Plenary, 23 Feb 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Official Report 446KB pdf

---

Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill: Preliminary Stage

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2412, in the name of Bill Aitken, on the general principles of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill and whether the bill should proceed as a private bill.

On behalf of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, I am pleased to speak to the motion. Before I discuss the committee's report on the preliminary stage of the bill, it might be helpful to provide members with a brief background to the bill and our work.

The bill was introduced on 29 January 2004 and is promoted by the City of Edinburgh Council. The bill's principal objective is to secure authorisation from the Parliament for the promoter to construct and operate a tramline in Edinburgh. The proposed route starts at St Andrew Square, travels west along Princes Street, goes past Haymarket station to South Gyle, then goes north to Gogar roundabout and then north-west to the airport, with a shuttle service to Newbridge from Ingliston park and ride.

The bill would give the promoter power to acquire the land that it needs to build and run the tramline. It would also authorise a number of consents—such as planning permission and listed building consent—as well as avoiding claims in nuisance for both the construction and operation of the tramline.

The bill also provides the promoter with the power to purchase land compulsorily—which, as members can imagine, has generated a great deal of concern among those who would be directly affected by such a power. I will say more about such objections in due course.

Given the often highly technical nature of the bill, the committee has had to plough through a veritable forest of paperwork. I must therefore thank our advisers—Bond Pearce Ltd, Casella Stanger and Ove Arup & Partners Scotland Ltd—for the effort that they have put in to help the committee untangle some extremely complex issues.

I must also thank the promoter and the objectors for their hard work and input, and my fellow committee members for their diligence thus far. It has been said before in the chamber that the existing system for dealing with bills of this type is not satisfactory. It speaks volumes for the commitment of members that they have given so much time and effort to their complex task.

I would also thank Graeme Elliot from clerking, but sadly he cannot be with us tonight as he is on a secondment to Australia. As I look outside, I am very envious indeed.

In producing the report that we are discussing this afternoon, our committee had three main functions. First, we had to consider the bill's general principles. Secondly, we had to consider whether the bill should proceed as a private bill and whether the general principles should be agreed. That meant deciding whether the bill's purpose was to obtain for the promoter particular powers or benefits in excess of, or in conflict with, the general law, and deciding whether the accompanying documents were satisfactory and allowed for proper scrutiny of the bill. Thirdly, we gave preliminary consideration to the objections that we received.

I will deal with each of these functions in turn, but I want to make it absolutely clear from the outset that the committee is agreed that this bill should proceed as a private bill. I can therefore devote more time to highlighting the substantial issues in our report, rather than going into the technical minutiae.

We gave preliminary consideration to the 85 admissible objections lodged to the bill, then determined whether objectors had demonstrated that they would clearly be adversely affected by the bill. We agreed that all objections relating to specified provisions should go forward for detailed consideration at the consideration stage. However, we agreed that none of the objections—or parts of objections—to the whole bill was based on a reasonable claim that the objectors' interests would clearly be adversely affected by the bill. Therefore, they were all rejected.

We then considered whether the bill should proceed as a private bill. The committee was content with the technical explanations given by the promoter as to why a private bill was necessary for this project.

The committee then had to decide whether the accompanying documents were adequate. Again, the short answer is that the committee was content with the documents. However, I should mention briefly that some particular issues arose to do with the environmental statement. The committee has highlighted those issues to the promoter and other relevant bodies.

Our third consideration was the general principles of the bill. The committee took a broad look at the policy behind the bill and its objectives. In doing so, we felt it necessary to consider the levels of public expenditure involved in the proposed route.

To help members' understanding, the promoter's view is that there are many benefits to be gained from constructing this route. The promoter feels that it will contribute to a maximisation of economic growth by relieving congestion, providing connectivity within and beyond the city, reducing pollution and increasing social inclusion.

The promoter believes that the tram should be seen not as the solution to Edinburgh's transport problems, but as part of a wider strategy of transport improvements, including those in rail, bus and guided bus services and park-and-ride facilities.

As members can imagine, the committee has placed a great deal of importance on evaluating thoroughly the promoter's substantial claims. If the bill proceeds, examination at the consideration stage will be far more forensic and we will take detailed evidence from those people who have objected to the detail of the bill.

To help shape our deliberations, we took evidence from the National Audit Office on its extremely helpful and relevant report, "Improving public transport in England through light rail", which assesses a number of light rail projects. Crucially, it includes consideration of the extent to which the benefits that scheme promoters had identified were delivered.

Generally speaking, the study found that existing tram projects have been able to offer a fast, frequent and reliable service, that they have scored highly in passenger surveys and that they have provided greater passenger comfort and safety. In addition, all systems are viewed as having enhanced the image of their cities and towns. The committee can identify no reason why trams in Edinburgh could not bring the same benefits.

However, the NAO placed some question marks over the ability of schemes to deliver a number of other benefits. In heeding the NAO's conclusions, the committee agreed to focus its oral evidence taking on four broad headings: economic development and regeneration; congestion; social inclusion; and the environment. I may leave the detail of our discussions on those broad headings to my colleagues. Suffice it to say that although we fully acknowledge the potential pitfalls that the NAO flagged up, we are satisfied with the promoter's arguments that benefits will materialise.

I want to highlight two areas on which the committee had serious reservations, both of which relate to the economic case that the promoter provided. The first of those relates to the impact on the tramline of the proposed Edinburgh airport rail link, which is known as EARL. To put our concerns simply, we were worried that the patronage of the proposed tramline was to some extent dependent on customers not being taken by EARL. We were concerned to note that the promoter's own documentation says that

"the impact of heavy rail on tram can be large".

For the tram to be viable, passengers must be encouraged to use, and to continue to use, the tram. To entice people out of their cars, there must be proper co-ordination between different public transport modes and good through-ticketing and park-and-ride facilities. The promoter appears to have given that due consideration. However, although the promoter has stressed that EARL and tramline 2 will serve substantially different markets and overall purposes, we remain sceptical about the assertion that heavy rail will not have a significant impact on tram patronage. Therefore, we cannot give an unqualified endorsement of the promoter's case at the preliminary stage. We feel that there are scenarios in which EARL could undermine the case for line 2 to such an extent that it would no longer be a viable proposition. The committee has asked for clarification on the impact of EARL as regards competition for passengers and has received assurances from the promoter that that will be provided.

Our second main concern is about the robustness of the preliminary financial case. To put the matter in context, the Executive has given a commitment to provide £375 million towards the cost of the Edinburgh tram network to secure, at least, the completion of the north Edinburgh loop. Provided that it receives a robust business case, the Executive will come up with the money, but the Minister for Transport has been adamant that no funding beyond the £375 million will be available.

The promoter has indicated that line 2 will receive £165 million of capital. Given that the cost of the entire line is £266.5 million, we are naturally keen to establish where the missing £100 million is to be found. Moreover, we asked the promoter whether the stretch of the line from the airport to Newbridge could be jeopardised if sufficient funding were not in place. Our fears have been partially allayed by the promoter's assurance that it is committed to completing the full line. It has also made a commitment to provide us with an update on the progress that it makes in securing additional funding through other sources.

To conclude, I have made it clear that the committee is content that the criteria for the bill to proceed as a private bill have been met. I have outlined some of the concerns that the committee still has, which we will examine in more detail at consideration stage, if the Parliament agrees to the motion today. During that stage, we will take detailed evidence from objectors on their concerns and from the promoter on whether and how those concerns can be addressed and, I hope, allayed.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill and that the Bill should proceed as a Private Bill.

The debate is important, as it is the first time that the full Parliament has had the chance to consider proposals to build a new tramline in Scotland. It does not always feel this way for members who sit on private bill committees, but the project is an exciting one for Edinburgh and the whole of Scotland. Bill Aitken and his committee members—Jeremy Purvis, Marilyn Livingstone, Kate Maclean and Alasdair Morgan—are to be congratulated on their hard work so far in hearing evidence on the principles of the bill. I am pleased that they have recommended that the bill should proceed.

It is vital that we create a modern public transport system in Scotland. If we are to tackle congestion, we must invest in high-quality, reliable and sustainable options. The Executive has made clear its commitment to expand the public transport network and invest more in public transport. We must reduce congestion, improve accessibility and encourage connectivity throughout Scotland. The Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill meets all those objectives, which is why the Executive supports the tramline proposals.

I draw attention to one of my registered interests: my membership of a flying club at Edinburgh airport.

If there must be a choice between the Edinburgh airport rail link and tramline 2 because there is insufficient traffic for both, which will the Executive back?

The Executive backs both projects and has made provision in its budgets to support both. I will come later to issues that relate to those points.

I turn to the key points. First, west Edinburgh is an area of significant economic opportunity, not only for the capital city, but for the whole of Scotland. Tramline 2 will contribute to tackling congestion in west Edinburgh, as part of the city's wider transport strategy. Secondly, the scheme will help to protect our environment and to improve health by minimising emissions and the consumption of resources and energy. Thirdly, tramline 2 will make journey planning and ticketing easier, thereby ensuring connectivity between all forms of public transport, which will encourage more people to leave their cars at home. Fourthly, the tramline will bring more indirect social inclusion benefits by opening up wider employment, education and leisure opportunities to people throughout the communities that the line will serve.

The committee heard clear evidence in support of the proposal from the City of Edinburgh Council and from Scotland's business and financial communities. They made clear the need for the tramline to support and sustain the strong economic growth that is taking place in the area, especially at Edinburgh Park, Gogarburn and Edinburgh airport.

We are clear that the scheme must lead to improved public transport overall and that it should not simply displace existing users from other forms of public transport, such as the bus. We expect the scheme to add to the number of people who travel by public transport and we have made it clear that that will be a key factor in determining the scheme's success. Everyone accepts the need for improvements to the transport system to support the future growth of west Edinburgh, which is an important part of Scotland.

The case for the principle of the tramway is strong and is supported widely by local businesses, people and communities. The project is an exciting one that will bring a modern 21st century tram network to Scotland's capital. It is exactly the sort of scheme that will help to transform the quality and reliability of public transport in Scotland. Clearly, a lot of detailed work still needs to be done before a final decision can be made on the tramline. However, I believe firmly that the case has been made for the general principles of the bill and that the committee should proceed to consider the bill in detail. During the consideration stage, objectors to the bill will rightly be given a full and proper hearing.

I strongly support the committee's recommendation that the general principles of the bill be agreed to.

I speak as a member of the bill committee and as someone who, for reasons of age and geography, had the early practical experience of travelling to school on a tram for five years. That was in what is now the city of discovery but was then more noted for jam, jute and journalism. I am glad that the committee was able to recommend that the bill proceed, not on the basis of sentiment about trams but on the basis of the sound arguments that we discussed during our consideration of the bill.

Regardless of what happens to the bill, it strikes me that we should regret the short-sightedness of those of our municipal authorities in the 1950s and early 1960s that scrapped the tram systems that we had then. If they had had more foresight we might not be undertaking this procedure now. European capital cities such as Helsinki, Vienna and Prague have retained and expanded their pre-war tram systems and cities such as Strasbourg and Lyon have new systems that are an integral part of their good public transport systems. We in Edinburgh, and elsewhere in Scotland, can only look with envy at the position that those cities are in.

Having mentioned all those cities, I should add that it is to the committee's credit—I say this because I was not a member of the committee at that stage—that when it wanted to see a modern tram system in action, it went not to Vienna, Strasbourg or Lyon but, restrainedly and unaccountably, to Nottingham. I hope that when the press notes that fact it will be as lavish in its praise as it is ready in its criticism of parliamentary visits.

I do not want to take up too much time in what is largely a consensual debate, but the final point that I want to make is about the burdensome procedure that we have had to go through and will have to go through some more, because the worst is yet to come at the consideration stage. I note that the Procedures Committee is considering the procedure for private bills. We are dealing with two private bills on trams and a third is still to come. We are spending an inordinate amount of parliamentary time on trams, yet we have the anomaly that the M74 extension, which even by the Government's estimates costs far more than any single line—and probably far more than both lines 1 and 2 put together—is not subject to any parliamentary procedure whatever. We must sort out the system whereby there is one rule for trams, which takes up so much parliamentary time and does not give the people who are either for or against the project any better say in the matter, and another for projects such as the M74 extension.

The other anomaly is that next week we will be discussing financial resolutions because, as I understand it, the standing orders provide that if a private bill is likely to result in Government expenditure we must have a financial resolution for it, yet the Finance Committee, which considers all other financial resolutions, does not have as part of its remit the consideration of the financial resolutions for these bills. That is yet another anomaly in the system, which we should sort out.

Having said all that, I look forward—with trepidation given the time involved—to further consideration at the next stage of the bill.

The Conservative party is glad to support the principles of the bill, but, like the committee, we have our reservations. We support moves to improve transport in Edinburgh, in which trams could play an important role. The current scheme has merits and difficulties. We share the concerns about the funding of the bill, the likely usage of the trams and the scale of the benefits that they will bring. The consultancy firm Ove Arup & Partners Scotland Ltd, which was charged with scrutinising the bill, claimed that lines 1 and 2 faced a significant shortfall in funding. Line 1 could cost £324 million, which is considerably more than the official estimate of £274 million. Arup has priced line 2 at up to £370 million, which is well ahead of the official estimate of £256 million. It also questions the forecast that passenger numbers would increase by 50 per cent over 15 years, branding the estimate high. We are still to be convinced about the financing of the project. A business case is yet to be presented and, until then, the City of Edinburgh Council is not going to vote on the project.

We must be certain that there will be enough passengers to cover the cost of financing the line. It is clear that attracting passengers on to trams and keeping them is the single most important factor in securing the long-term viability of any light rail project. In addition, the council is receiving suggestions for alternative routes—such as merging lines 1 and 2—from the public and the transport industry and those suggestions deserve to be listened to.

I am glad to know that the rail line to Edinburgh airport will not be affected and will be in place before the tramline. The national benefits of that rail link were debated in the Parliament last year, but the Edinburgh airport rail link might undermine the case for tramline 2 to such an extent that the tramline no longer remains a value-for-money proposition. The impact of the Edinburgh airport rail link will have to be analysed carefully before any final stage debate.

I ask the minister to tell us in his closing speech why the current tram scheme is better than the original tram scheme, which I understand would be much faster and more effective.

The Conservative party gives a cautious welcome in principle to the bill, which has merits—for example, reducing pollution—but the small print will have to be examined in detail. We seek to act as guardians of the people's best interest in public transport and in this case in particular.

Like Alasdair Morgan, I am a member of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee and support the motion in the name of Bill Aitken. The consideration of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill has been a new experience for many members. At times, ploughing through the paperwork has been a challenge for us all.

I thank the clerking team for its help and support during the preliminary stage. As the convener indicated, that support has been invaluable, due to the highly technical nature of the bill and the amount of paperwork that is involved in considering it. I also thank all those who gave us advice, which was important and extremely helpful to me and other members, and those who gave us evidence, whether oral or written.

Bill Aitken outlined the bill's principal objectives and its delegated legislative powers, so I will not go into those. However, it is important to point out, as others have done, that the final decision on the tramline and all associated components—such as tram halts, stops and overhead lines—will be taken at a later stage.

The promoter's memorandum states that the bill is being promoted as part of a package of transport improvements and we have heard from all speakers how important that is. The bill is designed to improve and increase choice, as well as to help to deliver the City of Edinburgh Council's local transport strategy. The promoter's memorandum says that the tramline

"will make a significant contribution to transport … that will have knock-on effects in terms of reducing congestion and pollution, increasing social inclusion and stimulating regeneration."

I agree with Alasdair Morgan—that is twice in one day—about the excellent integrated transport and tram systems that some of our European counterparts have. The committee places a great deal of importance on the evaluation of such issues. As has been said, if the bill is approved today, we will examine rigorously and find out how robust those important factors are.

As Bill Aitken said, the NAO report outlined four main areas in its first category. I will concentrate on access for mobility. I am a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, which is carrying out a disability inquiry, and it is important that, when we set up new services, we ensure that all in our communities have access to it. The promoter is confident that Edinburgh would be able to benefit in the four main areas in which the trams down south exceeded expectations.

In my last minute, I will talk a bit about social policy and welcome the assurances of improved connectivity and through-ticketing. I make a little, 30-second plea about concessionary fares. The promoter has said that it desires to incorporate local, and indeed national, concessionary fare schemes for the tram. That proposal is perhaps something for the minister to address, and I would urge those responsible to proceed with it. That would be an important measure to take in the context of social inclusion.

I agree with the motion before us, and I urge the Parliament to support it.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. The provision of public transport options is one of the most important issues for my constituency of Edinburgh West and for the city as a whole. I thank the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee for its hard work to date, and I have much sympathy with the points that Alasdair Morgan made about procedure. I welcome the bill's passage to this stage of the parliamentary process.

I have had a number of meetings with the promoter—the City of Edinburgh Council—BAA and constituents about tramline 2, and I am particularly concerned to ensure that those constituents who will be affected by the plans will be able to voice their concerns for scrutiny at the consideration stage, when Transport Initiatives Edinburgh Ltd—TIE—will probably be in a position to offer greater detail and certainty in its answers than has been the case so far. I have consistently supported the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill in its entirety, and I am pleased that the bill committee supported the bill's general principles.

The tram scheme has an integral part to play in fulfilling the huge potential of west Edinburgh and in consolidating Edinburgh's reputation as a dynamic business location. A modern integrated transport system is crucial to sustaining the strong period of economic growth that the city has enjoyed and to helping it to compete in the international marketplace. Doing nothing about our transport problems is not an option. However, yesterday's referendum result showed that the people of Edinburgh feel that the way to tackle congestion is first to provide people with viable alternatives to using their cars. The tramline 2 scheme is an example of one such alternative.

I believe that, through the scheme—along with that for line 1, the Edinburgh airport rail link, extended park-and-ride facilities and other initiatives—and by working together, central and local government can provide a public transport framework capable of encouraging drivers out of their cars. The National Audit Office report suggests that trams can be at the forefront and are more likely to attract drivers than many other forms of public transport. There are important social inclusion benefits to the scheme. The committee recognised the improved connectivity in the city, which has the potential to deliver greater benefits in relieving social exclusion.

Despite my support for the bill, I share some of the concerns that colleagues have already outlined. I welcome the fact that the promoter is currently refining the outline business case, which is to be scrutinised in detail. I am anxious that the current funding gap could lead to the stretch of line to Newbridge being dropped in due course. I indicated earlier that I support line 2 in its entirety. I am anxious to express that view in relation to the section of tramline from Ingliston to Newbridge. It is essential for the successful economic regeneration of the area that that section of line goes ahead. I am encouraged that the committee has recognised the importance of that section and the need to ensure that sufficient funding is secured. Without the stretch of line to Newbridge, the economic aims and the important social inclusion objectives of the tramline would be significantly weakened. I am content that the line will be financed by a mix of public and private funding, and I am delighted that the Scottish Executive is supporting public transport in west Edinburgh through a £375 million contribution to both tramlines.

You have one minute remaining.

The biggest problem that has been encountered by similar tram projects has been that of patronage, and that brings us to the relationship between EARL and tramline 2. I echo the views of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, which stated:

"It is clear that attracting passengers onto tram … is the single most important factor in securing the long-term viability of any light rail project".

The committee added that the most important reason for many of the failures of the past was the limited extent of integration with other modes of transport. I have some concerns about EARL and tramline 2. However, I believe that the two projects can co-exist. It is important that we proceed with good joint working from now on, involving all the partners including BAA. The projects can complement each other. At first glance, they seem to offer the same service, namely a link to the airport. However, that overlooks one of the key benefits of the EARL proposals, which is the inclusion of Edinburgh airport in Scotland's rail network, while line 2 will serve key places such as Edinburgh Park and the Gyle centre. Therefore, I think that the projects can proceed together.

I echo Marilyn Livingstone's comments about concessionary travel, and I support the bill at this stage.

I hope that the trams travel as quickly as the member just spoke.

I welcome the growing recognition that trams can move large numbers of people quickly and reliably with minimal congestion and minimal impact on local air pollution. However, we must recognise that integration is the key to a successful transport system. Without congestion charging and the funds that it could and should have fed into public transport, we are in danger of having two tramlines as opposed to a tram system. We must also recognise that tramline 2 will, on its own, have only a minimal impact on congestion on key routes into the city—for example, a reduction in traffic on the A8 of just 0.3 per cent.

To tackle pollution, we need both a world-class public transport system and a system of traffic restraint such as congestion charging. We should not be wedded to trams more than to any other mode of public transport. We must remember that the name of the game is not tram patronage but enabling people from all walks of life to access decent public transport options—that is what will make the difference.

The debate is on the overall policy and principles and I support the principle of tramline 2. We should recognise that most of the objections are about the detail of the line. There are lessons to be learned from the referendum on congestion charging. We should not forget that when the City of Edinburgh Council first consulted on its local transport strategy, 62 per cent of respondents were in favour of road user charging to fund major public transport improvements. In my experience, the no vote was based partly on confusion about what the proposal amounted to and partly on genuine reservations about the details of the proposals. We need proper engagement with communities to ensure that the proposal for tramline 2 gets proper support, understanding and detailed scrutiny and goes on to benefit those communities.

The Scottish Green Party supports the principles of the bill. We think that Edinburgh needs a world-class public transport system as part of the process of tackling traffic congestion and pollution in Edinburgh. I welcome Bill Aitken's promise of detailed scrutiny of the bill; in particular, I ask the committee to scrutinise the proposed route. I share many of the concerns that members expressed about the proposed Edinburgh airport rail link. We should reflect on where the trams will pick up most passengers; as the promoter's documents confirm, the only major tram market that is not served by the proposed heavy rail link to Edinburgh airport is the Ingliston park-and-ride stop. We need detailed scrutiny of that. I challenge Transport Initiatives Edinburgh's assumption that the charge for the rail link to the airport will be substantially more than the charge for a trip that goes past the airport to Linlithgow. It costs £5.10 to get to Linlithgow. I cannot believe that it will cost substantially more than £5.10 to make a journey of half that length to the airport.

There are other issues, such as cyclists, concessionary fares and access for people with disabilities. We support the bill in principle, but we welcome the fact that the committee will undertake detailed scrutiny of it.

I strongly support the general principles of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill and I am pleased that the committee has also reached that decision. I applaud the work that the City of Edinburgh Council has done to develop proposals for a tram system in Edinburgh and indeed to develop radical plans to address the transport challenges that face our capital. I also recognise the Executive's commitment and support, both financial and otherwise.

I note that many members referred to the line 2 proposals and some referred to "both" tramlines but, to echo a point that Mark Ballard made, I note that the council's plans are for three tramlines. I express a particular interest in line 3, which would serve the east of the city and, in particular, the Edinburgh royal infirmary. I note that the funding for that line has suffered a serious setback in the light of yesterday's referendum result. It is important for us to make that connection. However, I am pleased that the council has indicated its continued desire to take forward plans for line 3. I hope that it will secure support and, in due course, the necessary resources to develop the line.

I will add my tuppenceworth on the decision-making process for the proposals. I echo strongly and will add to Alasdair Morgan's comments. As some colleagues know, many documents have emerged from consideration of line 2 and there are many other documents for consideration for next week's debate on line 1. Those documents are only the preliminary stage reports.

I greatly sympathise with members of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, who have also had to wade through the papers that fed into their preliminary stage report. I say simply that there must be a better way. What matters is not just the number of rainforests that have been destroyed or the number of person hours that MSPs or parliamentary support staff have worked. The serious issue is the duplication of discussion and effort, given the work that has been done locally and the work that the Executive will do in due course.

As Alasdair Morgan said, the Procedures Committee has undertaken work on private bills. I strongly urge those who are in a position to do so to develop that work with urgency. I do not have time to go into the alternative options that the Procedures Committee has set out. Options include a similar arrangement to that under the Transport and Works Act 1992, which applies in England and Wales. That reduces the need for the parliamentary process that we are following but still enables proper scrutiny and discussion to take place in proceeding with transport infrastructure projects. Change sooner rather than later is a serious issue.

We are talking not just about the Edinburgh trams but the Glasgow and Edinburgh airport rail links, the Airdrie and Shotts line and many more projects. We all want good and effective scrutiny, but I stress that the national Parliament's job is ultimately to add value to the decision-making process. The danger at the moment is that we will add years to the decision-making process, which we cannot afford to do.

If change on the scale that the Procedures Committee has considered is implemented, that will take years to put in place, so I urge those who are examining the tram bills to consider how to adopt a lighter touch in the short term and to think about the fact that hard-pressed transport officials who work on the projects in the City of Edinburgh Council must give input time and again, often on the same issues. All of us want much-needed transport and other infrastructure projects to proceed quickly. We can all play a part in ensuring that that is done better than at present. I support the motion and commend the work that has been done but hope that we can find a better way in future.

I am glad that we have reached the point that we are at. Like Susan Deacon, I have followed the debate from the sidelines. I am not a member of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee because, as a local MSP, I cannot join it. I have two views about that and they are totally contradictory, as would be expected.

In some ways, I am relieved not to have had to undertake the process. I do not envy the committee's job, but it is vital. Susan Deacon is right to say that we need the right system. Perhaps the present system is not the right one. However, we still need proper accountability and scrutiny of the process, so I welcome the hard work of the committee and of all those from the promoter's side, the local community and businesses who have appeared before the committee and taken part in a process that is confusing because it is unlike the traditional land-use planning approach that most communities and businesses are used to. The process has been difficult.

The big picture is that we are in a serious catch-up situation. Our agonising choice over trams or the Edinburgh airport rail link reflects the fact that we are far behind all our major European competitors, which did such work years ago. Most of the other major European capitals, their airports and their growing financial sectors already have such infrastructure in place. Most of them are modernising their existing equipment; they are not debating where lines should go.

We are playing catch-up, but we must still get the projects right. I represent many constituents who have many detailed questions, comments and objections that it is right for Bill Aitken and his committee to deal with at the consideration stage. The process is not transparent for my constituents because we have not followed the process before.

Tramline 2 is important because it links some of Edinburgh's key growth sectors. Edinburgh is a compact city, but it is also a growing and successful city. We must be able to link people up without having the huge congestion that comes with more cars coming into the city—I mean not just into the centre but around the suburbs. The tram proposal will not fix that problem, but with better buses, the south suburban railway and park-and-ride facilities around the whole city, it will begin to help us to fix it. Therefore, the proposal is important.

It is crucial that the tram should link in with other forms of transport—colleagues in the chamber have made spot-on comments about that. The National Audit Office report recommended that that point should be properly considered. The timetabling, ticketing and concessionary fares schemes of trams should link in with those of bus services. We must ensure co-ordination of routes and I think that there will be scope for reconsidering Edinburgh's traditional bus network. There is an opportunity to rethink whether every bus should be forced to go along Princes Street.

Park-and-ride routes on the outskirts of the city and access for car drivers will be fundamental to the project's success. We have seen the demand across central Scotland and Fife for car drivers to go part of their routes by car and other parts by high-quality, affordable and comfortable public transport. Furthermore, we should not forget pedestrians and cyclists, for whom part of the route will be critical.

The process is difficult. To some extent, my constituents have found the fact that we are having an hour-long debate on the bill's principles to be difficult to deal with, as the issue is so big. It can be seen from the background reports that a huge amount of work has been done. However, we are in a position to accept the committee's work and to look forward to the consideration stage, which will be critical.

I share Susan Deacon's concerns about whether we are doing things in the best way in respect of setting a framework for compulsory purchase orders, detailed planning issues and the critical issue of getting the design right. Edinburgh is a world heritage city and trams will offer huge social and economic benefits. We must ensure that they also offer design and environmental benefits.

Labour members fully support the principle of improved public transport and the bill is an important part of that process for Edinburgh. It is also important for Scotland, given that Edinburgh is Scotland's economic driver. I hope that members will support the process and look to the consideration stage.

If I may say so, a man of few words does not have to take many of them back. I have already made my position clear and rest my case.

However, I mention a final point. Local MSPs, including list MSPs, were not allowed to serve on the committee that considered this private bill. The committee was ably convened by my good friend Bill Aitken, who is a regional MSP for Glasgow, and he and the other members of the committee are to be warmly congratulated on their excellent work. However, if the opportunity and need arise for a similar bill for somewhere else in Scotland, Lothian MSPs will not be weighed in the balance and found wanting.

I agree with other members that there are no difficulties with the bill's principles but, as with many things, the devil is in the detail, which will be considered at the next stage.

Alasdair Morgan, Susan Deacon and Sarah Boyack mentioned the methodology, with which it is clear there are difficulties. To the minister's credit, that matter has been raised previously—it was raised when the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill was considered. The difficulties will continue. We have them with respect to the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill. Alasdair Morgan's point is correct. We do not use this methodology for roads and it is impeding us. As Sarah Boyack has said in the chamber and elsewhere, we must address how we deliver things as a country, but we are not doing things in the best way. Members are facing an excessive workload, which they are not best qualified to deal with. We have reporters and assessors because they are trained and schooled. MSPs have 101 other things to consider and are not necessarily trained in such a way.

It is clear that there are practical matters that must be addressed and dealt with in great detail at the consideration stage. Individuals who face intrusions in their homes, gardens and whatever else have raised significant concerns about the routes, which must be addressed, and there are arguments about whether a tramway running parallel to a rail line is the best route.

The fundamental point that I wish to make relates to the bill's principles. The minister and Margaret Smith were correct to say that what happens in the west of Edinburgh is vital for the city of Edinburgh, and that what happens in the city of Edinburgh is vital for the Scottish economy, as Edinburgh is the engine and the dynamo driving forward the economy.

Everyone is in favour of trams; I do not know anyone who says that they are opposed to trams. However, even those who are not opposed to trams say that, first and foremost, they want the potholes filled in, they want the buses to come on time, and they want the trains not to be delayed because there is snow. We clearly live in a land of finite and limited resources and we have to have vision, structure and strategies.

I accept that we have to work towards the kind of society that exists on the continent where there are trams. However, the tramlines there are built on a heavy rail network, a bus network, a regulated transport system and pothole-free roads—all of the things to which we aspire.

We have to have the vision, but we then have to have the structures and strategies. I believe that we have to move towards a regional transport authority and partnership that has powers, teeth and a revenue stream. We have to allow that authority to make the choices that have to be made. If a tram system is brought in but we have not filled in the potholes, we have not got the bus network up to scratch and we have not delivered in other areas such as the Bathgate to Airdrie line or the Borders railway, questions will be asked about whether we have done the best thing.

I would like the minister to clarify whether he will allow the transport authorities, if they are created correctly, to be able to choose how they spend the money and how they work towards building a tram network. Susan Deacon commented on tramline 3, which is as important, if not more important, than line 2. If all things were equal, we would do line 3 before we did line 2.

However, let us get to grips with the practicalities. Let us work towards delivering the projects while acknowledging that, although we want to catch up with the European model at some stage, it will take us some time to do so. Perhaps utilitarianism is best and we should use some money to fill in the potholes so that cars run smoothly and pedestrians do not break their ankles. Every bus service in Edinburgh should be akin to the 22 not the 42 or the 41 that some of us have to put up with. We have to get the rail network running all the time, even when there are leaves on the line and snow is falling. Let us have the powers to use the money for the best for all Edinburgh.

The members of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee will have noted the many important points that have been made this afternoon. The committee has accepted that the proposed new project is an important step forward in delivering much-needed transport infrastructure for Edinburgh.

I support the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill. I believe that it will bring significant benefits to central and west Edinburgh and to all Scotland. However, much is still to be done to realise those ambitions and I will touch on some of the key issues that remain to be worked up in more detail.

Public transport works such as this tramline are major undertakings and it is right for the committee to be concerned that the works will be delivered on time and on budget. It is also right that people are concerned about the scheme's financial viability, especially its overall costs and the anticipated passenger numbers. As the bill progresses, we all need to be assured about those and other major aspects of the scheme. Given the significant scale of the funding involved, it is also important that the promoter gives us all in the Parliament and the Executive confidence in those issues in its final business case.

People are right to be concerned about the key issues, particularly given the problems that there have been with some of the tram systems in other parts of the UK. However, all available evidence indicates that the financial case for tramline 2 is still a good one.

The Edinburgh airport rail link is an associated issue that has been raised by members. The rail link is likely to have an effect on the patronage of tramline 2; that is evident to all members. It is important to appreciate that the Edinburgh airport rail link is a national scheme of major strategic significance, as Lord James said. Tramline 2 is of great importance to the region and to the city area. The two schemes are intended to complement each other and build on each other's advantages. They will offer greater flexibility and create greater opportunities for people to switch between tram, rail and bus, but we clearly require a full and detailed assessment of all the issues in the final business plan.

It is vital that the tramline is seen as part of an integrated transport network in Edinburgh. As Kenny MacAskill pointed out, we are moving towards regional transport strategies and, for the first time, a national transport strategy, which is much needed. Trams have an important role in all those developments.

The Executive considers that the tramline will make a significant contribution to reducing congestion in Edinburgh; to encouraging and sustaining economic development in the west of the city, in particular; and to widening the range of employment and education opportunities for people throughout Edinburgh.

Edinburgh has a strong and growing economy. It is already one of the most dynamic cities in Europe. New tramlines, a new airport rail link, expanded bus and rail services and the major upgrade of Waverley station add up to a major commitment by the Executive and the Parliament—an investment of well over £1 billion to ensure that Edinburgh has a transport system to match its other successes. That is why the bill and the other transport initiatives in the city are so important and should be supported.

At the beginning of his opening speech, the minister said that this is an important day for the Parliament, as we are considering the preliminary stage report on the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill. The committee report on the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill will be debated next week. In line with the best public transport clichés, the Parliament has waited six years for a tram bill and then two have come along at once.

As the convener and the minister stated, the promoter has presented its case for the tramline as part of a broad transport strategy for the city of Edinburgh. The promoter claimed that the case for the line was strengthened by the fact that it will act as an economic stimulus to what is arguably already a vibrant, dynamic economy—not only in the Edinburgh city region, but in Scotland as a whole. That is supported by a key point that the minister, Kenny MacAskill and others made during the debate.

Given that the tramline is breaking new ground in the Parliament, the committee sought to analyse thoroughly the key assumptions behind the tram proposals. As Alasdair Morgan indicated, we visited Nottingham. Far from feeling short-changed because we did not visit Lyon, Strasbourg or other European cities, we found our visit to a scheme that is comparable to that which is proposed for Edinburgh to be beneficial. We also found that the National Audit Office report was useful as a base indicator for our work. It enabled us to establish some basic principles against which some of the promoter's assumptions could be judged. Our site visit to Nottingham also provided context. We are grateful to all committee clerking staff, witnesses, people in Nottingham and others who have assisted us in our work.

The evidence that we received from the National Audit Office was helpful, as it provided us with a basis on which to judge the promoter's view that trams offer fast, frequent and reliable services. In the five systems that were assessed by the NAO, trams generally scored highly in passenger surveys, compared with buses.

Although the promoter accepts that in Edinburgh the airlink bus operation to the airport is able to match journey times overall, it argues that trams benefit from running off road and are therefore not susceptible to delays that result from congestion. Almost all schemes have afforded the passenger greater comfort and safety, which has influenced positively the perception of light rail as a travel option.

All tram schemes that were examined by the NAO provided better access than buses for people with mobility problems. The committee witnessed at first hand in Nottingham the benefits of trams in improving access for such people.

The committee agreed that all systems were viewed as having enhanced the image of cities and towns in which they provided services. The promoter of tramline 2 has confidence that in the broad areas to which I have referred the scheme will be able to achieve all the benefits that have been delivered by light rail networks in other cities. On the basis of the evidence in the NAO report concerning tram systems that are already operational in the United Kingdom, the committee is satisfied that the promoter's confidence is well founded and that those benefits can be achieved if line 2 proceeds.

However, it is worth nothing that the NAO report expressed less confidence in schemes' ability to deliver a number of other significant benefits. The committee was keen to explore those purported benefits in greater detail, in order that it might take a view on how real or attainable they would be in the case of line 2. Lord James mentioned some of those benefits: economic development and regeneration, reducing congestion, social inclusion and environmental benefit. As those who followed the committee's scrutiny will have seen, we paid particular attention to the financial case for the scheme and its potential for economic regeneration; and to the reduction in congestion and the consequent improvement of the environment of the city and benefit to passengers on public transport.

The committee notes that the promoter's documentation confirms that there will be a limited direct contribution to the stimulation of economic growth. The committee believes that the nature of the promoter's case for economic development and regeneration is aspirational, but it agrees that, by and large, the case is based on prudent and conservative assumptions. The committee accepts that the tram is likely to have significant indirect benefits as regards sustaining current growth projections and that it has the potential to contribute positively to economic development and regeneration in west Edinburgh, as Margaret Smith and the minister stated.

Although the Scottish transport appraisal guidance 2 report confirms that the effect of the tram will be to reduce congestion only marginally along some of the routes, against a background of worsening congestion, the committee believes that overall the promoter's objective of maintaining present levels of congestion throughout the lifetime of the project will have considerable success.

The committee gave due consideration to the impact of other major transport developments that are likely to be introduced, such as the Edinburgh airport rail link, as well as to the possibility of a competitive bus response, although even with good partnership working in the city of Edinburgh, the committee thought that that would be unlikely. The committee also considered the potential impact of concessionary fares, which Marilyn Livingstone and Margaret Smith raised in the debate.

At the end of the evidence taking on the general principles of the bill, the committee still had some reservations about specific issues that materially affect the promoter's patronage estimates. Although the committee recognises that the promoter has been able to address many of the issues about which the committee was initially sceptical, the committee did not consider it appropriate, given the level of public funding that the scheme would attract, to give an unqualified endorsement of the promoter's case at the preliminary stage.

The extent to which benefits will be achieved will depend on the extent to which trams are used. Mark Ballard, Susan Deacon and Sarah Boyack among others raised points not only about the route of the line, the voluminous evidence that we received and the necessity of having transparency and openness, but about the parliamentary process. Most members of the committee will have sympathy with those points and the Procedures Committee and the minister will develop those considerations further.

Lord James said that a man of few words seldom has to take them back. However, a Government that fails to invest in public transport will have much to regret. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill should continue as a private bill and that the Parliament should agree to its general principles.