Rail Services (Berwickshire and East Lothian)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01799, in the name of John Lamont, on local rail services to Berwickshire and East Lothian. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament commends the Rail Action Group, East of Scotland and what it considers to be its hard-working volunteers on campaigning for many years for improved rail services for Berwickshire and East Lothian; understands that there is strong cross-party support for the reintroduction of local services from Edinburgh to Berwick-upon-Tweed and the reopening of stations at Reston and East Linton; notes the September 2011 feasibility study commissioned by Transport Scotland, which concluded that there is a positive economic case for local services and the reopening of the proposed stations; notes that the study also highlighted the latest East Coast Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy, which said that there is no capacity constraint to reinstating local services on the existing line; understands that there is strong support from residents in all of the communities that would benefit from the reintroduction of local rail services and the improved access that this would confer on employment, education and leisure opportunities; welcomes the support and collaborative, proactive approach from East Lothian Council, Scottish Borders Council and partners SEStran to move this project to the next stage in completing the final elements of the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance Part (STAG) 2 appraisal, and would welcome consideration of such a service should the STAG appraisal conclude that this would have positive economic, regeneration and environmental impacts for East Lothian and Berwickshire.
17:38
The purpose of the debate is to highlight the case for the reintroduction of local rail services between Edinburgh and Berwick-upon-Tweed, but more particularly for the reopening of Reston and East Linton stations for local train services.
Before I get to the substance of the debate, I thank those members on all sides of the chamber and from all political parties who have supported my motion to allow the debate to take place. I know that a number of MSPs hope to speak in the debate, and I look forward to hearing their contributions.
I put on record my admiration for the rail action group east of Scotland—or RAGES as it is known locally—for its tremendous work and relentless campaigning to bring rail services back to Berwickshire and East Linton. Particular recognition should be given to its chairman Tom Thorburn, vice-chairman Barrie Forrest and secretary Russell Darling. I doubt that the campaign would have had the impact that it has had were it not for their hard work, which has been supported by the RAGES committee.
That work has also been supported by the wider community, in the form of Coldingham community council, Eyemouth town council, Reston community council and Joyce McLean from Reston. I do not have time to name everyone who is involved, but I am delighted that many of them have been able to join us this evening in the public gallery.
My motion refers to the need for rail services for Reston and East Linton. However, for the purposes of the debate, I will focus on the case for Reston, as it is in my constituency. I am sure that lain Gray and others will focus on the case for East Linton.
The eastern Borders and Berwickshire area does not have good transport links and I believe that that is now having a serious impact on the economic viability of the area. Indeed, a recent study highlighted particular concerns around Eyemouth and suggested that it faces the danger of rural marginalisation.
It is estimated that a train station at Reston could serve a population of approximately 10,000 residents in the eastern Borders, giving those residents easy access to the economic powerhouses of Edinburgh and Newcastle. Young people would be able to stay in the area while commuting to access further education and high- quality, skilled jobs. By offering improved public transport links, those communities would also be able to attract new families who would look to take advantage of the Borders’ quality of life. Crucially, retaining people and attracting new residents would have a knock-on effect on the overall viability of Reston, Eyemouth and other Berwickshire communities. There would be more families to use local schools, spend money in local shops and more generally support the life—the existence—of the local community. New businesses would be attracted to the area and there would undoubtedly be huge potential for the untapped local tourism market, not just in Berwickshire but across the Borders, to be exploited.
We all know that we live in tough economic times and that public money must be spent wisely to ensure good value and maximum public benefit. However, there is no doubt in my mind that extending local train services to Berwickshire and Berwick-upon-Tweed from Edinburgh would be money well spent. I hope that that was evident to the Minister for Housing and Transport during his recent visit to East Lothian and Berwickshire.
In the limited time available to me I would like to make the following points to the minister. Those who have been involved in the campaign are frustrated by the fact that it will now be necessary to pursue the Scottish transport appraisal guidance 2 appraisal process. The minister’s predecessor—with whom we had positive engagement and who visited Reston and East Linton—made it clear to me, lain Gray, and the other campaigners that a STAG 2 appraisal would not be necessary and that, instead, Transport Scotland would pursue an alternative study into the viability of reintroducing local train services. Frankly, there is no point trying to work out the rights or wrongs of the current position or the reasons for it; I mention the issue only to record officially the frustration that was felt by the campaigners when they were told that much of the work would have to be repeated, and that that would have to be done in a very short timescale.
To that end, I would be grateful if the minister could give two commitments when he winds up the debate. First, I would like the Scottish Government to give a commitment that it will ensure that Transport Scotland meets the costs of the STAG 2 process. Secondly, I would like a commitment to be made that, within the new rail franchise agreement, the possibility of local rail services returning to Reston and East Linton will be kept open.
I also say to the minister that it is clear that, unless the project has the political backing of the Scottish National Party Government, it is going nowhere. If the minister believes that the money cannot be found or that the business case cannot be made, I urge him to come clean and say so. Frankly, it is better that the campaigners know where they stand rather than be given false hope.
The Scottish Government should not fall into the trap of thinking that the Borders railway will be the answer to all the public transport problems in the Borders. I was particularly concerned when the Minister for Housing and Transport stated recently in this Parliament that the Borders railway was the SNP’s number 1 priority for improving public transport in the Borders. The reality is that the Borders railway will go to Galashiels. It will arguably improve public transport to residents living in and around the central Borders, but it will do nothing to assist communities further afield, such as those in Berwickshire. I hope that the SNP Government understands that every resident in the Borders should be able to access good-quality public transport, not just those living in and around Galashiels. I hope that the minister will also acknowledge that the delivery of local train services to the eastern Borders and East Linton could be achieved at a fraction of the cost of the Borders railway.
I will finish where I started. I again thank colleagues for supporting my motion and those who will speak in the debate. The motion and the campaign have strong cross-party support. We now need the political muscle of the Scottish Government to make the project happen.
17:45
As one of the initial signatories to John Lamont’s motion, I congratulate him on securing the debate. The motion itself reflects what is a powerful cross-party, cross-community and cross-council campaign in the south-east of Scotland. I have supported the introduction of a local rail service between Edinburgh and Dunbar and on to Berwick for a number of years, and I echo John Lamont’s commendation of the work of RAGES. In fact, I should probably declare an interest as a paid-up member of the group.
Although Dunbar in my constituency is served primarily by a mixture of cross-country and east coast long-distance trains, the truth is that it is an afterthought in those timetables. There are gaps of up to an hour and a half between trains during the day and of more than two hours at some points in the evening. Even worse, my constituents in East Linton, where the station closed in 1964, have to watch trains pass through their village all day without stopping. The recent addition of a few ScotRail services to Dunbar is a welcome, if slight, improvement, but the service remains inadequate to the town’s needs and does nothing to address the demand for train services from East Linton.
Given that East Lothian’s population is projected to rise by 33 per cent by 2035—the biggest projected increase in any part of Scotland—and that in Dunbar itself planning permission has already been granted for 500 houses that we expect to be built in the near future, it is clear that there is huge potential for rail services to grow in this part of Scotland. The proposed service would link young people directly to Queen Margaret University and job opportunities in Edinburgh; after all, we must bear in mind that this is the part of Scotland where youth unemployment has risen fastest in the past two years. It would also get commuters out of their cars, cut carbon emissions and thereby contribute to the Scottish Government’s emissions reduction efforts in the transport sector.
Over the years, successive transport ministers of all political parties—including, I fear, me—have met the RAGES campaign with warm words but lots of hurdles. However, the group’s persistence has overcome those hurdles one by one. For example, some years ago, a STAG appraisal produced a positive business case; East Lothian Council has safeguarded land and committed funding for a station at East Linton; and ScotRail has begun to train drivers to go beyond Drem on the east coast main line. Most recently, the MVA Consultancy feasibility study showed that a station at East Linton improves the benefit-cost ratio for the Edinburgh to Dunbar service and finally laid to rest the argument that a Dunbar local service would impact on the mainline timetable.
As Mr Lamont has explained, a multimodal STAG 2 study has now been demanded. We will also get over that hurdle, because the journey on the so-called express bus from Dunbar to Edinburgh takes around an hour longer than the train; in any case, its frequency has just been halved. Constituents in East Linton are often left standing by rush-hour buses that are already full before they get to the village.
Like Mr Lamont, I was very pleased that the transport minister took the time last month to visit the site of the old East Linton station. However, I worry about the fact that, on that visit, he emphasised that, at closer to £2.5 million per annum rather than £1 million, the operating subsidy required would be at the upper end of projections. We know that other new stations such as Laurencekirk and new services such as those to Bathgate and between Stirling and Alloa have attracted passenger numbers way beyond expectations, and the MVA study assumes that there will be new rolling stock, which I think would not be necessary. We have every reason to believe that the subsidy required for the service will be less than predicted; in any case, it would be marginal in the overall ScotRail budget.
South-east Scotland is looking only for its fair share of rail services. The time has come for a transport minister to say yes, not maybe. That challenge now falls to Mr Brown and I hope that he will rise to it this evening.
17:50
I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a member of rail action group east of Scotland—I welcome fellow members to the gallery and associate myself with John Lamont and Iain Gray’s comments on their hard work on behalf of the project.
I support the motion and I am grateful to John Lamont for securing the debate on behalf of the four MSPs who have been closely involved with the issue. I am also grateful to him for accepting my amendments to his draft motion. I thank the minister for coming to both station sites and to Eyemouth, at my invitation, and for the two ministerial meetings that he has had. I know that he has a keen interest in the project.
The minister faces a 32 per cent capital funding cut over the spending review period. Funding is scarce and it behoves us all to demonstrate the value of investment, as John Lamont said. There is also an equity issue, given that since Reston station closed the region has helped to subsidise rail services elsewhere in Scotland while receiving nothing in return. As I said in my submission to the “Rail 2014” consultation, subsidy should be allocated to ensure that Government objectives for cohesion and solidarity, which are the characteristics of growth that we seek in Scotland, are delivered.
Glasgow City Council and Highland Council each have 58 or more stations in their areas and receive considerable subsidy. I am not suggesting that those areas’ subsidy be reduced, but the case for levelling up areas such as my area needs to be recognised.
Eyemouth and the surrounding district are in great need of economic diversification and regeneration. John Lamont mentioned the Scottish Agricultural College study, which noted that of the 44 towns that were considered, Eyemouth was one of those most exposed to the impact of the cuts that arise from UK spending cuts. According to analysis by Scottish Borders Council, the area has one of the oldest age profiles in Scotland. The retention of young people in the area is a key problem. There are virtually no private sector graduate jobs and precious few skilled or technical posts in the area. Job density—if I may use a technical term—is low and the employment rate has traditionally been significantly lower than the Borders and British averages.
Further education participation is particularly low. The overall student participation rate for FE in east Berwickshire is below 50 per cent of the Scottish average; it is also below East Lothian and Scottish Borders comparators. The overall participation rate for all levels of post-school education is between 50 and 70 per cent of the average. Access to university and college courses in Edinburgh would help enormously.
Social housing is badly needed in the area. Berwickshire Housing Association has more than 110 applicants for every new social rented house that is built in Eyemouth and between 60 and 80 applicants for every existing social rented house that becomes available. The railway would unlock investment in open-market housing throughout Berwickshire, with 552 units in the local plan for Eyemouth alone, releasing land for social housing in the process. The project provides a strong fit with the Government’s economic strategy, in that it would increase solidarity between income groups and improve cohesion by increasing economic growth in an area that traditionally underperforms in that regard. It would support the achievement of rural development objectives and climate change targets, in the context of the report on proposals and policies. In many ways, the project would contribute strongly to the Government’s wider agenda.
The advent of local rail services would also bring the possibility of establishing jobs in the tourism and knowledge sectors in the region. It would improve connectivity and drive business and tourism investment in East Lothian and Berwickshire.
Like any rail service in Scotland, the service would receive a degree of subsidy, but the returns to Government would demonstrate good value for money. I am confident that the STAG 2 study, when it is commissioned, will demonstrate that the assumptions that MVA used were overly pessimistic.
Many community councils have made strong submissions to RAGES and to me. Eyemouth town council said:
“The benefits of a station in Reston are huge both to the economy and to the wider community as a whole. It would mean that our youngsters, the new generation of voters and workers, would be able to remain in the Borders. They could travel for college and University courses. Young people are leaving the area as they cannot afford the travelling costs or the time it takes to commute. This leaves us with an aged retired population, which is not ideal.
Businesses in the area would also benefit with a quick means of travel to the Capital. Reinvestment may then be attracted to the area”.
17:55
I congratulate John Lamont on securing the debate, which is on a matter that is of significant interest to the people of East Lothian and Berwickshire. I will talk as a South Scotland member and as the Liberal Democrats’ transport spokesman.
The Transport Scotland feasibility study confirmed the overwhelming desire in both communities for passenger rail services to be reinstated. It is evident that that desire exists across the political spectrum. The motion refers to the “hard-working volunteers” who have campaigned on the issue for decades. Members have paid tribute to them, and I pay tribute to them, too—particularly those who are associated with RAGES. I congratulate them on their good work; it is good to see them all here this evening.
The study said:
“There is therefore no doubt that there is a local desire for improved services and this has been fully expressed throughout the study.”
Figures from the Office of Rail Regulation show a 49 per cent increase in rail travel in East Lothian between 2005 and 2010. I would like to provide members with similar stats for the Borders railway, but we are still not quite there. We look forward to the Borders railway being delivered soon.
I note that, although part of Berwickshire is in the Borders, it could take about an hour and a half to drive from Reston to Galashiels—of course, that depends on how someone drives.
I have been present at meetings that RAGES has arranged, when much has been made of the compelling socioeconomic benefits of constructing the new stations. However, we should not overlook the potential environmental benefits. The General Register Office for Scotland has projected that, as Iain Gray said, the populations of East Lothian and the Borders will grow by 33 and 16 per cent respectively. It is clear that the people there will need to travel—often up to Edinburgh—for jobs.
We should ensure that people who settle in the Reston and East Linton areas have a choice other than their car for their journey to work, to reduce carbon emissions. The 2001 census revealed that, of the significant number of adults from East Linton who were employed in Edinburgh, 87 per cent drove the 24 miles to Edinburgh. We need to encourage such people on to the rail network.
Much of the study is good work, but I and many campaigners dispute some of the points that it makes. For example, it estimated that just 8,700 people would form the drive-in catchment for a new Reston station, whereas the south east of Scotland transport partnership and others around the RAGES table estimate that the figure would be at least 14,000.
Such estimates in the study do not take into account the untapped potential for tourism from opening up this corner of Scotland to the rail network. Who would not want to follow the many visitors—some 70,000 annually—to St Abbs cliffs, or those who enjoy the James Hutton trail or diving off the coast at Eyemouth, which is a popular activity? We should not forget the efforts of the Eyemouth Harbour Trust to diversify activities—it even has proposals to receive cruise liners. I imagine that a nearby station would make such an initiative much more attractive.
There are few barriers to proceeding with the projects, which have overwhelming support from local stakeholders, elected officials and—crucially—the public, East Lothian Council and Scottish Borders Council. Both stations are supported in the local plans for both authority areas, and appropriate provisions have been made. I was with the minister when he made a recent site visit, and he will know that a landlord in Reston who has land next to the track is willing for it to be used for a station.
I look forward to the minister’s response to this vital transport proposal.
17:59
I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly in favour of the motion in the name of my colleague John Lamont. We have an interesting situation in Berwickshire. I have raised before with the minister the links to and through Berwickshire, particularly in relation to the A1, which is conspicuous by its absence from the minister’s long-term road development programme.
Tonight, we are talking about an opportunity to deal with some of the problems that need to be addressed—specifically the process that we are going through in relation to the build-up to the refranchise of ScotRail in 2014. The Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee discussed with representatives of the industry earlier today the principle of using feeder and hub services as a way to give more people access to the main centres of population and to trains moving between the those main centres. Has the minister any views on whether the main line between Edinburgh and Berwick could be considered as a feeder service at some point in the future? That would not only get more people into the centres, but would give them greater accessibility to the mainline service in areas where the train does not stop.
The main thing that I want to talk about was mentioned earlier by Iain Gray: the opening and development of the station at Laurencekirk. Laurencekirk is in the north-east of Scotland in my back yard. It is on the east coast main line and lies approximately midway between Montrose and Stonehaven, the distance between which is a considerable distance on which to have had no stop for mainline trains. The station was reopened a few years ago: after a great deal of consideration, it was hoped that it might actually justify the investment that was being made in it. The Government funded the station at considerable cost, but it came in on schedule and well under budget, and went on to amaze everyone in the rail industry throughout Scotland by achieving passenger numbers that so exceeded those that were predicted that everyone wondered why it had not been done years earlier.
I remind the member that the debate is about the Borders rail link.
Indeed. That example is why the minister needs to take seriously the proposal to reopen stations at Reston and East Linton. He should take the experience of Laurencekirk into account and realise that sometimes the appraisals that we receive turn out to be wild underestimates.
18:02
I rise to support the motion not with any sense of parochialism, but by welcoming the cross-party initiative to support the motion that has been brought to the chamber by John Lamont.
First, I recognise the work that has been done locally by RAGES in support of the reintroduction of the local rail service between Edinburgh and Berwick. Secondly, I acknowledge the economic case not least because of the likely population increase by—as Iain Gray said—one third during the next 20 years. That will have a knock-on beneficial effect on employment, and on social and leisure activities. Thirdly, I recognise that such growth will require a robust customer service where it will be increasingly needed.
As the minister said during last month’s debate on the Rail 2014 consultation
“we will continue to invest in rail services.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2012; c 6469.]
The Government intends to continue to invest in our rail services, which have been fragmented in the past. It will invest to improve them more for everyone.
We welcomed the decision on the Borders rail link. As far as the rest of South Scotland is concerned, we must consider two other arteries. One—I would say this, wouldn’t I?—is the upgrading of the Stranraer to Ayr line on the west cost, and the other is the east coast line between Edinburgh and Berwick, which we are debating tonight.
I acknowledge and welcome the fact that the Government is putting more money into the railways than previous Governments did. I also recognise that investment can take place only when funding is available and we can construct a real rate of social and financial return. It is on the back of such parameters that we should develop the case of the Edinburgh to Berwick line.
The recent MVA Consultancy report accepts that the introduction of rail services and stations on that connection would be in line with Scottish Government policy and with its economic, social and environmental objectives. There has to be a balance between cost and benefits to new and existing passengers, and that will prove to be the case in this case. Although the MVA Consultancy report drew out some negativity and weaknesses with regard to Dunbar and Berwick services, with a benefit to cost ratio of less than 1 in the former, and a declared weakness in the latter, those positions would change with the proposed reopening of the facilities at Reston and East Linton.
The Berwick service might—indeed, it would—incrementally benefit connectivity from south Edinburgh, but sustaining the financial case requires confirmatory strategic and financial analysis that goes further and deeper. That is why I will particularly welcome the proposal that we hope to see from SEStran, with the undoubted and strong support of both East Lothian Council and Scottish Borders Council, as well as of the local community. That further and deeper analysis will secure recognition of the increasing suburban and interurban rail market on the east coast line, while providing a similar analysis of growing customer service needs and numbers along that line.
I welcome tonight’s debate, which shows cross-party union that compels us to meet the challenge and the opportunity together. Although the debate is neither decisive nor conclusive, it raises the status and the profile of the issue as well as raising the bar. I hope that it will have a happy terminus—or, indeed, ending.
18:06
I thank John Lamont for introducing this debate on a subject that is close to my heart and which is important to constituents across South Scotland—a point that has been highlighted by speakers from all parties. The Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment and the Minister for Housing and Transport quite rightly said in their foreword to the 2014 rail consultation that
“an efficient railway, attuned to Scotland's needs, plays a key role in enabling delivery of ... a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth.”
They also highlighted the point about linking our communities.
As well as developing sustainable economic growth, increased services between Edinburgh and Berwickshire and East Lothian would contribute to our efforts to reduce our carbon emissions and would provide a green way for people to commute in and out of the capital.
I, too, commend the work of the volunteers of RAGES who have done so much to keep these topics alive against all the odds. I must say that the group’s acronym is particularly apt for the subject, since I, along with many other rail campaigners, know from experience the frustration for rural communities that are unable easily to link with a rail connection. The MVA feasibility study is useful in identifying the main issues and cost benefit analysis of both the new stations and the improved service provision. However, I want quickly to point out several key issues.
First, the proposal for the new stations, which has widespread local support, is essential to opening up rail transport in the whole of East Lothian. The MVA study suggests that there will be a combined annual demand for both stations of about 108,000 people, which contrasts with the annual use of Dunbar by about 80,000 people and strengthens the case for the stations. Additionally, those figures do not include weekend travellers, neither do they take into account the potential increase in the number of commuters who will change their travel habits if a reliable rail service is available, as Iain Gray highlighted. For example, on the Airdrie to Bathgate line, passengers at Uphall have increased by 21 per cent, and there are many other examples that we all know of.
Secondly, the report states that the introduction of new services between Edinburgh and Dunbar and Edinburgh and Berwick-upon-Tweed resulted in a benefit to cost ratio of less than 1, as Chic Brodie pointed out, and that consequently the benefits that would be derived might not justify the outlay and operating costs. I would be very interested to learn of what that benefit to cost ratio consists. According to RAGES, the Minister for Housing and Transport stated in November 2011 that his main concern about East Linton and Reston stations was the £2.5 million subsidy that would be required. However, the benefits must not simply be seen in terms of potential revenue or even in simple expected demand figures, but within the wider context of reducing carbon emissions and changing personal attitudes.
Only by providing increased frequency and more accessible stations will we be effective in moving travel habits towards more sustainable modes. That will also have the combined benefit of reducing congestion on roads into Edinburgh and the surrounding areas, as has been mentioned, and could lead to further regeneration of communities, thereby contributing to sustainable economic growth.
I take on board John Lamont’s remarks about the STAG 2 appraisal. I hope that, when it is published, we will get a good result. I commend him for bringing the debate to Parliament and I commend all those who are involved in the campaign to improve local rail services. I hope that the Scottish Government will see the investment in those services and stations in the wider context of the low-carbon economy, and that it will invest in our sustainable economic future and in communities across the south-east of Scotland.
18:10
I congratulate John Lamont on securing the debate, with the support of others. I do not want to be invidious, but I will mention Iain Gray and Paul Wheelhouse, who were involved in the previous discussions that I have had on the issue. I recognise their efforts on behalf of the campaign. My site visit on 28 February confirmed that, as members have mentioned, there is strong cross-party support for the reintroduction of local services from Edinburgh to Berwick-upon-Tweed and the reopening of stations at Reston and East Linton.
The Scottish ministers recognise that the September 2011 feasibility study for enhanced rail services between Edinburgh and Newcastle, which was commissioned and paid for by Transport Scotland, demonstrates a positive business case, as has been said by several members, for new stations at East Linton and Reston together, to be served by Edinburgh and Berwick services. The point about the stations being provided together is important. However, the case is marginal. There is a benefit to cost ratio of 1.1 and an additional annual subsidy of £2.5 million. I take on board Iain Gray’s point that that perhaps emphasises one side of the issue, which is why we have agreed to have a further evidence call and further input from community councils and others on possible additional benefits.
Has there been any change in methodology in the assessments that Transport Scotland has used in recent years? As I pointed out earlier, the methodology that was used for Laurencekirk station, whatever it was, vastly underestimated the potential for that station.
I was coming on to that point. Because of when Laurencekirk was completed, the figures have not yet come through the machine to show how much in excess of the projected figures the actual figures are. However, in my area, with the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, we estimated—because we were told to—that there would be about 80,000 users, but there turned out to be 400,000 users. However, I have a list of stations that have performed drastically below the projected figures. That points to the fact that predictions of patronage are not hard and fast. Transport Scotland, with which I have raised the issue, and the Department for Transport recognise that more work needs to be done on proper projections. The figures for Laurencekirk and the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line have been substantially above the projected figures, although that has not been the case for many stations. I will get back to the member with information on whether the nature of the BCR calculation has changed.
We have encouraged local stakeholders to investigate whether other transport options might provide better value for money. SEStran is undertaking an additional study to complement the feasibility study. As requested, that will consider in more detail the main socioeconomic issues that affect the area, some of which Paul Wheelhouse mentioned, such as tourism. It will also provide a proportionate appraisal of the coach and local bus feeder options, following Scottish transport appraisal guidance.
I know from experience that people who support new rail services often say automatically that buses are not the answer. I am just saying that we have to go through the process. We are duty bound to be diligent in considering additional investment. Therefore, it is important that we consider those options first and in a serious way. The study will establish whether options other than rail could provide a better value-for-money solution to the economic development, social accessibility and environmental needs of residents in the east and south-east of Scotland. It will help to build a robust business case for any option that is taken forward.
A decision on the proposal for local rail services to Berwickshire and East Lothian is not a prerequisite for the letting of the next franchise, which will commence in 2014. John Lamont raised that point. As I made clear at the site visit, the proposal could be added subsequently as a franchise variation.
Claudia Beamish said that the issue is not just about money. However, there is a real issue about money. I must be honest and say that there are at least 30 different cases for station reopenings throughout Scotland. If each one required £1 million or £2.5 million subsidy, the additional cost would soon add up. We are spending more on rail services—it is already about £775 million, for a service that is used by about 6 per cent of the population. Therefore, we have to consider carefully whether we make further investment. That is not even taking into account capital costs, but just the on-going subsidy costs. That is an important consideration, not least because—as members have mentioned—we have had a substantial cut to the budget and constraints have been placed on capital spend. Therefore, we need to consider money carefully.
For that reason, ministers are not in a position to commit to new investments, especially in projects that would require significant on-going annual subsidy payments. Due to budgetary constraints, we must focus on the strategic investments that will deliver the greatest benefits at the national and local levels. We must prioritise funding for those key transport projects. Even though John Lamont is—to put it kindly—somewhat lukewarm about the Borders rail line, there is huge support elsewhere for that line. The Government is taking it forward and it will improve.
Alex Johnstone mentioned that, when the station at Laurencekirk was opened, people asked why that had not been done before. I admit that, when I came into my present job, I kept asking myself why many things had not been done before. However, it is not possible to do everything that the Government would like to do at once for all modes of transport, not least because of the current budgetary situation.
Nevertheless, we are keen to improve access to the rail network by local communities on existing routes through the provision of additional stations. New stations or services will be considered favourably by the Scottish ministers, subject to the STAG appraisal of other transport options and rail being identified as the best option. Where the surrounding population is sufficient to generate a high level of demand, whether through workplace or visitor needs, we will support new stations. However, even then any funding for the construction of the stations and the subsidisation of services would have to be identified and prioritised relative to other national and local investment priorities. Where local funding sources can be identified, that can greatly help in bringing a project up the priority list.
The proposal for the local rail services to Berwickshire and East Lothian is progressing to the next stage of development, but I caution John Lamont about trying to get a definitive and conclusive response now. He should do that when the best possible case has been made for the additional services or stations. If the additional study can improve the business case and the affordability of the proposals, the Scottish ministers will be in a better position to consider whether and when the proposals can be implemented.
We are keen to consider proposals for new stations where there would be clear benefits. As I said when I made my site visit, there is an awful lot of pressure just now—whether through the high-speed rail proposals or the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme—to concentrate on journey times alone, but I have said that we will not do that. Connectivity with communities that are not otherwise connected to the rail network should be taken into account, even if that is sometimes at the expense of journey times.
A number of transport projects around the country are already shovel ready but, as I have said, if the promoters of the new stations and services can identify local funding sources to contribute to the project, that could help greatly in bringing them up the priority list.
Meeting closed at 18:18.