Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill: Preliminary Stage
The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5168, in the name of Phil Gallie, which asks Parliament to agree to the general principles of the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill.
This is my worst nightmare: I am having to speak in a consensual debate.
The Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee and I believe that the proposal for the project is sound, but before I talk about some of the key aspects of the committee's report, it might be useful if I set out some background to the bill. The bill's main purpose is to reopen the rail link between Airdrie and Bathgate with a double-track electrified railway following the original railway line. Improvements are planned to existing railway lines between the west of Glasgow and Edinburgh via Airdie and Bathgate. New stations will be built at Caldercruix and Armadale, and the stations at Drumgelloch and Bathgate will be relocated. A cycle path along the former railway will also be relocated. Further consideration of that is needed—no doubt Alasdair Morgan will refer to that.
In addition, there are the linked improvements, including the relocation of a vehicle storage yard in Bathgate, which currently occupies the site that has been identified for the relocation of Bathgate station. A new railway rolling stock maintenance depot will also be created adjacent to the site of the new Bathgate station. Improvements to the existing railway are included, such as the redoubling of sections of line, line electrification and signalling work.
Briefly, the bill promoter sees the railway as being the best way to achieve six objectives. It will improve direct access to labour markets for people living in the Airdrie to Uphall corridor and stimulate economic growth by improving connectivity to and from the area. It will assist in the delivery of social inclusion through enhanced public transport opportunities and it will increase the number of people using public transport with improved access into the national rail network. It will offer a public transport alternative to the M8, thereby reducing road congestion and environmental impacts, and it will provide an alternative to the Edinburgh to Glasgow main line service, thereby reducing peak time congestion.
The projected capital cost of the railway at 2010 prices—the year in which it is intended that the railway become operational—is £342 million.
I thank everyone who engaged in our consideration of the detailed written and oral evidence and assisted in broadening our understanding of the proposal. We approached the task with an open mind and sought to ensure balance, fair representation and participation. I also thank my fellow committee members for their 100 per cent attendance record and their commitment in carefully scrutinising the proposal. I also record appreciation of the work of the clerking team, which was led by Fergus Cochrane.
The committee identified what we believed to be the key aspects of the proposal and pursued them through written and oral evidence. Those issues centred on the scheme's objectives. I believe that, as a result of our detailed scrutiny of the proposal, we have identified genuine improvements that will bring further benefits to the communities that will be served by the railway. Those improvements will be elaborated on during the debate.
I would like to address the economic and social aspects of the railway, local bus services, station provision and accessibility and connectivity. Alasdair Morgan, in closing, will touch on other issues including patronage, relocation of the cycle path, the draft code of construction and noise and vibration policies, and he will talk about how we expect the bill to progress at consideration stage, should the motion be agreed today.
On economic and social inclusion, there is undoubtedly a lack of adequate public transport along the line of route. There are low rates of car ownership in some areas, which increases difficulties that are related to people's mobility. A lack of proper transport links can stifle local economic performance and can, due to difficulties in recruitment, be a hindrance to businesses expanding. The committee sees the railway as a way to widen the labour pool for employers as well as a way to widen opportunity for individuals. At present, certain places may not be attractive to businesses that seek to locate in the Airdrie and Bathgate areas. The committee believes that the railway will prove attractive to such businesses and that it will improve accessibility and connectivity for potential employees.
The committee believes that the railway can assist in economic and social regeneration. There is a lack of access to wider educational options, such as night schools, due to poor public transport provision. The committee sees the railway as a way to increase such opportunities; for example, it will enable people to travel into Glasgow for further education evening classes.
There is a need to increase economic growth in the areas between Edinburgh and Glasgow. The committee sees the railway as a way to assist in the economic development of Edinburgh, Glasgow and the areas that lie in between them. The projections for North Lanarkshire are for a decline in population. However, as a result of the railway, the population figures could grow by 1,900 in West Lothian and 1,000 in North Lanarkshire, according to information with which we have been provided.
The railway is likely to help local economies to grow, and to improve the social fabric of towns and villages. The committee believes that the railway can assist in increasing population along the railway corridor, thereby leading to an increase in local spend and a stimulated demand for improved local services, such as shops and leisure facilities, which will create local jobs.
It was suggested that the railway could generate 1,500 jobs in the area. A view was registered that that projection was perhaps not optimistic enough—the committee believes that evaluation to be somewhat on the low side. It is projected that the overall long-term economic benefits will be more than £300 million.
When we think about the railway, we must also think of other transport facilities. We felt that it was important that local bus services should also be addressed. At present, there is a lack of adequate bus services in the area.
We recognise that, because of lack of mobility that results from inadequate public transport links, it will be difficult for people who do not have a local station to access the railway. We were made aware of the current poor bus provision, particularly after 6 pm and at weekends. For example, without a car and with no direct bus, it could take a person in Caldercruix more than two hours to travel the 16 miles to Livingston, and they would have to use three buses to do so. The railway would provide a direct service between those two points.
The promoter has identified key objectives and benefits that the railway could bring. However, we believe that such objectives and benefits will be properly achieved only through the railway's full integration with local bus services. Without improvements and commitments on the provision of proper bus services, the objectives might not be met in full and the benefits will not be available to all. Even with a local station, it is important that proper integrated bus services be made available to take passengers to and from stations. Without that, the objectives of the railway scheme will not be achieved in full.
Consequently, the committee has sought firm guarantees on the standard and provision of bus services that will properly integrate with the railway. We need to make the railway fully inclusive for local communities and to maximise local patronage. A commitment must be given to long-term provision and funding of buses—if necessary, through bus quality partnerships or quality contract schemes. We are looking for more than vague promises on that.
We felt that there was a lack of early planning from the local authorities involved and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport on the long-term provision of bus services. It is now up to the promoter, the local authorities and SPT to work together constructively to identify where and how services can and will be improved. How much that will cost and where the funding will come from must be identified.
The promoter has committed £1 million to bus services. Such funding is welcome, but both local authorities feel that that amount will be insufficient to provide adequate bus services. We remain unsure how the money would be allocated and over what period and we have sought clarification from the promoter about that. We cannot realise the potential of the railway or secure its purported benefits without improvements to bus services, so we await the further information with interest.
Our report highlights the fact that economic development and social regeneration are at the heart of why the railway should be reinstated. The recognition that the railway could bring tangible improvements to people's day-to-day lives and will improve access and connectivity locally, regionally and nationally underpins the need for proper and easy access to it.
We gave much thought to having stations at Blackridge and Plains, for which those communities expressed demand—local members passionately gave reasons why those stations should be provided. I welcome the fact that the minister wrote to tell us that the Scottish Executive would consider such stations in the future. That eased the committee's path, because the committee could have divided on the issue, given the timescale against which we were asked to examine the bill. I am pleased that, for the moment, we have Tavish Scott's commitment. We look forward to receiving more information on that.
We also addressed accessibility and connectivity. Public transport connectivity between towns and villages in the area and more widely into Glasgow and Edinburgh is poor. I make the personal point that it would be great to have crossrail in Glasgow, which might provide links for Ayrshire. However, that is not a committee view but a personal observation. Perhaps I am abusing my position.
It is important to improve station accessibility by enhancing local bus services and cycle paths. The railway can improve accessibility to wider employment, further education and leisure options, but only if the accessibility of stations is improved.
The railway will join existing gaps in the network between Drumgelloch and Bathgate. The committee believes that the route will have a wider impact by opening up a 60-mile stretch of railway. The committee is aware of the potential to improve wider network access through the integration of new lines such as the Borders railway, which will open up access throughout southern and central Scotland.
The committee has, in view of the other railway schemes that are coming on track, indicated that there is a need for close attention to be paid to timetabling issues. The committee recognises the importance of timetabling to integrate the Airdrie to Bathgate railway properly and fully with other railway schemes and acknowledges the importance of careful and informed planning by the Scottish Executive and others in progressing the project along with other railway and tram projects.
The committee believes that the railway is not solely about the provision of local transport links between Airdrie and Bathgate or access out of those areas into wider areas, but about access into those areas from Glasgow, Edinburgh and beyond.
As I said at the start of my speech, through our scrutiny of the bill, the committee has identified ways in which the scheme can be enhanced and how its benefits can be more readily achieved and widely distributed. Physically, the railway is for the communities of the Airdrie to Bathgate railway corridor, but its benefits will go far beyond those areas. To ensure the railway's success, deliver on its objectives and bring about its purported benefits and improvements to people's lives, it is vital that it is truly acceptable to all.
On the committee's behalf, I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill and that the Bill should proceed as a Private Bill.
I sympathise with Phil Gallie on having to finish with words such as
"it is truly acceptable to all."
In seven years of reading the Official Report, I do not think that I have ever read Mr Gallie say that. However, I commend the way in which he expressed the committee's views and the smooth manner in which he threw several passes—dodgy or otherwise—to Alasdair Morgan to deal with in his summing-up. Phil Gallie shows great ability, which I am sure his party's front benchers will recognise one day.
I thank Mr Gallie and the committee for their work so far on Parliament's behalf. They considered much evidence at the preliminary stage and should rightly be commended for their efforts. Like Mr Gallie, I thank people who took much time to provide written evidence and who appeared as witnesses. I enjoyed my afternoon with the committee to consider aspects of the bill.
We fully support the bill's general principles and the construction of the Airdrie to Bathgate railway project—a commitment in the partnership agreement. The project is a core aspect of the transport infrastructure plan, which involves spend of more than £1 billion per annum, 70 per cent of which is on public transport.
The reasons why we support the bill and are committed to funding the Airdrie to Bathgate railway are clear. We do so for many of the reasons that Mr Gallie outlined fairly. Promotion of sustainable economic growth is the Government's central aim, and transport infrastructure and our railways have an important role in delivering that aim.
The Airdrie to Bathgate railway will put in place a necessary public transport connection to the key economic centres of Glasgow and Edinburgh. Three distinct rail services run between Glasgow and Edinburgh: the express main-line Edinburgh to Glasgow service, which has a journey time of 50 minutes and four trains per hour; an hourly service via Shotts, with connections for passengers who live in Lanarkshire and Midlothian; and an intercity service from Glasgow Central station to Edinburgh, which stops at Motherwell and Carstairs and has a journey time of 59 minutes.
As Mr Gallie said, the Airdrie to Bathgate railway will allow people in North Lanarkshire to take a direct service into Edinburgh, which will include a stop at Edinburgh Park, and will allow people in West Lothian to have a direct connection to Glasgow that they do not have at present. I, too, was informed by the committee's deliberations and the written evidence, in which an argument was made about the ability of our main economic centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh to access new areas with people who have skills that are needed in some industries. That was another strong argument for improved public transport services.
I agree with every word that the minister has said, but I draw his attention to the contempt with which the senior management of Network Rail in Scotland has treated my constituents in Airdrie—particularly those who will be affected by compulsory purchase. Network Rail's chief executive refuses to discuss those cases with me, although I represent those people at their request in their dispute with Network Rail. Will the minister give Network Rail's senior management a loud and clear message that, in the process, it is important to treat the people who are affected properly and fairly?
Obviously, I would be happy to look into that matter. I cannot envisage circumstances in which the promoter would want to avoid sensible and constructive meetings with members of the Scottish Parliament in carrying out their duties in representing communities and individuals. Such meetings are part of the process of ensuring that the railway infrastructure project is successful. It is important that the promoter deals properly with local people's views if uncertainty or concern exist. I take Mr Neil's question seriously. I met Network Rail's senior management yesterday, but will pursue the matter that he has raised and ensure that the appropriate connections are made.
The Airdrie to Bathgate railway will give people in North Lanarkshire a direct service into Edinburgh, including into Edinburgh Park, and will significantly improve public transport opportunities for the large population that resides in communities along the route, which will benefit the local and regional economies and the national economy. The promoter has estimated that there will be £679 million in benefits to Scotland and that 1,500 jobs will be created in the local area. The Government recognises that the economy changes over time and that our transport infrastructure must reflect those changes. People must be able to get quickly, safely and reliably to where they want to work and where they want to learn. The bill will mean that they will be able to do so.
The promoter has given evidence that the railway will offer a public transport alternative to travel on the M8 and that it will help to reduce the rise in road traffic congestion. The railway cannot by itself halt the rise in car use, but it will provide people with a genuine choice, provision of such choices being a central theme of our transport policy. The proposals show the Executive's commitment to putting in place sustainable public transport alternatives to cars.
In its preliminary stage report, the bill committee rightly commented on the need to increase access to reliable public transport for people along the route. Mr Gallie mentioned the proposals for new stations. Evidence that was provided to the committee showed that there is also a case for constructing new stations at Blackridge and Plains. Our commitment should mean that stations can be constructed at Blackridge and Plains while the main route is being built.
That development is to be welcomed, but people in the affected communities may face losing their homes as a result of compulsory purchases. The minister will be aware that there is a disparity between the approach that is taken in England and Wales to home-loss payments and the approach that is taken in Scotland. That disparity is affecting my constituents in the Borders as a result of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Act 2006 and could affect capital schemes in the future. Will the minister ensure that he will work closely with his colleague the Minister for Communities to ensure that no such disparity exists?
Mr Purvis has made an important point. I understand that he recently met the Deputy Minister for Communities to discuss that matter with respect to this and other capital transport projects. We are considering the appropriate level of home-loss payments for Scotland and will consider making proposals in due course if a change is required. I assure Mr Purvis and other members that the Minister for Communities and the Deputy Minister for Communities are actively considering the matter. It is important that we achieve clarity on it as this and other bills proceed through Parliament.
There will be no additional Executive funding for any additional works. That is important. What I am saying is consistent with what I said in the autumn to the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, of which Mr Gallie is a member. The budget will remain capped at £299.7 million at 2006 prices. Such an approach is important for all our capital transport projects in which pressures exist.
In its report, the bill committee made it clear that it wants the railway service to be fully integrated with other forms of transport, especially buses and cycles. That is an important point, which members—Alasdair Morgan in particular—discussed in the evidence-taking sessions. The Executive recognises the importance of joined-up public transport journeys to the railway's success and can potentially provide financial support through bus development funds or grants for demand-responsive bus services. We will work with operators, local authorities and regional transport partnerships to engage fully on that matter; indeed, meetings will take place as early as Monday to discuss positive ways forward in that respect.
The benefits of the proposed rail link represent considerable value for money. It has been estimated that it will result in £679 million in benefits to the economy as a whole. It will cost £299.7 million at today's prices, and will lead to an expected outturn cost of between £300 million and £375 million, depending on the rate of industry inflation. That means that there will be a cost-benefit ratio of 1.81. To put that another way, for every £1 in costs, there will be £1.81 in benefits.
As with all major transport projects, Transport Scotland must ensure that the project is on time and on budget. The release of Government money will depend on a continually robust business case. I outlined to Parliament on 16 March the process that is involved. The promoter, with Transport Scotland's support, is also discussing with North Lanarkshire Council and West Lothian Council their contributions to the project.
The railway will provide a reliable and sustainable public transport link to our major economic centres. It will mean that new stations will be introduced and it will improve accessibility for local people in their areas. It is an essential element of the Government's £3 billion capital investment programme in transport and rail infrastructure in Scotland, so I ask members to support the motion and to agree to the general principles of the bill.
I will continue in the spirit of consensus that Phil Gallie set at the beginning of the debate. I hope that members of all parties will condemn the absurd remarks that have been made by Andrew Mackinlay, who is an Essex member of the United Kingdom Parliament who suggested yesterday that Scottish people should pay a £1.50 toll to travel to England. That shows—certainly in his case—that middle-aged men from Essex can be really stupid.
I commend the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee's work on the bill. The Scottish National Party fully supports the proposed line.
The Bathgate to Edinburgh line was reopened in the 1980s. Despite initial scepticism, it has proved to be one of the most popular and profitable routes in Scotland. Perhaps it needs double-tracking—indeed, that has been signalled as an early part of the works on the project that we are discussing—and platforms on the line have already had to be lengthened as a result of overcrowding. The current Helensburgh line will be extended across to Edinburgh. Although Bathgate is popular, the new station at Armadale is expected to be even busier than the station at Bathgate.
West Lothian is the fastest-growing county in Scotland—Fiona Hyslop will talk about that later. It has lots of overspill from Edinburgh, and there is extensive house building in the Armadale and Whitburn area.
The bill is intended to ease M8 congestion, but the route will not be the fastest end-to-end route between Glasgow and Edinburgh. The journey will take 75 minutes, which is plainly much longer than a journey on the main line would take. As other people have said, the new line will have more of an impact on commuting journeys from North Lanarkshire to Edinburgh and from West Lothian to Glasgow. As a result, it could be said that the bill will bring together the east of Scotland and the west of Scotland. People who live in West Lothian and work in Glasgow will find it much easier to get to work by rail; it is virtually impossible for such people to get to work by rail at the moment. Likewise, people who live in North Lanarkshire and work in Edinburgh will be able to travel to Edinburgh by rail. That is the most significant idea in the bill, and should be warmly welcomed.
Fiona Hyslop made a submission on the bill, gave evidence as a witness in Airdrie and attended the committee meeting in Whitburn. Mary Mulligan MSP and Karen Whitefield MSP, both of whom have formally objected to the bill and made the case for a Blackridge station, will speak later. They also gave evidence in Airdrie. It is right to pay tribute to everyone who has made the case that they have made.
The SNP believes that there is an extremely strong case for having a station at Blackridge. I am the SNP's transport spokesperson and have discussed the matter with our finance spokesman. As a result, I can say that the SNP supports having a station at Blackridge and, unlike the Executive, we can say right now that we would be prepared to contribute national funding for that station.
The costings of the pledge that we make today—[Interruption.] I see that it causes jocularity among some members of the Liberal party. It is extremely important that the people of West Lothian, which is the fastest-growing county in Scotland, are not denied the benefits of the new rail line. If we do not accept the case to establish new stations when we build the line, how much more will it cost when somebody suddenly realises years later that it was folly not to have constructed those stations? [Interruption.] The apparent hilarity among the Liberals is not particularly edifying.
I understand that the official line is that a Scottish transport appraisal guidance exercise is to be conducted at Blackridge, which I support. It is obvious that Plains should also be the subject of a STAG appraisal. The SNP believes that it is necessary to give a clear lead on the matter and this is another occasion when we do not hesitate about or shirk from so doing.
With Mr Davidson, I had the pleasure of being one of the participants in a hustings debate organised by Spokes this week. It would be remiss of me not to press the case for the cycle path upon which the committee commented. The economic benefits of the cycle path have been mentioned by the minister and we generally support its case.
The minister touched on the wider transport picture, on which I will share two reflections. As we look towards the next decade in Scotland, all of us, even the Greens who I am pleased to see have finally arrived in the chamber for the debate, wish to see more expansion of rail services. However, there is a threat to that expansion, as has been outlined by some Labour back benchers from Edinburgh, who do not appear to be here this morning. Without the Waverley phase 2 upgrade, the parts of the Scottish rail network that depend on Waverley will be at full capacity early in the next decade. Should all the current plans go ahead, it would not be possible or easy to extend the Airdrie to Bathgate line to North Berwick.
Unless we follow the SNP line—which I have suggested to the Minister for Transport—of pledging ourselves not to proceed with a highly expensive and unnecessarily risky scheme to create a tunnel under the runway and two bridges to provide the capital city with a connection to its airport, we will be unable to afford what we really require, which is to upgrade Waverley in phase 2 and expand hourly train paths from 28 to 32. If we do not do that, I and industry experts believe that the rail network in Scotland will be at full capacity early in the next decade. That is why the SNP would scrap the Edinburgh airport rail link, as set out by the Executive, consider with Network Rail a surface station option and proceed with Waverley phase 2. Unless we do that we will not see expansion of the rail network into the next decade. The SNP will set an exciting and appealing manifesto at the next election, including provision for a station at Blackridge on the Airdrie to Bathgate line.
I thank the committee for its diligence in producing an excellent report, as well as all those who contributed to it. We support Phil Gallie's motion on behalf of the committee. I am not particularly worried that Phil Gallie appears to be consensual occasionally. As long as he is in line with our front bench, it is lovely.
The development of our transport infrastructure is vital to Scotland. If we do not do that, we will not grow the economy or give people employment opportunities. More than that, if we are to take the environment seriously, we have to ensure that people can travel in an environmentally friendly way whenever possible at an affordable price.
There is no argument that the area of Scotland that will be served by the new line has been deprived—the local economy in Lanarkshire is 17 per cent below the Scottish average—and that much of the problem is about access to work. However, the problem is wider than that. The railway system can provide safe access to work, education and training, and allow people to make trips to the major centres of health delivery in Glasgow and Edinburgh, as well as provide social benefits.
The minister mentioned population growth. Growth in construction is welcome, but we must have the infrastructure to support house building, and we cannot spend everything in one day. The minister must listen to the demands and requests of the MSPs who serve the area, including Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on my right, to look again at the Blackridge and Plains station options. It is not just about the speed of the service between A and B; it is about connecting the people who live between A and B and enabling them to go in either direction. The more people we can get on to the train, the more we will be able to relieve some of the congestion on the M8, as the minister said.
It is all very well having rail lines, but we must ensure that they connect to other public transport systems, particularly buses. The committee highlighted its concerns about Network Rail's approach to that problem. New stations at Blackridge and Plains would bring relief to current Edinburgh to Glasgow rail traffic but, more important, we have to sort out a high-speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow and improve travel times.
I am puzzled by the SNP's late turnaround to support our suggestion of having a surface station for the Edinburgh airport rail link, as opposed to the tunnel option. That major airport must be connected with all parts of Scotland wherever possible, and a surface station at Turnhouse would provide that. It would also provide a connection for Fife with the Airdrie to Bathgate line.
Purely for clarity—because I had not readily appreciated this—will the member confirm that he is saying that the Tory policy is not to support the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill either?
No, that is not what I am saying. As we have said all along, our preferred option for EARL is to have a surface station at Turnhouse, because the tunnel is a very expensive option—but there we go; I welcome the minister to the debate.
Fergus Ewing was absolutely right when he spoke about Waverley. If we do not expand Waverley all the way, as has been discussed, it will slow up the trains, which will stack up trying to get in and out of the station. Eventually, perhaps in eight to 10 years, we will need to consider building a second Waverley station with a new route in and out of Edinburgh if rail services continue to go the way they are going.
As Fergus Ewing said, he and I attended a Spokes meeting recently. It seems that cycle route 75 on the national network will suffer as a result of the Airdrie to Bathgate line. The minister could intervene to ensure that Network Rail makes adequate provision to replace the path. I hope that he will consider another plea from the cycling community to install adequate storage for cycles at all stations, because that would be a great help to many people.
The minister mentioned the cap on funding, which is helpful, because we have to manage projects, but I hope that there is some flexibility in his budget to provide stations at Blackridge and Plains.
The interconnection of a large part of Scotland with the national transport network has to be a good thing, and we support it. However, I am a wee bit concerned about what appears will be another two years' delay to finish the project. Perhaps the minister will inform us in his winding-up speech why the project will take longer and whether it means that there will be an opportunity to revisit the Blackridge and Plains options. There is no doubt that it would be cheaper to build those stations as the line is constructed rather than bolting them on afterwards, because of the health and safety issues when working on station platforms as trains are passing.
We generally support the committee's proposals and we hope that the bill will have a fair wind in the chamber. If we are going to build the line, we need to ensure that we do it properly and adequately and that all the areas that could possibly be served by the railway system are also connected to other public transport systems.
There is little doubt that the central part of Scotland, between the two end points of the railway line, has been neglected by public transport systems for some time. I say again to the minister that he must ensure that he plans the project in conjunction with the communities that are being served. He should perhaps encourage the business community to re-examine investment in the area when the transport system is improved.
We support the work of the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee and the bill. We wish it fair passage.
Before I focus on the bill, I will upset the consensual politics that we have heard.
I will first address Fergus Ewing's comments on population growth in West Lothian. I agree that West Lothian is a phenomenal success at the moment. In my view, that is testimony to the successful economic policy that Labour in government is pursuing and to the success of West Lothian Council at a local level, which is a Labour-controlled council that was recently recognised as the United Kingdom council of the year.
Fergus Ewing again showed the SNP's lack of ambition for Scotland, and in particular its lack of ambition for Scotland's capital city by way of its continued lack of support for EARL. I suspect that Fiona Hyslop feels a little less comfortable on that issue, given that half of her press releases are from her home in Linlithgow and the basis of the SNP's policy is to deny Linlithgow the economic opportunities and growth in tourism that the link between Linlithgow and Edinburgh airport would bring.
Just so that Phil Gallie does not feel left out, I say that I welcome his support for the crossrail project in Glasgow, which Labour will take forward. The project will be addressed in the policy documents that we will discuss at our conference in Oban this weekend. My advice to Phil is that if he wants the project to be delivered, he should vote for John Duncan, the Labour Party candidate for Ayr, at next year's election.
I have a simple question: is Bristow Muldoon's constituency one of the 14 that Labour will lose, according to a report in The Herald this morning?
The Herald would have more credibility if it published independently commissioned polls by System Three rather than polls commissioned by the SNP. I am fairly confident that when the people of Livingston and the whole of Scotland know how ruinous the SNP's policies will be, they will reject them yet again.
I will move on to the Airdrie to Bathgate railway project. The existing Bathgate to Edinburgh railway is one of the phenomenal railway successes of the past 20 years. I recognise the role that West Lothian's two former members of Parliament—Robin Cook and Tam Dalyell—played in making the case for that railway and the contribution that it would make to the economic regeneration of West Lothian. I recognise that the line was introduced during the period of Conservative government but, before the Conservatives get carried away with that, I think that West Lothian would rather have had the railway without the 20 per cent unemployment that we suffered at the same time under the Conservatives.
The railway has been a phenomenal success. It originally started as an hourly service, but it is now a half-hourly service for most of the day. Capacity has recently been expanded as a result of longer platforms and longer trains. About 600,000 journeys per year are now made on the Bathgate to Edinburgh railway line. It is a phenomenal success and has brought great economic benefit to West Lothian.
The Airdrie to Bathgate project will further expand capacity for the existing line through twin tracking, which will bring the dual benefit of services every 15 minutes between Bathgate and Edinburgh and improved operational reliability of the existing line, which suffers from a single-track section.
The bill's objective to re-establish the Bathgate to Airdrie part of the line, which has been missing for around 50 years, will produce benefits for other areas of West Lothian and North Lanarkshire, including improved access to the Glasgow labour market for people in West Lothian and improved access to the Livingston and Edinburgh labour markets for people from North Lanarkshire.
The demand from people in North Lanarkshire to work in West Lothian was brought home in the unfortunate circumstances of the Motorola closure, when it became clear that a third of the Motorola workforce came from North Lanarkshire. Creating greater opportunities for people from North Lanarkshire to work in Livingston and Edinburgh will produce benefits. The line will also produce benefits in giving young people from both West Lothian and North Lanarkshire greater access to the further and higher education opportunities that exist in Scotland's two largest cities.
On social inclusion, by providing better public transport the railway line will address the fact that many people in the communities that it will go through do not have access to private cars. It will also provide better links with the national rail network.
The committee's preliminary stage report states that the projections for alleviating congestion are a little bit disappointing. I agree, but in the light of the success of the Bathgate to Edinburgh line there is a good case to be made that the current projections for alleviating congestion are probably underestimates. I believe that the scheme will move more cars off the M8 than is currently projected, but only time will tell.
I commend my colleagues Karen Whitefield and Mary Mulligan for campaigning to get stations at Blackridge and Plains on the agenda. Unlike David Davidson, I was listening to the minister and heard him commit to those two stations. From my understanding of the minister's letter to the committee, I believe that before the line reopens those stations can proceed under the powers that the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill will give the Executive. I can inform the Parliament that those stations will be committed to in Labour's policy documents, which will be presented to our conference tomorrow.
The project already has a strong base case ratio of 1.81, but I believe that that will be exceeded. However, even on that basis the project is worthy of support. Labour unequivocally supports the project and we will ensure that it is delivered over the course of the next four years.
We come to the open debate. There is no time limit on speeches this morning, which makes my role in proceedings somewhat redundant.
I put on record my thanks to the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee. It has provided a robust examination of the case and its report is rounded, but also pointed in many areas.
I remind the Parliament that people—some of whom might not live to see the railway opened—have campaigned for the railway line for many decades. We should thank those who have kept the pressure on in West Lothian and Lanarkshire to ensure that the line is reopened.
As Phil Gallie made clear in his opening speech, there is a sound case for the project. The base case ratio of 1.81 makes it a sound investment. The benefits of the project are manifest. However, we should remind ourselves that it is not necessarily about providing an end-to-end solution from Glasgow to Edinburgh, so journey time should not be a major consideration, although it certainly is an issue in relation to profitability. However, 74 minutes compared with 50 minutes is a big difference. I remember that when Croy station was opened on the current Glasgow to Edinburgh line, it was a surprise to many that not only was commuting extensive between Croy and Glasgow, but it was extensive between West Lothian and Croy and Falkirk and Croy.
We must remember that the world does not begin and end in Glasgow and Edinburgh: there is a great deal of vibrancy in the parts in between. The committee's report notes that the local chambers of commerce made the point that although the areas between Glasgow and Edinburgh
"should be the hub of economic growth, many were economically and socially neglected."
There is a great deal of potential in the area and a great deal of optimism that it can be successful. Page 11 of the committee's report notes that
"West Lothian Chamber of Commerce remarked that local small businesses are being constrained from growing into medium size enterprises due to the difficulty in recruiting people able to travel to work in the area."
We are looking at a solution to untap potential, which is welcome.
It is argued that the line will reduce congestion on the M8 by 10 per cent, but I agree with Bristow Muldoon that that might be an underestimate. Significantly, house-building growth and business growth have major implications. I do not know whether the Minister for Transport will have an opportunity to examine the heartland development in Whitburn, which will make a major and significant change to the area. Indeed, approval has been given for another exit off the M8. Obviously, there is concern about additional exits and entrances on the M8, so the decision shows the importance that is being attached to that economic development, and it adds to the case for a Blackridge station, in particular, because there is such development in the area. Even the Whitburn development alone will make a big difference.
People in West Lothian have lived in hope for some time that the solum would be preserved, so it is convenient and beneficial that that will be the case, because otherwise the development would have been more difficult. The committee is right to say that the displaced cycle routes must be replaced with alternatives that satisfy cyclists. It is important that we ensure that a good replacement for the cycle route is provided.
The report makes it clear that it is essential that there is adequate capacity at Waverley and it makes some pointed remarks about access into Edinburgh, which must be considered. As a daily commuter from Linlithgow to Edinburgh for more than 11 years, I say to Bristow Muldoon that Linlithgow commuters would much prefer to have a reliable service to Edinburgh five days a week than a direct service to the airport once a year, when they go on holiday. The railway system is creaking at the seams. There is a desperate need to ensure that we have a railway that is fit for purpose.
Will the member give way?
Bristow Muldoon did not give way to me, so I will not give way to him.
It is important that the essential work that needs to be done on the existing lines and track is carried out, as the report says.
I turn to park-and-ride issues, which no one has mentioned. There is great potential for park and ride. I have some concern that the main park-and-ride development will be at Uphall. We should consider as possible locations for park-and-ride developments Armadale—although the numbers there are perhaps not as big as they should be—and Blackridge.
The Airdrie to Bathgate line will offer potential for economic growth, but I want to focus on the case for a station at Blackridge. It would not be right for members of a community in the west of West Lothian to have trains hurtling through their village and not have a station. Frankly, I am disappointed that a proposal for a station at Blackridge was not in the bill in the first place.
Fiona Hyslop and other members campaigned effectively for a station at Blackridge, for which there is a strong case, but I do not understand how the Scottish National Party can say that we cannot have trains running through Blackridge without stopping, but that there is not a strong case for a station at Plains, which is surrounded by pockets of deprivation.
We did not say that.
Fergus Ewing did.
No, he did not.
It was useful that the committee gave everyone a fair hearing. The preliminary stage report—to which the committee signed up unanimously—states:
"The Committee acknowledges the arguments made for these additional stations, for example, the social case for a station at Plains and the stronger economic case put forward for Blackridge."
I agree with that and I am glad that Cathy Peattie does, too.
As well as a strong economic case, there is a good practical case for a station at Blackridge. As anyone who is familiar with the geography of Armadale and Blackridge will know, for many people in Armadale a station at Blackridge would be nearer and quicker to get to than a station at Armadale. If the Armadale station proves more popular than the station at Bathgate—we have heard how popular the existing Bathgate to Edinburgh line is—having another station at Blackridge would allow a spread of use between Armadale and Blackridge.
The popularity of the Bathgate to Edinburgh route cannot be overstated. The twin tracking of that stretch of line is essential. At the moment, trains must stop at Uphall and Livingston North, which is completely unacceptable. First ScotRail acknowledges that there are issues with those delays. I am glad that twin tracking can start soon.
Before we move off the subject, I assume that the SNP favours additional national funding for stations at Blackridge and Plains, but is the member saying that the bill should be amended at consideration stage to provide for those stations? If so, that would delay the whole project.
I would have liked stations at Blackridge and Plains to have been included in the initial proposal. The problem is that they were not. The committee is not responsible for the late introduction of the bill by the promoter. The position that we are in is unfortunate. It is deeply worrying that the current Government is saying that no additional funds will be provided to build those stations. The idea that they can be built from savings that are made while the line is constructed is of concern. That is why a national contribution is necessary to ensure that they are delivered.
It is disingenuous to say that those savings will come from bus routes, because the committee acknowledged that the amount of money that it is predicted will be needed for bus links is probably an underestimate. Bus links will still be needed to Armadale, so the idea that £500,000 will be available to fund a station at Blackridge is not realistic. That sum is probably not sufficient to fund the bus services that might be needed elsewhere in the county. Many hard decisions still need to be made.
I am disappointed that there is no commitment to stations at Blackridge and Armadale in the bill. The Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill will, if passed, allow them to be provided for subsequently, but the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill represents an opportunity for Labour and the Liberal Democrats to deliver them now. Those parties may want a second chance after May, but that is for voters to decide.
The line is important, not just as a strategic transport link but as a link for individuals. Several years ago, when the Motorola plant in Bathgate was still open, I listened to one of the managers talk about the problems with the transport links. He said that he had a group of apprentices who came from North Lanarkshire, only one of whom could drive—he came from Airdrie. He drove his colleagues to work at Motorola, but he failed to pass his exams to proceed with the apprenticeship, which meant that all four apprentices had to give up work. That is a salient reminder that the building of the new line will benefit individuals: it is not just about trains and strategic links. If we can provide hope, opportunity and life chances to people such as those young men, we will be doing a good job.
I am delighted to be able to speak in today's debate. Along with my colleagues Mary Mulligan and Bristow Muldoon, I have been campaigning for the reopening of the Airdrie to Bathgate rail line since 1999. Last night, I read over the Official Report of the members' business debate that I secured in April 2001, and it was evident from the maiden speech of the then Deputy Minister for Transport and Planning that we still had some way to go to convince the Executive that the project should be funded.
It has been a long and difficult journey, and I will not believe that it is over until I am sitting on the train as it departs from—preferably—Plains station on its way to Edinburgh. Of course, whether I will be coming to Edinburgh to work or just to shop will be a matter for the electorate to decide in May.
I begin by thanking the officers of North Lanarkshire Council and West Lothian Council, both of which have been involved in promoting the project for many years. Both councils provided strong evidence to the committee during preliminary stage. I also thank my colleague Councillor Tommy Morgan for his strong support for the inclusion of a station at Plains in the proposals. Members will not be surprised to learn that I will deal with that subject in more detail later in my speech.
Local politicians are rightly concerned about the detail of the bill, but that should not blind us to the fact that the reopening of the Airdrie to Bathgate rail line, along with other major transport projects, represents the most substantial investment in public transport for a number of generations. That investment in public transport is one of the most significant achievements of the Executive and the Parliament. The scale and ambition of the achievement is such that when I started to campaign for the reopening of the line in 1999, I was told by most people that it was a great idea, but that I should stop dreaming. I am glad that the Labour-led Executive has had the imagination and the commitment to think big on public transport.
That said, it is appropriate that I now put on my constituency hat and turn to the issues affecting Airdrie and the surrounding villages. I have raised two objections to the bill. The first relates to the absence of a proposal for a station at Plains and the second is about car parking spaces for Airdrie station. Following the Executive's very strong reassurances, I intend to withdraw those objections to ensure that the bill passes through the Parliament as quickly as possible and construction of the line can begin. However, I want to say a few words about both issues.
I listened carefully to Fergus Ewing's comments. I welcome his consensual approach, which I know he sometimes finds difficult to take.
He is just misunderstood.
I also welcome his acknowledgement of the cross-party campaign for a station at Blackridge. I was pleased to support my colleagues in that campaign, because the case for that station is very strong. However, the case for a station at Plains is equally strong. This morning, the SNP made a commitment to provide national funding for a station at Blackridge, but I am disappointed that it did not make a similar commitment to the people of Plains. My constituents in Plains will remember that lack of commitment from the SNP.
I have agreed to withdraw my objection with regard to Plains station only after receiving a letter from the minister, assuring me that the case has been made for the station and that, after a feasibility study, the necessary process of consultation and STAG analysis will start as soon as possible in the new session with a view to introducing an order under the proposed transport and works legislation or using the relevant local authority powers, if that approach is more practicable. He states:
"This should enable the construction of the station to take place while the main route is being built."
I hope that that clarifies the earlier point made by the minister that David Davidson failed to understand.
I welcome the committee's comments about Plains in its report, which states:
"It is not acceptable that a project that has the stated aims of improving the economic and social wellbeing of communities in West Lothian and North Lanarkshire does so on a selective basis. We did not choose that aim, the promoter did and it must satisfy it in the totality. The evidence did not clearly show how the opportunities will be available to all those communities without the provision of stations at Plains and Blackridge."
I could not have put it better myself. I welcome the minister's commitment and, as I do not wish to delay the bill's progress, I will withdraw my objection in relation to Plains station.
However, the minister should be in absolutely no doubt that I and the people of Plains will hold him to his commitment. Indeed, I note that the committee also shares my desire for more flesh on the bones of that commitment. Its report states that it
"would welcome further detail on taking this matter forward e.g. when would consultation with local communities commence, when would the STAG process commence and be completed, will these stations become operational at the same time as the other stations provided for under this Bill?"
I share those views, but I am pleased that the minister has come to the correct conclusion that, if the people of Plains are to have some of the pain associated with the construction of the new line, it is only right and fair that they should also have some of the gain.
As for car parking provision at Airdrie station, I am convinced that the Executive and Network Rail are committed to working in partnership with North Lanarkshire Council to ensure that car parking at the new station is sufficient. After all, that will be important not only in making the new line a success but in preventing a lot of overflow into other retail parking in the town centre.
I want to mention those people who will be badly affected by the reopening of the rail line. We cannot understate either the considerable pain that a number of individuals and families will have to withstand as a result of this massive public investment or their willingness to accept that the project is for the greater good. Certain organisations, including the fishing club in my constituency, will also be affected.
Those individuals and organisations will be subject to compulsory purchase orders and I have been continually amazed by the very reasonable approach taken by most of them and by their ability to appreciate the line's benefits to the wider community. However, it is incumbent on Network Rail and Transport Scotland to ensure that every effort is made to make the process as painless as possible and to give every consideration to the disruption and impact on quality of life that those families will face over what will be a very difficult couple of years.
I spoke in Karen Whitefield's members' business debate on this matter, because the line will hugely benefit my constituents in Coatbridge. However, although I very much welcome the project, does the member agree that the minister and the appropriate authorities must also consider car parking provision at the Coatbridge stations, which are busy at the moment and might well come under more pressure when the line opens?
I have no doubt that the line will be a great success or that people in Coatbridge will want to access the new service. I hope that Network Rail will be happy to discuss the member's concerns.
I congratulate the members of and clerks to the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee. It is clear from reading the committee's report that the bill has been examined in a detailed and comprehensive manner. Of course, that is only right and proper, given the large amount of public money that will be spent delivering this project. However, I firmly believe that this will be money well spent. I look forward to the day when I can abandon my car and the frustrations of the M8's tailbacks and sit in comfort on a train travelling to Edinburgh from Airdrie, Plains or Blackridge.
I hope that all members support the committee's report and the motion.
Continuing the debate's consensual spirit, I congratulate the committee on the huge amount of work that it did and the very hefty document that it has produced. I particularly welcome its major conclusion that the line should go ahead.
Before I make clear my agreement with Fergus Ewing's comments, I must take issue with his comment that the Greens were late in arriving in the chamber for the debate. In fact, I was in the chamber before him. I suggest that he buys a pair of spectacles that gives him decent peripheral vision. Even Greens are allowed comfort breaks. That said, I must apologise to Mr Ewing for missing his words of wisdom at the beginning of his speech. I am sure that, if I agreed with them as much as I agreed with the rest of his speech, I would be able to say that I agreed with his entire speech.
As for the parts of Mr Ewing's speech that I was lucky enough to hear, I should make it clear that the Greens support the construction of a station at Blackridge. I take on board Jeremy Purvis's point that the passage of the bill would be delayed if an amendment were to be lodged.
Will the member give way?
Yes, although I did say that I take on board the problems that lodging an amendment would cause.
The member said that the Greens support the plans for a station at Blackridge. Does that mean that they also support the proposal for a station at Plains?
Absolutely. I will come to that after I have responded to Mr Ewing's observations.
I welcome Phil Gallie's emphasis on the fact that the line sits in a framework of other rail and tram projects. After all, it is important that the project forms part of a national rail plan and is not something that benefits only the area between Glasgow and Edinburgh.
That raises another issue. I have attended many meetings at the city chambers in Edinburgh during which the way the city sat within the city region was discussed. Similar discussions go on in Glasgow. The part of central Scotland that we are discussing this morning is being divvied up between the two city regions, but it also exists as an economic area in its own right. That point has been underlined by Bristow Muldoon. Many people employed by Motorola were from North Lanarkshire. People there would be better served by better transport links in central Scotland.
Recently, I had to borrow a car to get to a meeting in Cumbernauld. Travelling from Edinburgh to Cumbernauld is an absolute nightmare—especially if the driver goes via Airdrie, where most of the road signs seem to have been removed as if there were a war on. At least, the road signs that I was looking for on that particular day seemed to have been removed.
Anyway, we were talking about railways. I should mention some important caveats to do with the way in which the line sits not only in a national rail framework, but in a walking and cycling framework. TRANSform Scotland has observed—
Robin Harper mentioned road signs. The serious issue of road signs was mentioned at a meeting of the committee, when a spokesman for a cycling organisation talked about making a similar journey to the one that Robin Harper undertook. He, too, had difficulty. Perhaps local authorities and others should consider such points.
Yes—and if I were a younger man and still cycling regularly, I might have got from Edinburgh to Cumbernauld more quickly on my bicycle.
As I was saying, TRANSform Scotland has three major concerns. One concerns the potential impact on Glasgow suburban rail services, but as I do not really have a feel for those services I will not expand on that point. The second concern relates to rail freight access. That could be a very important issue and I hope that the Executive will note that TRANSform Scotland has raised it.
The third concern relates to whether sufficient attention has been paid to walking and cycling issues. TRANSform Scotland agrees with CTC Scotland and Spokes that high-quality cycling and walking routes to stations should be provided and that the new cycle route should be of at least as high a quality as the route that will have to be replaced.
Sustrans has said:
"All our experience from the past twenty years shows that where paths are created and designed for walkers and cyclists they will be used provided they are pleasant and attractive places to be. We contend that using the existing footways and roads will not provide such an environment. We therefore feel it is regrettable that so little has been done"
by the developers
"to accommodate those who would like to walk and cycle to stations."
I draw those points to the Executive's attention.
Sustrans goes on to give more detail, saying that it is a shame that
"cyclists and walkers seem to be expected to follow the path along the main street of the village of Plains and, for those travelling East-West, cross the busy A89 to continue their journey. Whilst the developer has written to assure us that they will seek to acquire land to create a traffic-free path, we would have preferred they had automatically taken this decision and prepared the idea."
I ask the Executive to facilitate the acquisition of that land so that cyclists can avoid what would be quite a dangerous journey.
Sustrans then says:
"In conclusion, we do not consider that the developer has followed the hierarchy of use ascribed in Scottish Planning Policy 17 Planning for Transport (SPP17). This places pedestrians at the top of a pyramid of use, with cyclists next, then public transport, then commercial and private motor vehicles at the bottom. Throughout the process we have been left with the impression that the views of landowners and the need to keep costs down were of higher importance than the needs of walkers and cyclists, whether using national route 75 or getting to and from stations."
With those observations on cycling and walking, I will conclude. I congratulate the bill committee on its work and assure its members that the Greens will vote in favour of the bill.
This is a great day for all who have campaigned long and hard for the rail link between Airdrie and Bathgate. I thank them all, and I thank all those who will support the bill today. In particular, I thank the members of the bill committee, ably led by Phil Gallie. They have taken a lot of time to listen to the arguments.
The M8 multimodal study identified the reopening of the rail link as a top priority. There were two main aims—to regenerate the communities along the line, and to encourage people to use public transport rather than their cars, thus reducing traffic congestion, on the M8 in particular, and benefiting the environment.
The Bathgate to Edinburgh rail line has been mentioned. We all know that, since its reopening back in the 1980s, the line has gone from strength to strength. At the time, reopening was a brave decision, taken by a Labour Lothian Regional Council despite many doubts that were expressed. However, the line was successful. Indeed, at times success brought problems as the trains became increasingly overcrowded. As Bristow Muldoon said, we have seen longer trains and longer platforms in the efforts to deal with those problems.
One outstanding problem is that of trains being cancelled in the section of line between Livingston North and Bathgate. However, the proposal that we are debating will allow work to start on dual-tracking that section, which will result in fewer cancellations and better journeys for my constituents.
Many of my comments could apply equally to people in communities in the Airdrie and Shotts constituency. However, as Karen Whitefield has already made such points much better than I could, I will restrict my comments to the effects on people in Linlithgow and West Lothian.
What will the new Airdrie to Bathgate link mean to my constituents? There will be a new station for Bathgate, which will be staffed. I impress on Network Rail, the bill's promoters, that it will be important to ensure that the new site continues to provide bus and taxi links. Also, because there is so much new build in Bathgate, as in other areas of West Lothian, there will have to be adequate space for car parking.
As has been mentioned, there will be a brand new station for Armadale. People sometimes forget that it was only after lobbying by Karen Whitefield and me, supported by the local authorities in West Lothian and North Lanarkshire and by local people, that stations were added to the bill proposal. Originally, the line was simply to be a link between Bathgate and Airdrie. As with the Bathgate station, there will be a need for bus and taxi links to Armadale station. Adequate car parking will be essential.
Finally, there is the question of the new station for Blackridge. I am glad that we are joined in the gallery by representatives of Blackridge community council and Greenrigg community council who have been active in making the case for the station. I am disappointed that the station is not part of today's bill, but there is some consolation. The minister's most recent letter to me and to the bill committee acknowledges the validity of the strong campaign that has been waged by the people of Blackridge and Greenrigg, and that of the people of Plains in Karen Whitefield's constituency.
The campaign revealed the economic and social benefits of having a station in Blackridge. Those benefits far outweigh any challenges that would be posed to train timetables. I understand that journey time affects the attraction of a train service, but that has to be balanced against the needs of the communities that live along the line. The committee acknowledged that.
I was pleased that the Parliament agreed to the general principles of the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 yesterday. That bill could be used as the vehicle for the legislation that will be necessary for the Blackridge and Plains stations, allowing the work to be carried out alongside the building of the line. The minister confirmed that this morning. The minister said that the bill would have to deliver on budget, even with the new stations but, if he accepts the arguments for those new stations, he must accept the arguments for the costs to be provided. However, I acknowledge that some of the money that is in the budget for the bus subsidies will not be needed as a result of the new stations and that the issue is to be explored further.
Does the member accept the evidence from West Lothian Council at the committee's meeting in Whitburn that the £500,000 that is on the table for bus subsidies will not be sufficient even to cover access to Armadale and Bathgate, let alone Blackridge?
As I said, there is a discussion to be had about the bus subsidies that are required. The fact that we will have new stations will free up some of that money, although we need to consider whether the amount is sufficient for the bus links to the other stations.
The work to build the line and stations will cause upheaval for local people, so, as Phil Gallie said, it will need to be handled sensitively. Lest there be any doubt, I point out that I support fully the full resolution of the cycle track issues.
Mary Mulligan mentioned some of the benefits to her constituents. Does she agree that one of the major advantages for them of this excellent Scottish Executive-funded project will be that it will be far easier for them to come to Coatbridge and enjoy the fabulous facilities there, such as the Time Capsule, Drumpellier country park and Summerlee Heritage Park, when it reopens?
I agree fully with Elaine Smith. Opportunities for people in Bathgate or other places in my constituency to go to Coatbridge should always be taken.
I acknowledge the great strides that the Scottish Executive has made in upgrading the infrastructure throughout Scotland, particularly the rail infrastructure. I am pleased that the Executive, unlike the SNP, has not restricted its ambition on the Edinburgh airport rail link. Shame on Ms Hyslop for not recognising that that line will provide not only for holidaymakers from Linlithgow, but for business users and for tourists who want to go there. That rail link will also provide the only possibility for a station at the ever-growing village of Winchburgh. Let us think about the wider issues.
I believe that the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link will prove to be the Scottish Executive's most successful project. The most important aspects are the opportunities that it will provide to the communities of Bathgate, Armadale, Blackridge and Greenrigg by bringing investment to West Lothian and allowing people to access jobs and to visit family, friends and social venues, even in Coatbridge. People in those communities feel that they have not always benefited from economic regeneration as fully as they should have done. With the provision of the railway line, physical and practical obstacles will be reduced and opportunities will be there for people to take.
I am sure that you will be glad to know, Presiding Officer, that I am happy to take interventions to assist you in managing the time this morning.
As other members have done, I express my support for the principle of the new rail link between Airdrie and Bathgate. As a host of speakers have mentioned—all of them, I think—the line will bring economic benefits, not only to North Lanarkshire and West Lothian, but to the wider central Scotland economy. It will also bring major environmental benefits, not least, we hope, by taking traffic off the M8. It will create social benefits, by widening the travel-to-work area for many people in West Lothian and parts of North Lanarkshire and, at the same time, it will expand social inclusion in those parts of Scotland.
As every member who has spoken has done, I congratulate the committee, under the excellent convenership of Phil Gallie, on its thorough work. I also congratulate Mr Gallie on his explicit introduction to the debate. I have only one major note of dissent, which relates to paragraphs 165 and 166 in the committee's report. I do not dissent from the committee's report, but I want to draw the attention of the committee, and of the independent assessor whom the committee will appoint, to the issues that arise between individuals, particularly in the Airdrie area, and Network Rail.
All members are keen to encourage a new attitude in public services. In days gone by, when the railways were a nationalised industry, the attitude was often, "Ye'll dae whit ye're telt and ye'll take it or leave it." One reason why we are all in favour of more consumer choice in our industries is to give consumers much more of a say than they had in the past.
I am curious to know whether that comment means that the member is in favour of renationalisation.
I would be very relaxed about renationalisation, but that is not the issue at hand. The issue is the continuing attitude of Network Rail's senior management in Scotland towards individuals whose livelihoods, as Karen Whitefield rightly said, will be affected by the proposals. I draw attention to three examples in which the attitude that Network Rail has adopted and the contemptuous way in which it is dealing with those who will be affected adversely by the project is not in any way conducive to the proper conduct of Network Rail's business.
The first example is Hillend loch and the angling club there, which Karen Whitefield mentioned in passing. In its dealings with the angling club, Network Rail has been frankly less than honest and certainly discourteous; at times—I will choose my words carefully—it has touched on being economical with the truth. I hope that the minister, in his discussions with the senior management at Network Rail, as well as the committee and the independent assessor, will make it absolutely clear to Network Rail that the people who are involved, all of whom are in principle in favour of the railway line, deserve to be treated properly in the negotiations. The angling club, which is widely supported, should be given its proper place. It should not necessarily be given everything that it asks for, but at least it should be dealt with fairly and justly.
The second example relates to the people, particularly in Caldercruix, whose homes are the subject of compulsory purchase orders from Network Rail. I draw to the minister's attention the way in which Network Rail has dealt with the individuals concerned. We should remember that those people will lose their houses. They saved up for those homes and have worked hard to keep them, but they are willing to move and are not taking a nimby approach. However, the quid pro quo should be that they get a fair deal in return, which should mean not only fair financial compensation, but Network Rail dealing with them humanely.
As well as drawing attention to the immediate issue, I ask the minister to examine the whole process. Under the scheme, when a compulsory purchase order is put in place, the valuation is undertaken by a company that is commissioned by Network Rail. However, in all cases in which a compulsory purchase order has been put in place, an independent valuation should be conducted of the property that is the subject of the order. An individual such as the district valuer should conduct the valuation, rather than a company that is appointed by the organisation that is carrying out the compulsory purchase.
I take Mr Neil's point, but my understanding is that the district valuer is involved in that process. I am happy to write to Mr Neil in relation to any elements of the advance purchase and voluntary purchase schemes.
We made it clear in a debate on the capital transport programme—I am trying to remember which debate—that Network Rail and Transport Scotland had agreed an advance purchase scheme on 1 September. I would be happy to share that with Mr Neil, but I think that the answer to his question is that the district valuer plays the role that he mentions.
With all due respect, Knight Frank, not the district valuer, is acting on behalf of Network Rail. We need to look into who exactly has which role, because the people involved have been told to deal with Knight Frank, not the district valuer.
My third example concerns people who live in homes that are adjacent to where the line will be but which are not subject to compulsory purchase orders. The railway's impact on the value of their homes—not to mention the disruption that noise and other impacts of the railway will cause—will be severe, but Network Rail refuses to consider the possibility of compulsory purchase for those homes. People in that situation should have some right of appeal. There should be a process that is independent of Network Rail and allows them at least a fair hearing on whether their homes should also be the subject of compulsory purchase orders. It is not enough to accept that, if Network Rail says that it will not make a compulsory purchase order, those people will be left high and dry when the value of their homes falls substantially as a result of the decision. Something must be built into the process to make it much fairer for those people.
My understanding is that, should the general principles of the bill be agreed to today, objections will be heard when we move to the next stage. I presume that many of the individuals to whom Alex Neil refers have lodged objections. To that extent, they have the ball at their feet and they can raise the issue with the assessor if the bill progresses after today's debate.
They will do so, but that does not invalidate the fundamental points that I am making. First, there is a major attitude problem in the senior management of Network Rail, which is reminiscent of the old days of the nationalised industry. That attitude needs to change. Secondly, matters of process outside the legislative process need to be addressed. In particular, we need to address the district valuer's role and the right of people who feel that they will be adversely affected by the railway line to get a fair hearing on the potential compulsory purchase of their homes. I do not believe that the independent assessor has the power under the current legislation to deal with such cases.
My drawing attention to those issues is not about invalidating the case for the rail line; it is about decency and treating people properly. We hear a lot about Big Brother and big Government. The matters that I raise are a good example of issues on which we can demonstrate that, when it comes to dealing with individuals, individual families and local organisations such as the angling club at Hillend loch, we are not like Westminster but care about those people as well as the big picture.
I not only endorse members' comments about other MSPs who have campaigned for the rail line but pay tribute to our consensual convener, Phil Gallie. I say to him that I suspect that less Churchill and more Polly Toynbee will be the order of the day. I liked the fact that he thanked us for at least turning up, which all members took on board.
I am happy to support the general principles of the bill. I thank the witnesses who gave evidence and, on behalf of other committee members, apologise to the witnesses from the cycling lobby. The difficulties that they had in coming to Airdrie have been mentioned. We were told erroneously that they were stuck in traffic but, in fact and as they pointed out to us, their train was late. Moreover, one of them got lost, so we thank the anonymous but helpful farmer who pointed him in the right direction.
As a supporter of the successful Borders railway campaign, the deputy convener of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee and now a member of the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, I am, in a small way, part of something significant: the biggest investment in public transport in Scotland in a generation. I point out that it is heralded by two Liberal Democrat ministers, which shows the significance of our ambition. Fiona Hyslop, who has left the chamber, will regret her comment that the people of Linlithgow would only wish to be connected to Edinburgh airport once a year for a holiday. That is not the Parliament's ambition, and it might well have been a slip of the tongue on her part.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The member is saying—
Wait a minute, Mr Neil. The procedure is that you say that you want to make a point of order and then wait until I call you.
I will do as you say, and take as much time as you wish me to take.
Jeremy Purvis just said that Ms Hyslop is not in the chamber, but she has never left the chamber.
That is not really a point of order, but I am sure that we all acknowledge that Ms Hyslop is here.
I apologise for not seeing her. Nevertheless, I am sure that she will regret her comment about her lack of ambition for the people not only of Linlithgow but of Scotland. It is curious to say that there is not enough money for the Borders railway, EARL or the Airdrie to Bathgate railway but—
Jeremy Purvis will be pleased to hear that I will not be choking, as I have now fetched a bottle of water.
I certainly have ambition for Linlithgow: I want the people of Linlithgow to be able to travel every day on a reliable railway that will help them to fulfil their obligations to arrive in Edinburgh on time for work; I want Waverley station to undergo phase 2 development; and I want a rail link from Edinburgh city to the airport. I just do not want the EARL scheme, because it is expensive and we could do far more with the money than the Liberal Democrats, with their limited ambition, have conceived of for Linlithgow and the rest of Scotland.
That was a vain and rather futile attempt by the member to correct her comments. I do not want to get bogged down in the matter, as she obviously is, but our ambition is for all parts of Scotland—whether West Lothian, my constituency in the Borders, Midlothian or anywhere else in Scotland—to be connected to our capital's airport. It is regrettable that Fiona Hyslop said that people would be able to connect to the airport only once a year.
Fergus Ewing commented on the proposal from Andrew Mackinlay, an Essex MP, for a toll on Scots travelling to England. I am sure that there will be cross-party condemnation of that ridiculous proposal, which is as ridiculous as the proposal from my SNP opponent in the coming election—the self-styled shadow minister for social justice—who wants poorly English people to be turned away at the border to prevent them from coming to Borders general hospital.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Jeremy Purvis described Christine Grahame as a self-styled shadow minister; she is not self-styled but appointed by the leader of the party.
Let us be clear that those are points of political contention. If you wish to intervene on Mr Purvis, you should try to do so. It will then be Mr Purvis's decision whether to accept the intervention. It is not my role to correct members on points of fact or detail.
The committee had to establish the facts on a number of key issues, namely, whether the reinstatement of passenger services between Airdrie and Bathgate would represent value for money, whether it would aid the development of the Lanarkshire and West Lothian economies, whether it would aid the economies of Glasgow and Edinburgh, whether it would be of net benefit to passengers to use the service for work, leisure or education, whether it would take traffic away from the M8 and local roads and whether it would benefit social inclusion and the environment.
Many members have commented on those matters. By and large, the committee received clear evidence on them. I will touch on the issues in turn, but first I will make a couple of more general points.
I was frustrated by the performance of some of the witnesses and the apparent lack of a close working relationship between the local authorities—North Lanarkshire Council and West Lothian Council—and the promoter. At times, I felt that we were not getting a clear picture of housing development figures and associated development in the region. We were told that there was close contact between the partners and that they had a good relationship, but the committee finally got agreed figures only through persistent questioning. The committee has asked for further clarification and determination in that area. It is not the role of the committee at preliminary stage to be the mediator or arbiter between what should be key partners with seamless partnership working.
We did not get a clear picture of planning for bus routes, particularly those that will feed the services. Regardless of the issues in respect of the proposed stations at Blackridge and Plains, Network Rail said that £1 million revenue funding would be provided for feeder bus services over the lifetime of the rail service. The committee welcomes that. In other capital programmes for rail, we see a similar trend of insisting on feeder services, which are particularly important for peripheral communities in rural areas and for people who do not have a car. We were struck by the high proportion of people in the area that the service will cover who do not have a car.
The local authorities, which one would have thought would have worked up outline plans for how bus services would connect communities to a brand-new £342 million railway, were feeble in answering our questions. They said that nowhere near enough money was being provided but could not explain how they reached that conclusion as they had done no work to demonstrate how feeder services to the stations would be developed. When pushed to explain why current bus services were so poor, they pointed to the uneconomic nature of running bus services in the evening and said that there were cross-border issues to overcome. It is embarrassing to have two neighbouring authorities cite cross-border issues as a reason why services are not being developed, because that really should not be an excuse.
Before the Parliament considers the bill at the final stage, I hope that we will see developments in the relationships between the two local authorities and between them and the promoter. The evidence from the member for Plains and from the community raised issues for the committee, which it considered carefully.
There are difficulties in balancing, on the one hand, the case for the railway line as presented by the promoter and the line's effectiveness as a quick, attractive alternative to other modes of transport that gets people out of their cars, which Mary Mulligan mentioned, and, on the other hand, the economic evidence on having stations at Blackridge and Plains. The evidence from the members for Plains and Blackridge was interesting. Reference was made to the case for having a station at Stow, as part of a separate but relevant railway project in my constituency that is close to my heart. The case for the Borders railway touched on many of the issues that Karen Whitefield raised in her speech. There are similarities between the two.
The case for a station at Blackridge was primarily about transport and economics. A station would help to move the growing workforce efficiently and speedily and would offer opportunities for West Lothian, although it would not necessarily stimulate economic development in the area. The case for a station at Plains was that, in addition to transport and economic benefits, it would bring considerable social inclusion benefits, which in my view strengthens the economic case. The dilemma of having to consider the cases was taken away from us when the Executive agreed to both stations.
I would have liked the promoter and the local authorities to have done more work on developer contributions. A possible compromise on or solution to the problem of the capital funding of the two stations would be to ask the local authorities and promoter to produce a more robust plan for developer contributions, given that there will be considerable development in the areas. The committee took considerable evidence on developer contributions and wants more work to be done in that regard.
It was difficult for us to get passenger forecasts for what we called end-to-end passengers, as opposed to those using the service within West Lothian and North Lanarkshire, but, overall, we considered that the line would be of net economic benefit not only for the local but for the wider economy and would offer considerable sustainability as well as social inclusion opportunities.
Overall, the line is a key project for Scotland. It will benefit West Lothian and North Lanarkshire and I have no hesitation in recommending that the Parliament support the bill.
I support the general principles of the bill and thank Phil Gallie for his excellent convening of the committee.
The expansion of public transport is an essential part of the creation of a more environmentally friendly transport system. For many journeys, rail is the most environmentally friendly form of public transport, which means that in Scotland we are looking to expand or, should I say, reclaim our railway network.
My grandfather was a fireman and eventually drove steam trains. I remember him being really depressed at the fact that so many rail lines in Scotland were closing. He would be delighted that we are opening lines in Scotland and would believe that that was something to celebrate. I am sorry that I cannot tell him about it. In this respect, Scotland has been leading the UK, which would also have pleased my grandfather.
The bill seeks to reopen, after 50 years of closure, the 15-mile railway between Drumgelloch and Bathgate, which will provide a direct link between Helensburgh and Edinburgh.
Track investment south of the border is nearly all in platforms, line speed and capacity enhancements rather than in new track. This project is about new track as well as new rolling stock.
We should praise the local MSPs for their work in campaigning alongside communities for the rail line. It is great that we are discussing its future.
No matter how good the idea is, we need to scrutinise the proposals to ensure that they are viable and that due consideration is given to accessibility and to legal, social, environmental and economic factors. I thank the promoter, Network Rail, for its contribution to that process.
The project will cost nearly £300 million and will be funded by Transport Scotland. Besides reinstating track, it will double-track, electrify and upgrade the existing line between Edinburgh and Airdrie. It will also introduce two new stations at Caldercruix and Armadale, relocate stations at Bathgate and Drumgelloch and upgrade stations at Airdrie, Livingston North and Uphall.
Karen Whitefield, Mary Mulligan, Fiona Hyslop and others made a strong case for further stations at Plains and Blackridge. I was disappointed that Fergus Ewing was less enthusiastic about the proposed station at Plains and would like him to clarify his position, because I assumed that the SNP would support both stations, given that Ms Hyslop has been enthusiastic about them both. The issue is not just journey times but serving the communities that live alongside the railway line. Although the proposals for the additional stations are not part of the bill, I am pleased that the feasibility study will be carried out and I hope that the stations will be considered in the future development of the network and will be in place by the time the rail line has been opened.
The line will provide for four trains an hour in each direction between Glasgow and Edinburgh via Airdrie and Bathgate, with rail connections beyond.
The new stations will be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which of course is welcome. I am also keen for improvements to access to be made at all stations on the Edinburgh to Helensburgh line, to address people's mobility problems and provide safe and comfortable waiting areas.
It is also important that the enhanced park-and-ride option is available and, as Phil Gallie said, that there is good integration of bus services for the surrounding areas. I am not confident that the pricing for bus services that we have been given is realistic. Accessing bus services to and from the station will be vital for people, so the money must be there to ensure that that happens.
I appreciate the member's comments. Does she agree that it is unwise to assume that funding for buses can be reallocated to fund the proposed station at Blackridge? There are already too many question marks over the funding for buses.
There are obviously issues, but I am looking for the proposed stations at both Blackridge and Plains to be funded. There needs to be additional funding for buses—I am not sure that the money that has been allocated is adequate. I also seek a stronger commitment to bus services in the long term; I am concerned that there will be bus services for a year or two but that they will be withdrawn later, as has happened in many areas. Indeed, during the committee's site visit, folk from Plains said that their local bus services had disappeared. If someone lives in a fairly run-down rural village, it is unacceptable that they cannot even get a bus to the hospital or the shops. I would like the necessary discussions to happen so that people have access to buses to and from the station. Likewise I hope that folk in Plains will not have to worry about bus services once they have a station in their community.
I thank everyone who gave evidence to the committee, both in the Parliament and when we were out and about in Airdrie and Whitburn. I recommend the bill to the Parliament and ask members to agree to its general principles.
Much praise has been heaped on Phil Gallie and his wonderful convenership. I say to members in all seriousness that, after almost eight years, it is only now that the Parliament is beginning to recognise the wonderful job that Phil Gallie does. People are warming to his forthright and ever-charming style.
It might have taken the Conservatives eight years to recognise that, but some of us have valued Phil Gallie's contribution from the start.
I am sure that he would enjoy a treat of a cup of tea and a chocolate biscuit afterwards.
I congratulate the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee on its excellent report, which covers a number of interesting issues. Bristow Muldoon always does a bit of political posturing—he advertised his conference this morning—but I remind members that Andrew Mackinlay, who came up with the idea of imposing a levy on people who cross the border, is a Labour member of Parliament, so I assume that such a levy is now national Labour policy.
That said, let us focus seriously on the proposal. To be fair, in the debate members have concentrated on the great opportunity that the bill presents. There are questions about the proposed stations at Blackridge and Plains, but those are about funding rather than feasibility. On funding, a commitment is required. If ministers respond to a feasibility study by saying that the case has been made, they must say how the project will be funded. They should not simply trail people along in expectation. There is a lot of work to be done on whether the stations will be funded through separate legislation, development gain, a loan package or whatever. There are ways of funding new stations and some councils have done so. In conjunction with other local authorities, the former Central Region funded Camelon station. We need to consider all the options for funding stations on the Airdrie to Bathgate railway.
I was surprised that Fergus Ewing did not mention Plains. He reiterated his rejection of the Edinburgh airport rail link, but I am sure that the SNP will come round to the idea in its election manifesto, which is bound to come along fairly soon.
I am grateful to the Scottish Conservative party for supporting the proposed station at Plains, but perhaps Mr Davidson will point out to his colleague Margaret Mitchell that she supported a station at Blackridge but not a station at Plains. She will need to reassure her constituents in Plains that they have her support on the matter.
I will be delighted to encourage her to join the campaign for a station at Plains as well as supporting a station at Blackridge, about which she has been vocal.
Two or three technical issues arose in the debate, including carriage layout. SPT is concerned that the class 334 trains will carry 20 per cent fewer passengers, and there are concerns elsewhere in Scotland about the suitability of the rolling stock for different types of line, particularly commuter lines. Like other members, I am sure, I have been approached about the storage of bicycles, prams and buggies in railway carriages. It is important that the public have input on the design of the rolling stock. I note that the Minister for Transport is nodding and I know that the Executive seeks to make progress on the matter, but it needs to be dealt with urgently. Rolling stock does not simply appear; it must be designed, commissioned and leased. Given SPT's concerns, I hope that there will be rapid progress, and I say to the minister that we certainly wish to contribute to the work in any way we can.
It is not just rolling stock and lines that are important. Does the member agree that we would be able to operate trains more efficiently and at greater speeds throughout the network if we spent money on installing the most advanced signalling systems, such as the ones in France? They are much safer and more foolproof than the semi-mechanical systems that we use. Thanks to advanced systems, underground trains in London are operated at two-minute intervals.
I was in Taiwan recently and spoke to the railway authorities there. Using modern signalling systems, they manage to operate four speeds of train on the track around the island. If they can do that there, I am sure that we could do it in Scotland.
Robin Harper was correct to point out in his speech that any rail project will have knock-on effects on other parts of the network. Most members mentioned the alignment of the cycle path. I was surprised by Mary Mulligan's comment about cash being moved from bus subsidies. There is a bit of work to be done on understanding how much these things cost.
Alex Neil made an interesting point about paragraphs 165 and 166 of the committee's report. He talked about the compulsory acquisition of homes and the attitude of Network Rail. Jeremy Purvis also mentioned the matter. We need to take a fresh look at the legislation on compulsory purchase orders and to evaluate the impact of the proximity of major infrastructure works. On the values that are used, we need to catch up with the rest of the UK, but we also need to be more sensitive. Major transport projects are valuable to Scotland, but objections flood in because they impact on people's lives and people feel that their views are disregarded. I ask the Executive to consider that at an early stage, not least when it makes a decision on the Aberdeen western peripheral route in the fairly near future.
The cycling lobby was mentioned by several members. The bill will have benefits for the environment, the economy, local opportunities for individuals and communities, population growth, public transport links, access, and even disability, as Cathy Peattie said. Those things are vital parts of any transport system and its planning, and we need to put best practice into action as soon as possible. The Conservatives whole-heartedly support Phil Gallie's motion and we agree to the general principles of the bill.
I begin by recognising the work that the committee has done. Of course, its work will continue, and we all welcome that. There is undoubtedly a consensus in support of the project, and it includes the Greens. I did not realise that Robin Harper was here, but I am always delighted when the Greens are here because we agree about so much in transport policy.
One of the truisms about creating new stations and rail routes is that, the greater the number of stations on a route, the longer the train journey takes. It is reasonable to point out that any rational, dispassionate analysis shows that the likely patronage on a route is determined to some extent by the length of the journey, which in turn is determined by the number of stations. We must take that factor into account.
We all recognise that the proposed line will not be a rival to, or significantly detract from, the main line between Scotland's two major cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. The journey time between Glasgow and Edinburgh via Airdrie and Bathgate will be longer. We can see that the main benefits are likely to be not so much intercity as interregion and that it will become easier for people in the east to travel to the west and for citizens in the west outwith Glasgow to travel to the east. Conceptually, that seems to be the primary benefit from the bill.
Will the member give way?
I am happy to give way, if I have time, Presiding Officer.
I agree that the main benefits from the project are in the movements east to west from West Lothian and west to east from North Lanarkshire, but the project will also produce benefits for the Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk line. Some people who make intermediate journeys on that line but who live close to the Airdrie to Bathgate route will choose to use the new line. The committee report recognises that and mentions that 12 per cent of passengers are expected to transfer from the Glasgow to Edinburgh via Falkirk line, which will alleviate overcrowding and benefit people using that route.
I am happy to agree once again with another member. Indeed, I commend the work carried out by many MSPs from all parties in reaching this stage. I have mentioned the constituency MSPs and Fiona Hyslop, and I should also have mentioned Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, whose role was pointed out earlier by his party spokesman, David Davidson. A substantial body of work has been carried out on a cross-party basis by elected representatives to put forward the interests of people in the area. Mary Mulligan alluded to the fact that community representatives are present to listen to the debate.
It is fair to say that the main controversy has been on whether there should be additional stations. The SNP is happy to replicate precisely the commitments made by the minister today, but we believe that we can go further on Blackridge, as I have said already.
Let me put the issue in a wider context. We know that it has taken a long time to reach this stage. The Network Rail briefing points out that the project timeline began in 2001, which does not take into account the substantial political lobbying that took place before. The briefing takes us through the Scottish Executive's commission of the central Scotland transport corridor study and then the announcement in 2003—just before the election, as it happens—of the project. There was also detailed economic activity and location impacts analysis in 2004-05, environmental consultation from 2003 to 2006, and consultation with the public, local interest groups and stakeholders from 2003 to date. Given the length of time that it takes to establish any major project—plainly the Airdrie to Bathgate line is a major project for Scotland—if there are to be additional stations, we need to decide sooner rather than later which ones they should be.
We support the STAG appraisal for both stations, and it is true that the work must be done independently of the Executive. I have indicated that the SNP is committed to a station at Blackridge. That does not mean that—as has been suggested by some—we are not committed to the STAG appraisal of Plains or that we do not agree with the minister's commitment to further discussions. We are clearly committed to that. However, we believe that it is important not to delay decisions further, given the considerable time that it inevitably takes to introduce proposals.
The committee alluded to the fact that the location of the station at Blackridge would not necessarily be fixed.
Will Mr Ewing explain why the SNP is willing to say that it would fund Blackridge station when, to me, it is evident that the economic and social cases for a station at Plains are greater? Why can he not simply say that both stations are required and commit to funding both?
I have already made our position clear. We have exactly replicated the commitment that has been made by Karen Whitefield's party, so I presume that she is pleased about that. We are following the committee's recommendation, cognisant of the strong economic case in favour of a station at Blackridge.
As I pointed out, the key factor is that it takes a long time to create new rail routes. The time to decide what stations to have is not near the end of a project. My concern is that the absence of a commitment from the Labour-Liberal Executive today on a station at Blackridge may threaten its inclusion in the new line.
Desperate political posturing.
The minister is giving a running commentary, as is his wont. Perhaps rather than giving a running commentary from a sedentary position, he could reply.
It is important to consider what I said in my letter to Mr Gallie and the two constituency members concerned. Mr Ewing should look at the facts and stop trying to invent a political argument when there is none.
I hope that that means that the Executive is moving towards the SNP position of a commitment to Blackridge. I suspect that that is what is happening. I decided to home in on controversy—departing from my characteristic mode, I must say—and as the debate has developed, we have seen a shifting in position of the Scottish Executive towards the SNP position. One can almost sense the electoral fear that underlies that creeping but inexorable movement towards the SNP position, which I have set out today. I welcome the minister's movement towards it.
Perhaps I should point out—I do not know how long I have, but I am happy to oblige—that it is not difficult to make the modest spending commitment that the SNP has made to help the people of West Lothian achieve their potential, which Fiona Hyslop talked about in her excellent speech, when we have made the clear decision to say no to a project that is not in Scotland's best interests and does not represent the best value for money—the EARL project.
I am pleased to agree with the Green party that the project to spend £609 million on establishing a link between Edinburgh and its airport is not only hugely costly but unnecessary. A surface option would be much cheaper. It is much easier to invest in all our railway network in Scotland if we do not spend £609 million—and rising—on building a tunnel underneath a live runway and two rivers to establish a rail link between our capital city and its airport. Government is about taking tough decisions. The SNP has indicated clearly how we would take one decision, on EARL, and we also believe that the Edinburgh trams project—one and a half trams now, rather than the network of three that was initially promised—does not represent value for money. We have demonstrated that we will create the financial capacity so that the whole of Scotland's rail network benefits, not just the fancy frills promised by the Executive.
Will Fergus Ewing not just admit the truth, which we all know, which is that the SNP's lack of support and ambition for Scotland's capital city is more to do with the fact that it completely lacks support in Edinburgh and failed to finish even second in any seat in the 2005 general election? Fergus should admit the truth—his comments are cynical politics.
I do not quite see the relevance of those remarks to the Airdrie to Bathgate line. Perhaps Bristow Muldoon was simply rehearsing his speech for the conference in Oban next week. I am sorry, but I will not pay too much attention to his intervention.
The SNP believes that investment in the whole of the rail network in Scotland is what is important. If we want the next decade to be one in which more people travel by train, more capacity is provided on our rail network and those of us who are in Parliament debate the opening of other new railway lines, we need to make the right decisions now. We genuinely believe that, as a party that is ready and waiting for government next May, we have made the right decisions. We recognise that there is merit in most proposals, but government is about creating priorities and making tough decisions. We are often lectured—usually by the First Minister—for being prepared to be profligate with the public purse. In respect of the transport budget, the opposite is the case because the Labour-Liberal Executive seems to be thirled to the EARL scheme, which many believe may cost £1,000 million—
Mr Ewing, you should finish now.
Sorry, Presiding Officer. I did not realise how many more "10 minutes" I had.
In closing, I am happy to state that the SNP is delighted to support the Airdrie to Bathgate line, with the addition of Blackridge station.
Unfortunately, as so often happens in these debates, we cannot say that it has been standing room only in the chamber, but I hope that demand on the Airdrie to Bathgate line will quickly approach the point at which the new trains are almost standing room only. However, the minister is committed to ensuring that people are not allowed to stand for more than 12 minutes on train journeys.
I am sorry that Phil Gallie was unable to spell out how the European convention on human rights is relevant to the bill, but I am sure that we will hear that at a later stage.
Given the success of the Edinburgh to Bathgate line, which members have mentioned, tribute should perhaps be paid to Chris Green, who has not so far been mentioned. As head of the Scottish region of British Rail when that line was reinstated, he went out on a limb, in management terms, to help to bring that about. The hope is that the reinstatement of the missing link will allow the whole line to be just as much a success as the Edinburgh to Bathgate section of it has been.
I will address other matters arising from our report that the committee convener was unable to refer to. On patronage, we were a bit disappointed about the lack of precision of the patronage forecasts. Given that £342 million of public money is involved, we need some certainty about the level of usage that the line will enjoy.
As the convener identified, improved bus links to increase passenger access are an issue. The committee believes that passenger numbers will be maximised only if good, convenient and direct access to stations is provided. To be frank, one reason why many lines were closed was that the stations were too far away from those who were expected to use them.
It is clear, however, that the existing population provides the railway with enormous potential. Some 1,900 properties are within 800m of the proposed stations on the new part of the line. The projection is that, by 2021, there will be a further 4,000 new dwellings in North Lanarkshire and double that number of new dwellings in West Lothian. Over and above that, the very existence of the railway could lead to further expansion in population and increased demand for houses.
The committee noted some considerable disparities between the projected figures for house building that we received from the promoter and those that we received from the local authorities. We have sought clarification of those disparities and of how close the proposed housing will be to the new stations. Clearly, those are important matters. However, we understand that a difficult balance must be struck in making house-building projections, given that planning permissions cannot be predicted in advance.
Jeremy Purvis mentioned earlier that there were difficulties of communication and partnership working between the promoter and the two local authorities. Did that come across to the committee as a serious issue of which the Parliament should take note?
It was a bit of a curate's egg. There has clearly been a great deal of co-operation on some issues, but co-operation was less good on others.
The promoter forecasts a daily patronage of almost 4,000 and increased patronage levels on the wider route beyond Airdrie and Bathgate of just under 12,700. Clearly, the railway has tremendous potential to capture and expand on the existing number of passengers who travel between east and west. The question is whether, for people who already live on the M8 corridor, the new line might be used as an alternative to their existing journey mode.
Of course, the bill does not deal with the timetable that will be in place once the line is complete. As Fergus Ewing and others mentioned, the balance between overall journey time and the number of stations, or the frequency of stops at those stations, is an issue that needs to be considered. Simply adding in the missing link without changing the existing pattern of stops and services may not be attractive enough to passengers. The journey from Edinburgh to Glasgow on the line is currently scheduled to take 74 minutes. As well as that journey length, the many stops on the line—on certain sections, the trains will stop almost every mile—might be a disincentive to people, especially if they are on a longer journey.
Will the committee reflect on the fact that the section of the line where stations are less than a mile apart is the western part of the line, where the current line is an extension of the Helensburgh line? Will the work on timetabling consider that issue in particular?
I suspect that it would not be helpful to get into such arguments at this stage. I simply point out that difficult decisions will need to be made, in respect of both new and existing stations, about where the trade-offs should be made between the number of stops that the service should make, given the number of passengers who want to get on at those stops, and the total journey time. That will be a difficult decision. However, whatever decision is made, the journey time will certainly be faster than the time that is recorded in British Rail's timetable for 1949—which I always keep handy—when the fastest journey between Glasgow and Edinburgh via Bathgate was an hour and 23 minutes.
Another issue is the cycle path, which other members have mentioned. The existing national cycle network route 75 uses the track bed of the former railway. Sustrans believes that the new route for the cycle path will not be as good as the current one but, quite frankly, that is hardly a surprise. Old railway lines always make the best kind of cycle route because they follow the flattest possible trajectory between two points. A perhaps more crucial point is that other lobbyists from the cycling fraternity believe that the new route does not maximise the potential to encourage cycle and pedestrian access to stations. That is an important point.
It is clear that the promoter has consulted both local authorities, Sustrans and other cycling bodies on the proposed new alignment of the cycle path. However, certain concerns were expressed about the adequacy of the consultation. Given that the realignment of the cycle track will cost £7.2 million—which is a lot of money for cycle tracks—we are not convinced that the way in which that expenditure is planned will meet the scheme's objectives of improving accessibility and connectivity. We are certainly not aware of any particularly innovative approach towards integrating cycle and pedestrian access to stations. We are also unaware of the level of potential usage of the cycle track. It is difficult to determine whether the opportunity has been taken to increase usage as no figures whatsoever are available for usage of the cycle track.
We urge the promoter to continue negotiation with all stakeholders from the cycling fraternity to bring forward practical route improvements to the cycle track. Given that about a quarter of passengers will arrive at the stations by foot or by bike, we believe that it is important to ensure that they are accommodated and that access is made as easy as possible for them.
Does the member agree that if we are to encourage people to use the cycle tracks that are provided, it is crucial not just that the route of the tracks is right but that their quality is good?
As an occasional cyclist, I could hardly fail to agree with the member.
I turn to some issues that have not yet been mentioned—the code of construction practice and the noise and vibration policy. The code of construction practice outlines the actions that the promoter will require contractors to take during construction and maintenance of the railway to minimise environmental and other impacts such as noise and dust pollution. The noise and vibration policy describes what the promoter will do to mitigate noise and vibration from the railway once it is operating. Both documents are of crucial importance to people who are directly affected by the railway.
It is obvious to the committee that the sooner an objector understands exactly what the promoter will do to reduce pollution from a construction compound, for example, the sooner they will withdraw their objection. Previous private bill committees for rail projects have attached a great deal of importance to the documents, because they provide assurances and guarantees with regard to mitigating impacts of transport projects. Previous committees have given the documents statutory backing by amending the respective bills to allow the relevant local authority to enforce both documents, to the extent of being able to stop a development if there is non-compliance with either the code or the policy. We intend to amend the bill in a similar fashion.
The convener has written to the promoter on the matter. I repeat the point that was made in the letter—that the committee must be satisfied with the terms of the documents. We want to progress the bill efficiently and speedily through the parliamentary process, while giving full and careful consideration to it. However, time is tight if we are to complete consideration of the bill before the end of the session—so tight that we do not wish to embark on lengthy oral evidence hearings at consideration stage until we are content with the terms of both the code of construction practice and the noise and vibration policy. If hearings are extended so much that we cannot finish consideration of the bill, the time spent on those hearings will have been wasted. We trust that the promoter will not get us into that situation and will timetable our consideration of the documents accordingly.
The representations that have been made to us on the performance of Network Rail on the compulsory purchase of people's homes have been mentioned. Compulsory purchase is a once-in-a-lifetime event for many people and must be traumatic for them. Concerns have been expressed to us about lack of dialogue and timely communication on the part of Network Rail; Alex Neil echoed that point. The promoter needs to show sensitivity and understanding when dealing with such objections. A specific point was made about Network Rail's valuer, Knight Frank. It relates to the advance purchase scheme that involves a negotiation between Network Rail and the property owner. At this stage, such negotiations do not involve the district valuer. The bill contains provisions that deal with blight and situations in which only part of the property is being acquired. Many house owners have lodged objections that they can take forward at consideration stage, if they are not happy with what is happening.
In principle, the committee supports the bill. However, we have indicated clearly to the promoter and local authorities that we need to revisit a number of issues before we return to the chamber at final stage. The timetable for the bill is very tight; if the deadlines are not met, we will not be able to deliver the bill before Parliament is dissolved. With continued forward planning, we will try to complete the stages of the bill before then. We hope that all other parties will work constructively with us. In fact, if the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill at decision time this evening, we will have our first committee meeting at consideration stage at 5.15. We are certainly not slacking.
Assuming that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill today, oral evidence hearings will commence on 24 January. That date is fixed, leaving just nine weeks in which to settle objections. Two objections have been withdrawn since the bill was introduced in May. We anticipate that there will be more withdrawals, with greater frequency, prior to the commencement of oral hearings. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion in the convener's name.