that we are financially responsible when we pass legislation. Yes, the Parliament is about social regeneration and about people, but it is also about responsible government. I hope that the promoter will get on with the job as soon as it gets permission to do so. I hope that it will build the whole project, including a station at Stow; that it will put in place the improved planning processes that it assured us it would introduce to deliver the housing that is required to support both the patronage and the costs; and that it will begin to build bridges with those individuals who came to see us in a state of nervous exhaustion because of the stress.
I am happy to support the bill. I hope to travel on the first train to go all the way from Edinburgh to Tweedbank.
We move to the open debate. Because Alasdair Morgan has kindly said that he will forgo winding up, I can call two back benchers. Rosemary Byrne, followed by Jeremy Purvis, will have a tight two minutes each.
I thank the committee and the campaigners for the work that they have done on the bill, which is welcome. There are several arguments for restoring the line. Taken as a whole, they provide a compelling reason why the project must be fully supported.
The Waverley line will increase access to jobs throughout Edinburgh, Midlothian and the Borders. The cash injection into the three regions in the next 30 years could rise to as much as £300 million—that is based on the building of additional new housing as a direct consequence of the line. It is estimated that 550 sustainable full-time jobs should be generated within five years of completion of the line. A further 360 full-time jobs for up to five years have been linked to the construction of houses that are directly attributable to the new rail line.
The railway will encourage further economic development and increase business development opportunities, inward investment and public sector relocation. The new line will serve a population base of close to 200,000 people in Midlothian and the Borders who currently have no direct access to a railway line. It is ridiculous that those communities have been denied a rail link for so long.
The railway will reduce the reliance on cars, which will in turn help to reduce congestion and accidents on the A7 and the A68. At present, approximately 22,000 people commute to Edinburgh by car from Midlothian and the Borders. The railway will also help to reduce carbon emissions, so it is an excellent environmental move to decide to develop the line.
It is a pity that a freight line has not been offered, which could also help the environment. We hope that that might be considered in the future. That is a missed opportunity. A freight line would allow raw materials to be brought into and finished products to be taken out of the area; it would also reduce carbon emissions and take traffic off the roads, which would create safer environments for people to live in.
The environmental benefits are great. More than 750,000 car journeys will be cut per year.
You should finish now, Ms Byrne.
I welcome the bill and I am sorry that I did not have more time to say more about it.
I call Jeremy Purvis, who will have two minutes, to be followed by Chris Ballance, who will have about a minute.
When Isobel Brown worked as a young civil servant in Whitehall in the early 1960s, she sat in the strangers gallery of the House of Commons and listened to the Beeching debates. By the end of that decade, hundreds of stations had closed, thousands of miles of track had been lifted and the Borders rail line had ended. Isobel is in the public gallery today to listen to our debate in our new Parliament, which will redress the error of 37 years ago. Since then, the Borders has experienced relative economic decline and depopulation.
This week's announcements about new retail in Galashiels coincide with the biggest changes to the town in a generation, which herald a change to the economy of the area that I represent. However, we still have low wages in some parts of the economy and the highest level of out-migration of young people to other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom. We do not have the same level of transport connections as others in Scotland have, but we should have.
Many clarion calls have been made. People said that the railway would never happen. It was said that the Executive would never fund the feasibility study; it did. It was said that the business case could never be put together; it was. It was said that the bill would never be presented to Parliament; it was. It was said that the Executive would never commit its share of funding; it did. It was said that the bill would never go through the Parliament; this afternoon, it will.
Campaigners—I am one as a life member of the Campaign for Borders Rail—are here today, as are some objectors, my predecessor and committed public officials and servants such as David Parker, who is the leader of Scottish Borders Council, and Bruce Rutherford. They have worked hard to bring the bill about. Isobel Brown and others are seeing the Parliament do what it should do: pass good laws for all parts of Scotland. We will correct an error that the Westminster Parliament would never have corrected itself.
I can give Chris Ballance a minute and a half as a result of Mr Purvis's speech.
Thank you, Presiding Officer—I will try to make three points quickly. I support and welcome the bill. Scottish Borders is one of the biggest regions in western Europe with no access to rail. The South of Scotland, which I represent, has 10,000 square miles but just seven stations, whereas Highland region has 58 stations.
Secondly, I call on the promoter, Scottish Borders Council, to heed the committee's comments in paragraph 123 of its preliminary stage report and to engage properly and thoroughly with the Waverley Route Trust to ensure that the railway is built to the best specifications and has flexible timetabling.
My third point in this very brief speech is that the line will be only a shadow of a real Borders railway. Such a railway would go to the central Borders and put Hawick on the map. Hawick is the largest town in the Scottish Borders, but its population has fallen since the closure of the railway. As the most excluded town in the Borders, Hawick has the highest unemployment and the lowest wages. It is almost 50 miles from the nearest rail station and is the largest town in Scotland to be so excluded from the rail network. That part of the Borders most needs the economic uplift that a railway would provide.
I will vote to support the bill, but the campaign for a Borders rail to Hawick and beyond starts at decision time tonight.
We move to winding-up speeches.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will the Presiding Officers consider the timing available for such final stage debates? I am probably the only member who will vote against the bill, but I have not been allowed to say why. I was also refused the chance to speak against a previous bill. Given that we have heard that the committee has had three years to consider the bill but we are now reduced to allowing back benchers only two minutes or one and a half minutes, this is a travesty of a debate. The public should expect better from us. We need more time for such debates in which matters of principle are at stake.
That is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau in the first instance and for the member's business manager. However, the matter is under review and we are discussing it.
As Tricia Marwick said at the start of her speech, today is about railway renaissance but it is also about ensuring that fairness is manifest across society in Scotland. We need to use the railways for growth now that people are obviously willing to travel on the railways again. That is a great movement, which is in part due to our previous Government in Westminster, but it is nice to see that the Executive hopes to follow on from there.
On the other points that have been made, I understand the minister's caution as it is right that there should be thorough scrutiny of major projects. However, as well as looking at the pounds, shillings and pence and carrying out the necessary accountancy exercises, we need to look at the opportunities. Edinburgh and the Lothians need skilled people to travel into the area for work.
Others have mentioned migration from the Borders. Many years ago on my father's side, my family migrated from the Borders for the same reasons of lack of opportunity and lack of access.
The Conservatives very much support the principle of the railway. We supported it in our most recent manifesto and, as far as I am aware, we do not intend to withdraw that support. We will vote for the bill this evening. However, I was a little disappointed by some of the brinkmanship that was evident at the final stage. That detracted from the seriousness with which we should treat what is, as my colleague Derek Brownlee rightly said, a national project.
The line presents an opportunity for development, but such opportunities must be tempered with the needs of the individual. That issue was mentioned by the committee convener, who talked about the need to balance the community good against the interests of the individual.
I look forward to hearing the minister give further details, when the time comes, on the advance and voluntary schemes. When he does that, I hope that he will consider whether the compensation schemes for compulsory and voluntary purchase need to be balanced north and south of the border.
That said, we believe that the line has a good business case. We hope that the business case will be proved. We hope that the people of the Borders will benefit from this fabulous project.
As Alasdair Morgan has kindly decided not to wind up, I can now call the minister to respond to the debate.
I have some sympathy with Brian Monteith—although, as he has now left the chamber, my sympathy is reduced a little bit—but my colleague Margaret Curran tells me that the matters to which he referred are under active consideration across all parties. I hope that we can reach an accommodation that will help those who wish to do so to speak against or for bills that deal with such projects.
As members have said, we want to build the entire line. The Executive absolutely agrees with that. We are committed to building the entire line. We are committed to the Borders railway project.
Does the minister agree that this is indeed a proud day when we will right a wrong that was done 37 years ago? Will he further congratulate the Campaign for Borders Rail and all those associated with bringing the project to the fore, including the committee? Does he agree that the line will not only contribute to providing Borderers with a sustainable and more environmentally friendly form of transport but reduce congestion in Edinburgh and, therefore, benefit the capital city as well?
I am happy to associate myself with Euan Robson's remarks concerning all those who have played a role in the project. He and a number of other members have made a significant point about the wider environmental benefits that will come from providing good public transport options and enabling people to leave their cars at stations, so that they can use the new rail line when it is constructed.
I will comment on a couple of points that were made in the debate. I assure David Davidson that I have no doubt the transport and works bill, when it comes before the Parliament, will make provision for adequate scrutiny of the issues that he has raised in relation to voluntary purchase. We have concluded that that is the best mechanism for advancing the matter.
I agree with a number of members that the Borders and Midlothian need to be connected not just to Edinburgh but to the entire Scottish rail network. A key component of the business case is to ensure that the system works and is successful and that there is interaction between the line and the rest of the network.
Derek Brownlee made the fair point that the growth in housing is happening now. I accept that, based only on my much more limited observations. I take Christine May's point about the robustness of the financial case and the need to ensure that we work constantly on that, using the mechanisms that are appropriate for all our capital transport projects.
I agree with a variety of members who made the point this afternoon that this is a national project that works and has seamless connections with the rail network. It is important for us to get on with the work and to deliver the project now. I will be happy to share a congratulatory glass of wine with members—including, of course, Christine Grahame—after the debate.
After almost three years, I am sure that my colleagues on the committee will agree when I say that consideration of the bill has at times been an arduous task. Frankly, I will not miss it greatly, especially the 5 am starts on dreich January Monday mornings in order to get from north-east Fife to places such as Galashiels and Newtongrange. I know where Bob Geldof was coming from when he wrote "I don't like Mondays".
I begin by thanking the committee convener, the clerks and all the team for their work and help over the period. As Tricia Marwick indicated, I would like to say something about appropriate assessment. In her opening speech on behalf of the committee, Tricia mentioned the improvements that the committee made to the code of construction practice, which we ensured was amended to reflect many of the concerns that were expressed to us by objectors about the daily impact on them of the railway's construction. It also reflects the necessary changes and enhancements that were suggested by Scottish Natural Heritage and which the committee required with respect to its recommendations on the appropriate assessment of the River Tweed special area of conservation. Those changes were fundamental to our being able to recommend that the Parliament today should agree that the construction of the railway will have no adverse impact on the integrity of the site.
The code is of particular interest to many people who will be directly affected by the railway's construction. For example, it sets out the measures that contractors will be required to take to mitigate the impact of construction noise, vibration and pollution and to ensure access to and from properties. A number of objectors were somewhat cynical about promises given by the promoter in its code of construction practice and noise and vibration policy. In line with our commitments in our consideration stage report, we amended the bill to give the codes enforceability. That means that, where there is a failure to comply with the documents, the local authority will be able to enforce compliance, just as it can enforce any planning condition. The report by Scottish Natural Heritage on the matter was clear: it is likely that the construction of the railway as originally set out in the bill would have adversely affected the integrity of the River Tweed SAC. However, as a result of our amendments to the bill and the code of construction practice, Parliament can conclude when it decides whether to agree to the motion that construction will not adversely affect the SAC's integrity.
I would like to say a few words about communication. The committee again emphasises that, in taking forward the project, the promoter must display greater care and sensitivity in its dealings with people who are affected by the railway, especially those who are faced with the compulsory acquisition of their land or home. The promoter has a lot of work to do to take local communities with it as the project progresses towards a successful outcome. Only by doing that will it maximise the railway's benefits to all. Disfranchising local people will damage the railway's short and long-term prospects.
The process has been a learning curve for me and other committee members. We delved into many interesting issues, such as the effect of planting on reducing noise levels, the provision of translucent noise barriers and the maximum height of earth bunds. Literally, we dealt with bricks-and-mortar issues. The committee has considered the issues thoroughly and produced a robust and much-improved bill, which, I hope, now gives a clear picture of the way forward.
I support the motions in Tricia Marwick's name. I also back Christine May's suggestion that, as some kind of a reward, those who sat on the committee, at least those who are still extant at the time, might be invited on the first journey on the railway.