Hansard

I understand that that is one of Patrick Harvie's priorities, but for the moment I think that the bill will make a real improvement.

The Glasgow crossrail project is one of the issues about which members are most concerned, and I acknowledge their arguments for an early decision on it. However, the committee accepts that it is not appropriate to delay consideration of the bill until a decision is made on the crossrail scheme. The committee accepts the position that the minister outlined in his evidence when he stated:

"The strategic projects review, which is being taken forward now and will conclude through 2007 and 2008, will provide an opportunity for further consideration of projects that can come together to deliver improved connections."—[Official Report, Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, 3 October 2006; c 285.]

The crossrail options may well be considered as part of a national transport strategy. The committee believes that a crossrail scheme would enhance connectivity as well as the business case for GARL, particularly if the service offered direct connections from Glasgow Queen Street station to the airport.

I turn to running times and opening hours. The committee heard evidence on the opening hours at Glasgow Central station and their correlation with flight times from Glasgow airport. It was felt that a balance had to be struck in relation to opening hours. It is not within the gift of the promoter to start the service one hour earlier, because that would require input from a range of organisations, including Network Rail. Even if GARL's opening hours were extended, there would be no other trains, which would leave onward passengers stuck in Glasgow. It is not clear where passengers could wait for other types of connecting transport—other than in the station—as shops and cafes would be closed at that time in the morning.

A further problem with early opening is that it might impinge on maintenance work, which in turn would lead to safety issues. The committee is satisfied that, because of the cost implications, it is difficult to justify running trains beyond the times stated in the business case. We are, therefore, satisfied that the proposed opening hours are the best option for now. However, we are happy that the promoter intends to continue discussions with Network Rail and Transport Scotland to determine the optimum timetable. The committee expects the timetable to be kept under constant review.

The committee sought an improvement in the promoter's contact with objectors and agreed that it should continue to consult all parties. The promoter provided an account of the consultation with objectors and the committee noted the promoter's improved efforts since preliminary stage.

Having scrutinised all the evidence, the committee is satisfied that the benefits of the scheme outweigh the negatives. We are satisfied that an appropriate balance has been struck between the rights of those who are adversely affected by the scheme and its benefits to the wider community. The revised code of construction practice and noise and vibration policy offer better protection to those who are affected. Construction hours will be restricted to 8 am to 7 pm on weekdays and 8 am to 1 pm on Saturdays, and the public and businesses will be notified of construction work seven days in advance.

The bill provides that the code must be agreed with local authorities and that Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency must be consulted. Local authorities will have direct involvement and powers to enforce mitigation and even to stop work if necessary. The provision in the bill on deemed planning conditions will allow local authorities to enforce compliance with the code under their existing planning powers.

There are no statutory requirements in Scotland for mitigating noise from railways, but in line with previous legislation we have required the promoter to implement the provisions of noise and insulation regulations that apply in England and Wales and to set noise design targets at lower levels when it is reasonably practicable through mitigation measures. Those measures will be incorporated into the appropriate contracts for the construction and operation of the railway and will be binding.

As the committee said in its consideration stage report:

"The Committee has throughout its consideration of the GARL Bill been mindful of its role in deciding the balance between the potential impact of the GARL Bill on the working and personal lives of objectors and that of the benefits the promoter asserts that the GARL Bill will deliver."

In considering each objection, the committee examined its content along with the assessor's recommendations and took into account all the written and oral evidence provided by witnesses. As Margaret Jamieson explained, we made many changes to improve protection and assist those most affected by the bill.

I add my thanks to everyone involved in the bill's progress, particularly those of us for whom this has been their first experience of the private bill process. We have produced a much-improved bill, and we recommend that the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill be passed. I support the motion in Margaret Jamieson's name.