Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3838, in the name of Bill Aitken, on behalf of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, that the Parliament agrees that the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill be passed. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
It is with some relief that I move the motion at the end of a long and tortuous 27-month parliamentary process.
Members will be aware of the principal objection to the bill. They will also be aware that if Parliament agrees to the bill today, the final decision on whether matters proceed will be for the City of Edinburgh Council. Nevertheless, the committee had to take important decisions.
An important aspect was the fact that the bill deals with issues that could profoundly affect the lives of many people. When compulsory purchase or similar measures are involved, it is clearly of the greatest importance that committees deal with them professionally, sympathetically and thoroughly. I submit in the strongest possible terms that the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee did that so far as the bill is concerned.
Our consideration stage was in two phases. In the first of them, the committee required to meet in a quasi-judicial capacity to weigh up and sum up the competing arguments of the objectors and the promoters before determining the objections. We did that by means of meetings that were particularly thorough and apposite. First, we grouped objections of a similar nature and selected from such groups someone to act as a spokesperson for the rest of the objectors. Secondly, we resorted to correspondence to clarify what the principal objections were, then we sought to resolve them. In many instances, for entirely appropriate and honest reasons, it was not possible to resolve the differences, and at that stage the committee had to hold hearings, take evidence, then make a determination.
It is no exaggeration to say that appearing before a committee, no matter how sympathetic and gentle, can be a daunting experience for members of the public. However, the way in which things panned out in the committee was highly satisfactory. I pay great tribute to those who appeared before the committee for their professionalism, the obvious thoroughness with which they prepared their submissions, and the way in which they conducted themselves throughout the process. In particular, I thank Miss Honor Reynolds, Ms Judith Sansom, Mr Adrian Hamilton, Ms Hazel Young and Ms Jacky McKinney. They made superb representations to the committee, and we listened to their efforts with great appreciation. It was necessary for the committee to make a number of site visits, and I record my appreciation of the objectors who did so much to facilitate them.
Obviously, at the end of the day we cannot satisfy everybody, but I think that those who gave evidence from the promoter's side and from the objectors' side acknowledge that they received a fair, courteous and reasonably effective hearing. Of course, there were difficult issues with the promoter, but it is appropriate to thank the promoter for the professional way in which it gave evidence, and to thank the counsel for the promoter for the moderate way in which cross-examination was carried out—it was a classic illustration of how the democratic process can work.
In the second phase, having dealt with the hearings and having made our determinations, we were required to set off on a legislative course. It will interest members to know that the committee dealt with 102 amendments at consideration stage, and that it took just over an hour, which shows that committee members had come well-prepared, had read all the amendments thoroughly, and were fully au fait with the force of the objections.
Latterly, the committee took further evidence from the promoter, on the business plan. We were well aware that present sums indicate a shortfall in funding, and we felt entitled to ask the promoter what steps would be taken to deal with it. Clearly, the matter has exercised the promoter. Action is being taken to solve the problem. However, the situation as it stands will impact on the construction of the line—in particular, on the section from Newbridge to Ingliston. In short, although the evidence that the committee took showed that a shortfall remains, we are satisfied that the promoter is taking appropriate steps to overcome the difficulty. In future years the City of Edinburgh Council might negotiate with the appropriate Executive minister to try to resolve matters to the satisfaction of all, without impacting on Edinburgh council tax payers.
I am extremely interested in Bill Aitken's last few remarks. May I take it that, at some future point—although we are not certain when—tramline 2 will be built, or should we consider that the bill is never likely to be used?
I remind Ms MacDonald of my opening remarks. The legislation will enable the project to proceed. It is not for the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee or the Parliament to determine whether the proposed works proceed; that will be for the promoter, TIE Ltd—which is, in effect, the City of Edinburgh Council. No doubt the appropriate political considerations will be given by TIE in due course.
I would like to thank a number of other people, because a lot of hard work went into dealing with the bill. The Parliament's legal advisers—Alicia McKay, in particular—were of great assistance. Terry Shevlin, our indefatigable clerk, did a power of work—in sometimes difficult and stressful circumstances—so that our timetable could be more or less adhered to. In particular, I offer my profound thanks to the other members of the committee—Jeremy Purvis, Alasdair Morgan, Kate Maclean and Marilyn Livingstone. The level of commitment required of members of the Scottish Parliament is sometimes not appreciated. When an exercise such as this one is landed on MSPs—an exercise that entails the reading of thousands of pages of correspondence, and the holding of hearings and discussions—it can prove almost insurmountable. That committee members did the work so professionally and so willingly—and, in my view, so effectively—reflects very well on our parliamentary processes.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill be passed.
Today we will decide whether to develop the first instalment of a modern light rail system and meet the challenges that are posed by the growth in transport demands of Edinburgh and Scotland. The tram scheme will be the rival of our continental neighbours and the first such tram scheme in Scotland for well over a generation. The word "historic" is overused in politics, but perhaps it deserves a slight airing today.
Parliament is indebted to Bill Aitken as committee convener, and to the other committee members whom Mr Aitken has just named, for the amount of work that they have done in connection with the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill. Consideration of the bill has been a complex undertaking that has required rigorous evaluation. In particular, the devastating ability to deal with 102 amendments in an hour, which the committee demonstrated at consideration stage, is worthy of high praise from our young Parliament.
I thank the promoter, the advisers, the clerking team and everyone who has been associated with the project; they have all allowed us to reach the stage that we are at this afternoon.
Why is a tram necessary? Edinburgh has a thriving economy. Its city region accounts for some 20 per cent of Scottish gross domestic product and through the commercial developments of Edinburgh Park, the Gyle and Edinburgh airport, west Edinburgh is playing a significant role in growing new economic opportunities.
It seemed to me that Bill Aitken told us in his speech that the purpose of the debate was to evaluate whether the legislative procedure had been correct and proper and that the decision about whether the tram should proceed should be left to the people of Edinburgh and the City of Edinburgh Council. However, the minister seems to be presenting the Executive's case for putting money into and supporting the tram project. What is the purpose of this afternoon's debate? Surely it cannot be to do both.
I hate to disappoint Mr Monteith, but the debate can fulfil both those functions and I am sure that it will. Mr Aitken did exactly what the Parliament would expect him to do, which was to explain the legislative process that he and his colleagues have been through. I am sure that members who represent Edinburgh and members who represent areas outwith the city will wish to make points about the project, and I hope that Mr Monteith will not mind if I proceed to do that.
The new Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters is home to 3,250 jobs. Edinburgh Park employs 6,000 people and that number could rise by a further 12,000 over the next few years. Such continuing success puts increasing demand on travel. As Mr Aitken said, the committee heard evidence that committed developments in west Edinburgh are likely to add another 12,000 vehicles to the road network during peak hours by 2015. If that happens, most key roads in the area will be operating over their capacity. The fact is that the pace of development is outstripping what the existing transport infrastructure can support. Ultimately, that could subdue economic growth because potential investors might opt for other, more accessible locations and existing businesses might consider locating outside Scotland.
In its evidence to the committee, the promoter highlighted the benefits that trams will bring to help ease the transport difficulties that Edinburgh currently faces and those that it is predicted it will face. Those benefits include not only the provision of local infrastructure improvements, but the safeguarding of continued economic growth in the region and, indeed, in the Scottish economy as a whole.
Will the member take another intervention?
No, I want to make a bit of progress.
To maximise those benefits, we must encourage a shift away from the use of cars and ensure that trams and buses are integrated in an effective public transport system. The trams will provide a high-quality, high-capacity, frequent, reliable and fast public transport system. Tram travel will become an attractive alternative to the car.
That has been the case in Nottingham, where 8.5 million journeys were made in the first year of operation of that city's tram system. That level of patronage was well above predictions. Furthermore, 25 to 30 per cent of tram passengers had previously travelled by car. In Nottingham, as in Edinburgh, the local bus company is owned by the local authority and the bus and tram operators were combined to ensure that the two systems would be complementary. That will also be the case in Edinburgh, where Transport Edinburgh Ltd will manage the operation of both the tram network and Lothian Buses.
From discussions that I have had—including a memorable one on a flight between Sumburgh and Edinburgh airport—and from my mailbox, I know that there is considerable support for the proposals to link the city centre and its growing financial and commercial districts with the airport, which is undergoing considerable development to match the growth of the city and the south-east of Scotland.
I am aware that some concerns about the proposals remain. It is right for members to be concerned that the scheme should be delivered on time and on budget—I am sure that the points that are made during the debate will reflect that—and to be preoccupied with aspects of the project's financial viability and the tram's ability to generate and sustain sufficient passenger numbers. It is right, too, that we should identify concerns, especially those that remain to be addressed, if the tram network in Edinburgh is to become a reality and to be successful.
Last week's introduction of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill means that we have two complementary projects that will help to develop Scotland's capacity to compete and grow. The projects serve different markets: whereas the EARL project will provide a direct airport link on Scotland's heavy rail network, tramline 2 will provide more frequent and convenient stops and the ability to connect into the wider public transport network in Edinburgh, in a fast and convenient way.
I query the logic in the minister's argument for the two separate markets, which are to be served by the proposed tramway and rail link. However, people who are coming into the airport are not likely to want to stop off along the route into Edinburgh and many of the people who work in the financial centre out west travel in from the west. It is therefore unlikely that they will use a tram that comes from the city centre.
My point is that the heavy rail link to and from the airport will be a link not only for Edinburgh, but for destinations and locations around Scotland. Given the wider range of destinations that Edinburgh airport now serves, the rail link will encourage people who wish to travel to the airport and improve access for them. The work that the respective promoters of the two projects are doing is entirely complementary. I am sure that Margo MacDonald is as familiar as I am—if not more familiar—with the work that is being taken forward.
As I understand it, the report recognises that the construction of the heavy rail link would have an adverse impact on tramline 2 revenues. I also understand that the overall benefit came about only as a result of projected growth in passenger numbers at the airport. Does the minister acknowledge that? Of course, if some parties were to have their way, growth in air travel will be significantly constrained, thereby rendering tramline 2 even less viable.
I could be drawn into commenting on what Mr Cameron said about aviation in his contribution to the debate on the budget statement, but that would be wholly inappropriate. Indeed, it would be an abuse of the situation, therefore I will duck the opportunity. What I will say—I am sure that Mr McLetchie would expect me to do so—is that the business case, in relation to both the tram and the heavy rail investment to Edinburgh airport, must be robust. I will say a little more about that in a moment. The business cases for the two projects must ensure that the financial and patronage figures on which they are built are adequate—indeed, more than adequate—to meet the value-for-money criteria under which public sector and, in these two instances, Scottish Executive financial assistance is made.
In my statement to the Parliament last week, I confirmed that our commitment to the Edinburgh trams is £375 million, plus inflation. I expect our contribution to be some £450 million to £500 million towards the capital cost of the tramline from Ocean Terminal to Edinburgh airport. The challenge for the promoter and the construction manager is to deliver efficiencies against that budget. The work that the promoter has undertaken gives me confidence that the economic benefits of the tram network will continue to present value for money. The current evidence indicates a healthy benefit to cost ratio.
Before the summer recess, the promoter will have completed a full update of the outline business case for the tram project and presented the results to Transport Scotland. Continuous testing of the business case is critical. As Mr McLetchie would expect us to do, we will continue to review the business case rigorously at each remaining stage of project development.
I believe that the principles behind tramline 2 are not only acceptable to the Parliament; they are widely supported by local businesses, local people and local communities. Edinburgh's economy requires support and investment if it is to maintain its current growth levels and help Scotland to fulfil its wider economic ambitions. The Scottish people look to their Parliament for real achievements, real delivery and real progress. There is no stronger or more solid example of that than the delivery of improvements to the local and national economy, which the passing of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill will help to bring about.
The advantages that the bill will bring about are considerable, and I believe that the case has been made to approve it. We look forward to starting work on the scheme in the autumn. I extend an invitation to all members of the Parliament to join me in riding on an Edinburgh tram in early 2011. I hope that support for the scheme in the Parliament this afternoon will be overwhelming. I strongly urge members to support the motion and support the bill.
I, too, pay tribute to the work of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee. I have said that the current system for dealing with private bills is wrong and I acknowledge that the system will be changed. The bill is fundamentally flawed and to some extent the hard work and endeavour that the committee was required to put into consideration of the bill has been brought to nought by changes that have occurred. The Parliament is asked to consider tramline 2 today and we will be asked to consider tramline 1 next week, although we are aware that what is proposed is neither tramline 2 nor tramline 1 but a hybrid scheme. The hard work of many individuals was therefore to no avail.
We are asked to support a scheme for which there is no business plan. The minister said that work would start in the autumn, but we do not know whether work will start before there is a business plan that indicates whether the project stacks up financially. We should not legislate in such a way and the tramline 2 scheme is not one that we can support.
We do not, of course, object to trams in principle and we can aspire to have a tramline. However, tramline 2 is certainly not the most pressing requirement for Edinburgh and nor is it a priority for Scotland. Tramline 2 is the wrong scheme at the wrong time. If we are to spend £450 million of public money, we should expect to get a scheme that runs from where people live to where they want to go. However, tramline 2 would not even take people to the door of the global headquarters of the Royal Bank of Scotland; the line would be some 750m from the building, across a busy dual carriageway, which is unacceptable.
Will the member give way?
No, I do not have enough time.
The tramline would run in parallel with a railway line and undermine an excellent, flagship bus service for Lothian Buses.
We agree that politics is about priorities, as a previous minister said. If we are to invest substantial amounts of public money, we must ensure that we get the best value and the best return for that money. When we consider that the proposed investment—not counting index-linked increases to take account of inflation—would be sufficient to enable us to replace every bus in Lothian with a state-of-the-art bus and to run free bus services for seven years, we must wonder whether the tramline represents the best use of public money.
More important, when the minister made his statement on public transport projects last week, he refused to confirm that phase 2 of the Waverley station project will go ahead. The minister rightly described the project as a flagship project not just for the capital city but for Scotland. It is vital that we deliver not just phase 1 but phase 2. The project is about not just rejigging the station and providing shopping concourses, but providing the facilities to allow expansion. If we do not deliver phase 2 many other schemes will not come to fruition, because projects such as the Bathgate to Airdrie rail link, the Borders railway and the high-speed rail links between Edinburgh and Glasgow that we are all starting to champion require there to be capacity at Waverley.
Our priority should be to provide the funding that is needed to deliver the capital project at Waverley station. We should not put money into a tram scheme until we are certain that we have delivered the main priority for Scotland and for Edinburgh, which is not a tram scheme on the periphery or to the west of the city, which would run in parallel with a railway line in several places and which would compete with a flagship bus service and the proposed heavy rail link. The priority for Scotland and for Edinburgh is the delivery of phases 1 and 2 of the Waverley station project. Tramline 2 would be the wrong use of public money and we oppose it.
I congratulate members of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee on their diligence.
The bill is an enabling bill, so I am confused by the minister's stance. He gave the impression that the contracts would be signed tomorrow morning. The proposed tramline would follow part of the route of tramline 1, which we will debate next week, so we seem to be putting the cart before the horse. As Kenny MacAskill rightly said, there is confusion about what we are debating and what we will be asked to pay for in the long term. Serious questions remain to be answered before the promoter can proceed. We need to know not only how the City of Edinburgh Council will fund its share of the project, but the business cases for every section of the proposed line. The promoter has provided no clear business case in relation to tramline 2. We need to know all the costs, including the costs that might arise from disruption during the construction phase, for example if businesses have to close temporarily or if individuals and home owners are affected. I am very sceptical about some of the costings. We have not had clarity in that regard.
This morning, I was on the number 100 airport bus. That is an excellent route, which is well used. How will we deal with the competition between the new rail link to the airport, the trams and the buses? What options did the minister consider? Did he consider the new ftr, which does not need rails but is a modern, tram-like vehicle? I wonder about that.
We do not grudge Edinburgh the right to have money to spend on a modern, efficient, effective transport infrastructure, but I wonder what the choices were—and not so much for the promoter, which can do nothing without the support of the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications; if he or his successor in the next session does not sign the cheque, the project will not happen. We need some clarity, which I would like to hear in the winding up of the debate.
The proposal to extend the route to Newbridge is nebulous. Nobody has a business case for that, and we do not know what the development plans of the city council and the adjacent council are for that area. Reference to such issues is not really relevant. There is undoubtedly a black hole as far as the money is concerned. Delay costs money, as we know from our experience of the Aberdeen western peripheral route.
Will the member give way?
I do not have the time. I am sorry.
Our colleagues on the City of Edinburgh Council supported the bill at the preliminary stage, as we did here in the Parliament. We have consistently voiced concerns and will continue to do so until we get clarity on all the questions about competition and route demand. Our councillors tried to make an amendment establishing their support for the route from Leith to Haymarket and the airport but no further. We will have to debate that further next week. It is quite clear that major issues remain to be addressed.
Although we are dealing with only one part of the network now, it is interesting to note that Alistair Darling MP seems to have been running around cancelling tram schemes in other parts of the country. Why is the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications convinced that the proposal that we are considering addresses all the matters that his Westminster colleague takes issue with? We do not know what the difference is. The decision on the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill is a Scottish decision—nobody is arguing about that—but it is interesting that some of the evidence that the minister down south has used with regard to the English tram systems does not appear to support the case for the route that we are discussing today.
Although we will support the bill today, we are not convinced that the business case for the scheme has yet been made. We expect it to be made soon and made clearly.
I am delighted to speak in support of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill. I am very glad that we have reached final stage, and I add my congratulations and thanks to the members of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, its clerks and advisers for the immense amount of work that they put into scrutinising the bill.
I have spoken to constituents and, through the Official Report and minutes, I have followed the committee's diligent scrutiny of the bill as its members sat through the many meetings and pored over the evidence. My congratulations go to them for doing their job as our representatives on the private bill committee. I also thank the objectors, who had to deal with a tricky process. I know that they were guided through that process by Bill Aitken and his clerks, to whom many thanks should go for making that possible for my constituents. I thank those who have helped to improve the bill—both the objectors and TIE—for the robust discussions that took place before the committee.
Today is an important marker point, and I hope that the Parliament will support the bill. We all supported it at preliminary stage. It is a significant part of the public transport investment that we require for Scotland, and it is crucial for Edinburgh.
I was appalled at the speech that we just heard from Kenny MacAskill. I well remember being castigated in the early days of the Parliament, when I was Minister for Transport and the Environment, for having the audacity to bring forward proposals on buses but not on trams. Kenny MacAskill can go back to the Official Report: he will see the demands for trams there. It is rank political opportunism to turn round at the very end of the process to say, "Oh, I don't like this scheme. It's not the right scheme and not the right time." We have heard that again and again.
Let us be more ambitious. We want the trams and we want the Waverley station project. It cannot be viewed as a choice between the two. How parochial can we be in the Parliament? Let me remind members that we need to make the most of this opportunity in Edinburgh.
Money from the Executive is providing us with an opportunity to build the kind of high-quality infrastructure that we need in this city. The proposed route starts at Leith, one of the great development areas in Edinburgh. It runs up past Waverley station, along Princes Street—Edinburgh's retail core—to Haymarket, where it provides access to the business district. It runs past Murrayfield stadium, out to South Gyle and Edinburgh Park and on to the Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters. When I last heard, that company was rather pleased to be getting a 21st century tram system on its doorstep.
The scheme is hugely important. From the Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters, the line will run out to the airport. There will be a shuttle service from the Ingliston park-and-ride out to Newbridge. We cannot afford to allow this opportunity to pass us by—the citizens of the future will not forgive us if we do. We need the trams to deliver economic and environmental benefits to our city. Edinburgh is a hugely successful city, but it suffers from traffic congestion and poor and unreliable journey times. We cannot sit back and say complacently, "Let's wait for perfection." This is a good scheme that the committee has examined robustly.
I welcome the high-quality transport network that is proposed. I want more investment in public transport in Edinburgh—at Haymarket station, at Waverley station and in the tram project. I want our financial services and banking sector to survive. I want us to compete against the other European cities and capitals that are putting big bucks into their transport systems. There is a huge amount still to do. We need to see the business case for the project and further details. There will be key challenges for city residents when we get down to diverting utilities, but let us not turn our faces against a project that will have the biggest impact on the city in our generation. It is part of a package of public transport investments. We have had stage 1 of the Waverley station redevelopment. We now need the tramlines and stage 2 of the Waverley redevelopment. A huge amount of investment is required in this city. It would be a huge mistake for the Parliament to turn its back on the tram project. Let us be consistent and vote for the bill today. That is what is needed for investment in transport throughout our country.
I am pleased that, after literally decades of debate about the future of public transport in Edinburgh, the Parliament has the opportunity to give the go-ahead for a tram system with the potential to benefit both residents and businesses, not only in my constituency of Edinburgh West, but in Edinburgh as a whole. It is important that we see the scheme as part of a transport package that should command the support of all members. I thoroughly agree with Sarah Boyack's comments about the importance of Waverley station.
I begin by thanking Bill Aitken and his colleagues. As a member of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, I know exactly how much work was involved. The bill committee is to be commended on what it has done in the past two years. I will not dwell on the current system of private bills, as that will not do anyone any good. However, I put on the record yet again that I do not think that it is a good system for anyone. It is certainly not an easy system for objectors. I thank the many objectors to the bill for their input, as I know that many of them have found the process difficult.
An integrated transport system in Edinburgh, with trams at its core, has the potential to benefit Edinburgh's residents and economy and to help it to compete on the European stage. Tramline 2 should provide faster, more reliable transport links between Edinburgh city centre and crucial centres of economic activity and employment in the west of the city: the Gyle; Edinburgh Park; the new Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters, complete with purpose-built bridge; Edinburgh airport, the Royal Highland showground, wherever it ends up; and the Ingliston park-and-ride facility. I welcome the promoter's commitment to integration, under the new body Transport Edinburgh Ltd, and through the use of integrated ticketing. It is important that we see the tramline as part of a package.
In the west of the city, there is a real and growing problem of congestion. There will be 12,000 more vehicles on the roads by 2015. One of the best ways of getting people out of cars and on to public transport is to give them the kind of public transport that they want. Consistently, people have said that they prefer trams to other forms of public transport.
I welcome many of the bill's provisions. The committee is to be commended on the work that it has done on issues such as the noise and vibration policy, the code of construction practice and compensation arrangements. There are some real concerns, and I welcome the fact that the Subordinate Legislation Committee's recommendation that a time limit of 15 years on the blighting of property by the project was added to the bill.
However, in saying that I support the tramline, I should also say that I continue to have some concerns. It is a source of great disappointment to the people of Newbridge, whom I represent, that the council has decided to postpone a spur in that area. I know that there is a significant funding shortfall for the original route and I understand why the council made that decision. However, not to link the project to Newbridge in due course will be to lose an opportunity.
I thank the Executive for its commitment to the city of Edinburgh tram project, not only in terms of the initial money, but also in terms of the inflation proofing that we have heard about recently.
The committee and I have been concerned about arguments that have been made about patronage figures. However, I am reassured by the patronage forecasts and the more positive outlook in the committee's report. I am convinced that there is a place for both EARL and the tramline. They have different user groups and can both play a part in the economic regeneration and the continuing success story of Scotland. I welcome the reassurances from the minister about the final business case and the fact that there will be on-going analysis of the figures.
It is worth remembering why we are debating this issue. Edinburgh currently has one of the best bus networks in the United Kingdom and, helped by the high population density, car use is relatively low in the city. Some 41 per cent of households do not have access to a car, which is above average for Scotland. The fact that we have a public transport network in Edinburgh means that those without a car can travel around the city.
However, there are growing problems of congestion, particularly on arterial routes such as the bridges, the road west of the city from Haymarket and Leith Walk.
Wearing his other hat, as rector of the University of Edinburgh, is the member able to tell me how many of the 41 per cent of people in Edinburgh who do not have access to a car are students?
No, I am not.
The areas of the city that face congestion—including those around the university—are also those that have problems with air quality and are the places where many of the bus routes start and finish. That is why I welcome the fact that we are debating a Scottish Parliament bill that will authorise the construction and operation of a tramline in Edinburgh. That is a welcome step forward.
Trams will give people in Edinburgh a new, rapid, clean modern public transport option. As was said earlier, the tramline must integrate with the excellent bus network, through cross-ticketing and the use of a radial model, in a way that reduces the situations in which buses line up nose to tail on Edinburgh streets. Despite what Kenny MacAskill and others say, we cannot do with buses what can be done with a tram. On many streets in Edinburgh, there are already as many buses as those streets can take. Buses empty and fill much more slowly than trams. We need trams if we are to give people a modern public transport option; buses simply cannot offer that.
That public transport option will lead to a modal shift in the transport choices that people in Edinburgh make. The introduction of trams will see Edinburgh citizens making a decisive shift towards public transport. The speed, reliability and user satisfaction that are offered by trams will make them the default option for those who have access to the scheme.
We need trams because Edinburgh urgently needs to address its congestion problem. We cannot wait until congestion becomes insufferable. The plans for trams are, at last, reaching the stage at which permission is being granted. We simply cannot wait for David Davidson's silver bullet schemes of the future to come to pass. We need action to tackle congestion now.
I still have major concerns about some aspects of the tram proposals. We will discuss the relationship between trams and EARL later. Most important, I am concerned about the fact that we are getting not a tram network but a tramline. We need a tram network. With new developments in south-east Edinburgh, such as the Edinburgh royal infirmary and the planned biomedical park, the case for tramline 3 grows ever stronger. Brian Monteith might be interested to know that one of the issues that came up during my campaign to be rector of the University of Edinburgh was the need for a tramline that will connect the university's various campuses, particularly when the medical school moves out to Little France.
The Scottish Executive has taken the first step by supporting tramline 2, but I hope that it will go beyond that and support a proper, integrated tram network for Edinburgh. I welcome the first step towards the tram scheme, but if Edinburgh is to thrive and avoid congestion in the future we need a tram network that complements the buses and provides world-class public transport options.
The debate is about both the principle of trams and the feasibility and value of trams in Edinburgh. The Scottish Socialist Party welcomes in principle the proposal to build tramlines in Edinburgh. We agree that they will be a valuable addition to public transport provision and we look forward to seeing trams in the city in 2010.
The briefings that TRANSform Scotland and TIE circulated to members note the success of trams in continental Europe, Sheffield, Manchester, the west midlands, Croydon, Nottingham, Dublin and elsewhere. The briefings make a strong case for the role that trams can play as an intermediate stage between buses and permanent rail lines. Trams are attractive because they address the perennial problem of chronic road traffic congestion—a problem that we have in Edinburgh—by offering people a more attractive alternative to their cars. That is the answer, as far as I am concerned. The case has been made for trams, which nowadays offer rapid, comfortable transit.
However, I want to mention a couple of points of principle. First, Lothian Buses is one of the few publicly owned public transport operators remaining in Britain. Notwithstanding my concerns about recent fare increases and the company's industrial relations record, I welcome the fact that it is still publicly owned and I hope that, in due course, the City of Edinburgh Council will assure us that the tramlines that are provided will also be part of the public service. I note that the service in Sheffield was publicly owned to begin with but, because of a lack of funds, it was soon sold off to Stagecoach. I hope that that will not be repeated in Edinburgh.
Secondly, I emphasise that we must ensure that the fares on the tram system are within everyone's grasp. Otherwise, passenger volumes will reduce and we will have a big pink elephant on our hands.
We have discussed the principle of trams, but we should also consider the realities of today. Passing the bill means that we will pass the matter on to the City of Edinburgh Council, which will decide whether and how to take the project forward. The minister said that the Executive will make half a billion pounds available for the project. I am struck by the fact that the minister regularly comes to the Parliament and says, "Here is half a billion pounds to develop Edinburgh's economy," because Edinburgh funds part of Scotland's economy. However, Edinburgh's economy is already overheated and it draws in heat from Fife, the Borders, Midlothian and West Lothian. I would like the minister to be as concerned about the economy in those areas as he is about the economy in Edinburgh.
Many people in the city will ask why the Executive is keen to provide half a billion pounds for tramlines in Edinburgh but will not make that sum available for a much more needed project—rebuilding the city's crumbling housing stock following the stock transfer vote. We are told that money is not available for that, but the minister says, "Here is half a billion pounds to take people from the city centre to Gogarburn." Kenny MacAskill would have them walk the last 750yd. Some people would have us carry Fred Goodwin there, I suppose. The reality is that the people of Edinburgh will ask why £500 million is readily available for trams but not for much-needed council housing.
I speak as an Edinburgh resident. I have not studied every section of the bill and every detail of the committee's work, but I have no doubt that the committee did a good job. I tend to read the Edinburgh Evening News for my information and I am certain that it is far more reliable than most of the lobbying material that is sent to me by e-mail or in glossy leaflets for which council tax payers have paid.
Usually, my instinct is to support something such as a tram set. As a young kid, I had a Märklin train set—such train sets are the finest that one can buy in the world. As a slightly older child, I became a train-spotter. I stood at the side of railways and took down the numbers of trains—how boring was that? However, it allowed me at the same time to play football and meet girls. I might therefore be thought of as someone who is instinctively in favour of fixed-rail systems, but in this case my instinct is to be against the proposed tram set.
We have heard that trams can do things that buses cannot, but buses can go places that trams cannot. The crucial point is flexibility: buses do not need rails. Those who are old enough—I am not, as I was not born at the time—should remember that Edinburgh used to have trams, which were phased out in 1956 and replaced by trolleybuses, which were replaced by buses. The replacements were more flexible options. If people object to pollution and diesel fumes, we can erect electric lines, return to trolleybuses and still have a more flexible and cheaper system than the fixed-rail tram system.
We have heard about the business case, in which I will be interested when it appears. As for having a new option, we see from the routes that much of what is proposed is displacement of one public transport system by another. We will find that people do not get out of their cars, but out of their buses and on to trams. We need to consider that seriously.
Cue intervention.
Does my colleague agree that the minister should tell us in his summing-up whether the money is on the table? If it is not, the business case will be not just weak, but non-existent. Does he also agree that we need a proper evaluation of the extent to which the waterfront expansion depends on a tram link?
I have visited many cities that have tramlines. The one thing that I have noticed about most, if not all, of them is how wide the seats are—[Laughter.] I mean, how wide the roads are. I have not been on the trams, so I have not tested the seats, but I am sure that they are ample for my girth. The roads in those cities have space not just for trams, but for boulevards with trees. There is no doubt that Edinburgh does not have such roads.
I will close by asking about the funding shortfall. The minister makes a case for why trams are crucial to Edinburgh's economic future. Given that, will he make up the difference by providing the money that cannot be found? If not, will he support the privatisation of Lothian Buses, which could pay for the tram set? I doubt whether he fancies the first option, but I bet that he would fancy the second. I look forward to hearing more of the tram proposal, but at the moment I cannot support it.
As a member of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, I concur with much of what my committee colleagues have said. I agree with Bill Aitken that, after more than two years, we arrive at the bill's final stage with relief.
We should not forget the bill's broad policy objectives, which are to create the transport infrastructure that is necessary to support a growing and successful economy, as Sarah Boyack said, and to create a healthy, safe and sustainable environment.
The bill is the first tram proposal to come before the Parliament. If it is agreed and implemented, it will make a significant contribution to Edinburgh's wider transport framework. The benefits will include not only reduced congestion and pollution but, as the committee heard during its evidence taking, increased social inclusion and regeneration. Those are important issues in some parts of Edinburgh.
As our convener has already provided a clear outline of the preliminary stage process, I will take the time available to raise other key issues. First, the promoter's proposal at consideration stage to change the tram route in the Haymarket Yards and Gyle areas outwith the limits of deviation created a real challenge that is worth highlighting. The committee had to agree to examine the promoter's new proposal. Consequently, a new objection period was rightly required to allow the promoter to notify the communities and businesses that would be affected. As the committee took evidence from the promoter and objectors on the proposed change, it became clear that the proposal had wide support. After listening carefully to the evidence, the committee agreed to the amendment.
As Bill Aitken has explained, the committee took a great deal of written evidence. We took oral evidence when it became clear that the issues outstanding between the promoter and the objectors could not be resolved through written evidence, but many objections were withdrawn before that stage. The focus of the oral evidence was on examining how, if possible, outstanding issues could be practically addressed.
As we have heard, private bill committees work in a unique way. To the uninitiated, the procedures can appear complex, to say the least. On behalf of the committee, I take this opportunity to thank the objectors, who I believe conducted themselves very well. In particular, I commend those who were not represented professionally. It was evident that the objectors had put in a considerable amount of preparatory work. The fact that they made their case clearly helped our deliberations.
The representatives of west Edinburgh residents trams action group—WERTAG—deserve a particular mention. The householders raised various concerns, including issues about the extent of the promoter's consultation. Given the likely impacts of the tram on some of the residents represented by WERTAG, the committee stated that the promoter should ensure robust on-going consultation. In practical terms, that means that householders should be consulted on matters such as working hours, access arrangements and mitigation measures during the construction process.
As has been mentioned, a key issue in ensuring the tram's success will be the effective integration between the tram and the city's bus operations. I am pleased that the promoter is dealing with that issue at an early stage.
The finance issue has already been covered but I should add that, at consideration stage, the committee took further evidence from the promoter on funding issues. We asked whether the funding gap had been filled and, if that was not the case, what implications that had for the construction. In short, the evidence that we received showed that an overall funding shortfall remains, but the promoter is taking steps to address it.
After weighing up all the evidence, the committee concluded that it supports the construction of Edinburgh tramline 2.
Following the rejection of the City of Edinburgh Council's proposals for congestion charging in last year's referendum—a wholly welcome development and outcome for which only the Conservatives campaigned from day one of the Parliament—it was always the case that financial reality would finally dawn on the two tramline schemes' promoter, whose aspirations far exceeded the depth of its pockets. Despite assertions that congestion charging was intended to fund only line 3, there was little doubt in my mind that the anticipated £38 million annual revenues from tolls would have been partly diverted to plug funding gaps both for construction costs and for operational deficits on lines 1 and 2.
The demise of tolls undoubtedly led to the composite or hybrid scheme for lines 1 and 2 that Kenny MacAskill outlined—what is now optimistically described as phase 1A will run only from Ocean Terminal to the airport—rather than the full two-line scheme that was presented to Parliament.
We are told that the tendering process may enable further parts of the proposed network to be developed in phase 1B once the exact costs are known. That would enable construction from Haymarket to Granton, down what some would call an urban wildlife corridor and others would call a disused railway line. However, whatever value can be squeezed out of the tendering process to maximise network development—let us not forget that more than 90 per cent of the cost is being sought by way of a grant from the Scottish Executive—the fact remains that there is not a penny piece of funding in place to cover the airport to Newbridge section of line 2 or the waterfront section of line 1.
I am aware—as, I am sure, is Mr McLetchie—that there is unanimity on the council that it will make the best of the money that is available from the Executive and from itself. Will he not support that pragmatic approach to ensuring that we get the trams going in Edinburgh? The Conservative members of the council support it.
The Conservative members of the council voted for the composite line 1 and line 2 scheme. They did not vote for the airport to Newbridge extension, nor for the waterfront to Granton extension. I advise the member to look at the record: that is the position. I believe that there is little or no prospect of those sections being constructed within the permitted 15-year timescale for the simple reason that, viewed in isolation as additions to phase 1, there is no economic case for doing so.
The line from Ocean Terminal to Haymarket is, in my view, a perfectly viable proposition, as it will service densely populated residential areas of the city and generate high volumes of usage, seven days a week and throughout the day. The airport to Haymarket section partly meets the criteria in respect of servicing residential areas, but one must question the negative impact of the Edinburgh airport rail link on revenues. Although servicing business parks in the west of Edinburgh will generate high commuter volumes at peak periods, Monday to Friday, there will be few customers outwith those periods and at weekends.
I strongly urge the Executive, when it looks at the business case to be presented by the promoter, seriously to consider whether expenditure on that section of the network is justified, in the light of the Edinburgh airport rail link and the existing high-quality bus service. Should budgetary constraints prove tighter in years to come, the rail link to Edinburgh airport should be a far higher transport priority than tramline 2. One scheme is of national significance and of value to the whole of Scotland, whereas the other will give a modest and localised benefit, at best.
The fact of the matter is that not only is there an outrageous funding shortfall, but there is outrageous expenditure at the moment. As we are well aware, £1.2 million has been spent so far, without even a track laid, simply to subsidise Weber Shandwick, the publicists for the campaign to promote trams. We view that as thoroughly unacceptable and a waste of valuable public money.
The priority has to be Waverley station and the Edinburgh airport rail link—we concur with Mr McLetchie about that—because of the advantage that that project offers the whole of Scotland. We have to look at prioritisation. This Executive has been characterised by the making of countless promises on which it has failed to deliver. We have seen numerous projects being put back and further delayed—into the yonder. We need to deliver.
Waverley stage 1 does not adequately address the requirements not just of the city of Edinburgh, but of public transport expansion for the whole of Scotland. If we are to aspire to high-speed rail links, we need to deliver on that. We do not trust the judgment of the City of Edinburgh Council. I have some sympathy with the point that was made by Mr Fox. First, on congestion charging and, secondly, on the housing stock transfer scheme, the City of Edinburgh Council's judgment of the support of the electorate and the citizens of Edinburgh has been shown to be wrong.
The tramline that is being put forward is Donald Anderson and Andrew Burns's folly. They wish to impose it, irrespective of whether they are still in the council's administration next May, which looks exceedingly unlikely. However, they are seeking to railroad the tramline through—if I may mix my transport metaphors—to ensure that it is delivered. That is entirely unacceptable. We think that the council has got it wrong and that the public's money would be best used for the flagship station on which the minister commented last week. There is no money or commitment from the City of Edinburgh Council, so our decision on priorities is that we should invest in the Waverley option.
Expectation was expressed during the debate that the minister would speak at the end of it. However, I confirm that he took all his time for his opening speech. The debate will now be closed for the committee by Jeremy Purvis.
I distinctly heard a number members say "Aw", but I will not take it personally.
This afternoon's debate started with a degree of foreboding, given that amendment 1 dealt with connections to sewers and drains. However, the debate has grown a little bit livelier since then. I was relieved that amendments 14 to 26 corrected street names but I was slightly alarmed when I saw amendment 27, which was to
"leave out
and insert ".
There is perhaps a mistaken belief that the two tramlines were presented to Parliament as two distinct schemes. The promoter was also mistaken in believing that such an approach would lead to a quicker parliamentary process. The promoter was incorrect and, as the convener of the Edinburgh Tram (Line 2) Bill Committee indicated, we are at the end of a long process. There is always a balance to be struck between considering objections speedily and giving a depth of scrutiny to some of the issues that we heard about during the debate.
Although we have a duty to scrutinise a scheme that cost £225.9 million—at 2003 prices—on its own, we must also be mindful that many individuals will be affected by the scheme. It is worth noting that it is one week short of being exactly two years since the end of the objection period for those who will be affected by the scheme. If the tramline is to be railroaded through the Parliament, I hope that it will be built at a faster pace than any railroad.
Sarah Boyack, Margaret Smith and other constituency members have represented their constituents during a difficult process. They recognise that the process is a considerable burden for objectors as well as for promoters that bring forward large capital schemes such as a tramline.
We should thank those who participate in the private bills process, which is onerous. Does that not make it even more reprehensible that the way in which the City of Edinburgh Council, as the promoter, presented the two tramline bills meant that there were major changes to the lines, including the changes that arose during the past few weeks? Is that not unfair on and disrespectful to the Parliament?
I do not disregard Mrs Hyslop's comment, but the committee had to consider the balance between speed and scrutiny. Yes, there have been changes throughout the process, but if we had gone through the process more quickly following the bill's introduction, would that have been the correct way to take on board some of the changes to the scheme, or the objections that have been made to those changes? One of the by-products of the process that we have gone through are the suggestions that have been made to the Parliament to accelerate the parliamentary procedures for consideration of future schemes. The Glasgow and Edinburgh airport rail link bills will go through those revised procedures and I hope that members of those bill committees will benefit from our experience. More important, I hope that promoters of future schemes and those who will be affected by those schemes—individuals who might lose their homes or suffer blight—will also benefit from the lessons learned during the passage of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill.
We are at the end of our consideration of the bill and the committee has done its duty. We even visited Nottingham to see its trams and learn about the success of that scheme in relation to passenger numbers and economic impact.
During our consideration of objections, it is fair to say that we paid particular attention to the noise and vibration policy and the contents of the code of construction practice. I will talk about finance and the strategic placing of the scheme in a moment.
Does Jeremy Purvis agree with Bill Aitken's description of the bill as an enabling measure? Moreover, given Mr Purvis's legal background, does he consider this to be a good way of legislating for what has been described as a strategic development for Scotland?
First, let me say—quite proudly—that I do not have a legal background.
Hear, hear.
That might well be the most popular comment I make this afternoon.
If the member will forgive me, I will come in a moment to her question about the bill's enabling aspects and the committee's scrutiny of the facts and the promoter's assumptions.
It is right to say that the committee examined certain operational aspects that will affect residents in the area and the effect that the tram's construction will have on people who live near the site. Indeed, we learned much from Nottingham in that regard. One might argue that such considerations are short term; however, we also scrutinised certain assumptions underlying the business case that was presented to Parliament. Indeed, the committee took the decision to revisit those assumptions—which, as members will not be surprised to learn, was unpopular with the promoter—to provide a second layer of scrutiny on passenger forecasts; to ensure that there was a competitive bus system along the route if tramline 1 was not built; and to ensure that EARL was constructed and was priced competitively. We received updated information on all those matters and, with help from the National Audit Office on comparisons with other schemes and on the basis of any potential variation of public transport options that the promoter and the council could present, we satisfied ourselves that the scheme would still have a positive net present value. That should provide some clarity with regard to comments that have been made this afternoon on the committee's role.
Of course, the information that we received from various parties was not always consistent. Indeed, as Mr McLetchie pointed out, one witness believed that the promoter had underestimated its assumptions on passenger forecasts to Edinburgh airport. However, the committee considered both variations, and concluded that the tram scheme would still have a positive net present value.
Some have said that this is the wrong bill at the wrong time. However, a number of fundamental errors have been made this afternoon. The first was that no consideration had been given to a through service connecting tramlines 1 and 2, and it is true that we could scrutinise only what was in the bill. However, we asked for and received information from the promoter on a single scheme. Members will recall that in our preliminary stage report—which was debated in the Parliament—we asked the promoter to present what was effectively a second business case. I can tell members who have said that they look forward to seeing the business case that it can be found on the TIE and Scottish Parliament websites. We compared the scheme with bus provision and scrutinised proposals on the particular type of tram. However, I must confess that, in one respect, Mr Monteith has an advantage over us: we did not analyse the width of the seats on the trams that will be introduced.
Having regard to all the evidence that was presented to us and after seeking further clarification from the promoter on many occasions, the committee is satisfied that the scheme's benefits outweigh its disbenefits and that an appropriate balance has been struck between having regard to the rights of those whom the scheme will affect adversely and the benefits that it will bring to the wider community. As a result, we recommend to Parliament that the bill be passed.
That concludes the final stage debate on the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill.
At this stage, I advise members that earlier this week the Parliamentary Bureau agreed that, given that this is the first time we have voted under these arrangements, there should be, if possible, a suspension before decision time. I intend to press on and clear the upcoming procedural items out of the way. However, if any of the motions is opposed and a vote has to be held, I will suspend the meeting until 5 pm.