Hansard

How strange life can be: here we are debating legislation in a building that neither you, Presiding Officer, nor I wanted, in a Parliament that you fought for and I fought against, on what for each of us is the eve of retirement from half a century or more of full-time employment and 15 years of parliamentary activity. My mind goes back to a debate in the mid-1990s that was organised by the Hansard Society in your building of choice for the Parliament, the old Royal High school building, when we assessed the merits of a devolved Parliament. That debate is long since over and today, in the final hours of the second session of the devolved Scottish Parliament, we consider the final bill of the session, the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill, which will be the last private bill to be dealt with under the Parliament's private bill procedure for proposed public works.

It is perhaps not surprising, Presiding Officer, given your commitment to the cause that you hold dear, and given the respect that you have earned over the years, that you should be presiding over what can only be described as an historic event. Strange it is, however, that I should be moving a motion on, and advocating acceptance of, a bill that has the potential to receive the unanimous approval of this chamber. [Laughter.]

At this point, I will thank my fellow committee members, whose support, commitment and analytical minds, along with the huge contribution that was made by our indefatigable—although, given the effect of that word previously, perhaps I should say "tenacious"—clerk: Fergus Cochrane and his team have enabled submission of the bill to Parliament for approval. Although all concerned gave 100-plus per cent effort towards achieving that goal against a 10-month timescale that was necessitated by the late introduction of the bill and by Parliament's impending dissolution, I make particular reference to Janis Hughes, who will also leave Parliament, come dissolution. [Applause.]

I pay tribute to our assessor at consideration stage, Professor Hugh Begg, who considered in an open manner a mass of written and oral evidence from the large number of objectors and from the promoter. His work allowed timeous publication of our consideration stage report last month. I contend that that collective effort has resulted in a better bill being presented to Parliament today than that which was first presented. The bill offers not only the considerable benefit to the wider community that the railway link will provide, but comfort for those who will be directly affected by disturbance as a consequence of construction and operation of the railway.

We were appreciative of Network Rail's commitment, after some cajoling, last Christmas to settle the minds of objectors who would lose their homes as a consequence of the rail link. The promoter did so by clarifying the valuation and purchase process. However, other concerns were not addressed so co-operatively. We and the assessor have made it clear—the promoter understands this—that all commitments by the promoter during committee meetings and assessment procedures are binding.

I want to talk now about engagement with the promoter—I go back to my time as a youthful engineer in a publicly owned utility. What a pain accountants, factors and other external bodies could be in preventing us from doing what we knew to be best for the plant and equipment under our care. At times I perhaps recognised the resentment of the promoter towards constraints that were being placed on it, but Network Rail has to realise that a project such as this one must be undertaken in a spirit of co-operation between the public and the promoter. It is in the public interest to commission and build the project to budget and by the set dates. That must be achieved within acceptable boundaries. That point has been addressed by some of the measures that I have yet to describe and which will be described by other committee members during today's debate.

Our previous reports were critical of Network Rail's initial response to a request for the provision of detail; the reports were also critical of elements of non-co-operation. I hope that Network Rail will have recognised its shortcomings in communication and liaison with external organisations and, most important, with local communities. I trust that Network Rail will take to heart the contents of those reports in any future plans and certainly in the implementation of this project.

The committee expressed disappointment at Transport Scotland's offhand approach to the promoter's level of engagement. It provided £340 million of public money to the project, so we thought that it should have displayed a greater interest, as our report suggested. We expect a future Minister for Transport to set monitoring criteria for project progression and implementation.

On engagement, the committee secured a base for local community forums at which matters of construction and timetabling, for example, can be discussed. Most important, Network Rail is obliged to enter into one-to-one discussion with every affected neighbour regarding the provision of planting, fencing and other protective measures.

A large number of objections were made against the bill. I pay tribute to the objectors, who were always constructive but genuine in pointing out difficulties that they considered they would face. Many changes were made to the project as a consequence of the objections. Our assessor identified site-specific requirements, all of which the committee agreed and adopted. For example, there will be a segregated bridge at a particular location to ease access for farm animals. The promoter will arrange for security reviews and meetings with local police for objectors who expressed strong concerns about increased risk of crime as a result of the railway or cycle track.

I recall the difficulties that the committee encountered when we faced objections from the local sailing club and fishing club. I believe that both clubs have attained reasonable settlements; indeed, with respect to the fishing club and its requirements for disabled people, I feel that a generous settlement was reached on its behalf.

A considerable number of objections related to the code of construction and to noise and vibration. Committee colleagues will refer to those matters in due course.

I feel obliged to say that all objections were treated in a way that ensured compliance with the European convention on human rights—justice and fairness were the committee's watchwords.

We believe that the project is sound. We accepted that improvements had to be delivered in areas such as local bus integration, new housing and improved pedestrian and cycle access into stations. Not all such aspects have been addressed yet—my committee colleagues will comment later on them. It is important to capture the railway's benefits from day 1, but it concerns us that aspects have not yet been addressed. However, given the conditions that have been laid down, I am sure that they will be addressed in the future.

There is a requirement for greater input and commitment from local councils and, in particular, from Strathclyde partnership for transport in delivering on the issues. Transport Scotland, too, must demonstrate that it has a cohesive strategy. Work must also be done in respect of housing—I believe that Jeremy Purvis will address that matter.

The major issue that we faced was provision of stations at Plains and Blackridge, so we welcomed the Minister for Transport's commitment to take that issue forward. We hope that either he or his successor will do that and ensure that all aspects of the provision of those stations will be taken into account when the matter comes before the next session of the Scottish Parliament.