Chamber
Plenary, 22 Mar 2006
22 Mar 2006 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill
As a member of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, I concur with much of what my committee colleagues have said. I agree with Bill Aitken that, after more than two years, we arrive at the bill's final stage with relief.
We should not forget the bill's broad policy objectives, which are to create the transport infrastructure that is necessary to support a growing and successful economy, as Sarah Boyack said, and to create a healthy, safe and sustainable environment.
The bill is the first tram proposal to come before the Parliament. If it is agreed and implemented, it will make a significant contribution to Edinburgh's wider transport framework. The benefits will include not only reduced congestion and pollution but, as the committee heard during its evidence taking, increased social inclusion and regeneration. Those are important issues in some parts of Edinburgh.
As our convener has already provided a clear outline of the preliminary stage process, I will take the time available to raise other key issues. First, the promoter's proposal at consideration stage to change the tram route in the Haymarket Yards and Gyle areas outwith the limits of deviation created a real challenge that is worth highlighting. The committee had to agree to examine the promoter's new proposal. Consequently, a new objection period was rightly required to allow the promoter to notify the communities and businesses that would be affected. As the committee took evidence from the promoter and objectors on the proposed change, it became clear that the proposal had wide support. After listening carefully to the evidence, the committee agreed to the amendment.
As Bill Aitken has explained, the committee took a great deal of written evidence. We took oral evidence when it became clear that the issues outstanding between the promoter and the objectors could not be resolved through written evidence, but many objections were withdrawn before that stage. The focus of the oral evidence was on examining how, if possible, outstanding issues could be practically addressed.
As we have heard, private bill committees work in a unique way. To the uninitiated, the procedures can appear complex, to say the least. On behalf of the committee, I take this opportunity to thank the objectors, who I believe conducted themselves very well. In particular, I commend those who were not represented professionally. It was evident that the objectors had put in a considerable amount of preparatory work. The fact that they made their case clearly helped our deliberations.
The representatives of west Edinburgh residents trams action group—WERTAG—deserve a particular mention. The householders raised various concerns, including issues about the extent of the promoter's consultation. Given the likely impacts of the tram on some of the residents represented by WERTAG, the committee stated that the promoter should ensure robust on-going consultation. In practical terms, that means that householders should be consulted on matters such as working hours, access arrangements and mitigation measures during the construction process.
As has been mentioned, a key issue in ensuring the tram's success will be the effective integration between the tram and the city's bus operations. I am pleased that the promoter is dealing with that issue at an early stage.
The finance issue has already been covered but I should add that, at consideration stage, the committee took further evidence from the promoter on funding issues. We asked whether the funding gap had been filled and, if that was not the case, what implications that had for the construction. In short, the evidence that we received showed that an overall funding shortfall remains, but the promoter is taking steps to address it.
After weighing up all the evidence, the committee concluded that it supports the construction of Edinburgh tramline 2.
We should not forget the bill's broad policy objectives, which are to create the transport infrastructure that is necessary to support a growing and successful economy, as Sarah Boyack said, and to create a healthy, safe and sustainable environment.
The bill is the first tram proposal to come before the Parliament. If it is agreed and implemented, it will make a significant contribution to Edinburgh's wider transport framework. The benefits will include not only reduced congestion and pollution but, as the committee heard during its evidence taking, increased social inclusion and regeneration. Those are important issues in some parts of Edinburgh.
As our convener has already provided a clear outline of the preliminary stage process, I will take the time available to raise other key issues. First, the promoter's proposal at consideration stage to change the tram route in the Haymarket Yards and Gyle areas outwith the limits of deviation created a real challenge that is worth highlighting. The committee had to agree to examine the promoter's new proposal. Consequently, a new objection period was rightly required to allow the promoter to notify the communities and businesses that would be affected. As the committee took evidence from the promoter and objectors on the proposed change, it became clear that the proposal had wide support. After listening carefully to the evidence, the committee agreed to the amendment.
As Bill Aitken has explained, the committee took a great deal of written evidence. We took oral evidence when it became clear that the issues outstanding between the promoter and the objectors could not be resolved through written evidence, but many objections were withdrawn before that stage. The focus of the oral evidence was on examining how, if possible, outstanding issues could be practically addressed.
As we have heard, private bill committees work in a unique way. To the uninitiated, the procedures can appear complex, to say the least. On behalf of the committee, I take this opportunity to thank the objectors, who I believe conducted themselves very well. In particular, I commend those who were not represented professionally. It was evident that the objectors had put in a considerable amount of preparatory work. The fact that they made their case clearly helped our deliberations.
The representatives of west Edinburgh residents trams action group—WERTAG—deserve a particular mention. The householders raised various concerns, including issues about the extent of the promoter's consultation. Given the likely impacts of the tram on some of the residents represented by WERTAG, the committee stated that the promoter should ensure robust on-going consultation. In practical terms, that means that householders should be consulted on matters such as working hours, access arrangements and mitigation measures during the construction process.
As has been mentioned, a key issue in ensuring the tram's success will be the effective integration between the tram and the city's bus operations. I am pleased that the promoter is dealing with that issue at an early stage.
The finance issue has already been covered but I should add that, at consideration stage, the committee took further evidence from the promoter on funding issues. We asked whether the funding gap had been filled and, if that was not the case, what implications that had for the construction. In short, the evidence that we received showed that an overall funding shortfall remains, but the promoter is taking steps to address it.
After weighing up all the evidence, the committee concluded that it supports the construction of Edinburgh tramline 2.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3838, in the name of Bill Aitken, on behalf of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, that the Par...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
It is with some relief that I move the motion at the end of a long and tortuous 27-month parliamentary process.Members will be aware of the principal objecti...
Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind):
Ind
I am extremely interested in Bill Aitken's last few remarks. May I take it that, at some future point—although we are not certain when—tramline 2 will be bui...
Bill Aitken:
Con
I remind Ms MacDonald of my opening remarks. The legislation will enable the project to proceed. It is not for the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee o...
The Minister for Transport and Telecommunications (Tavish Scott):
LD
Today we will decide whether to develop the first instalment of a modern light rail system and meet the challenges that are posed by the growth in transport ...
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Ind):
Ind
It seemed to me that Bill Aitken told us in his speech that the purpose of the debate was to evaluate whether the legislative procedure had been correct and ...
Tavish Scott:
LD
I hate to disappoint Mr Monteith, but the debate can fulfil both those functions and I am sure that it will. Mr Aitken did exactly what the Parliament would ...
Mr Monteith:
Ind
Will the member take another intervention?
Tavish Scott:
LD
No, I want to make a bit of progress.To maximise those benefits, we must encourage a shift away from the use of cars and ensure that trams and buses are inte...
Margo MacDonald:
Ind
I query the logic in the minister's argument for the two separate markets, which are to be served by the proposed tramway and rail link. However, people who ...
Tavish Scott:
LD
My point is that the heavy rail link to and from the airport will be a link not only for Edinburgh, but for destinations and locations around Scotland. Given...
David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con):
Con
As I understand it, the report recognises that the construction of the heavy rail link would have an adverse impact on tramline 2 revenues. I also understand...
Tavish Scott:
LD
I could be drawn into commenting on what Mr Cameron said about aviation in his contribution to the debate on the budget statement, but that would be wholly i...
Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I, too, pay tribute to the work of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee. I have said that the current system for dealing with private bills is wrong ...
Margo MacDonald:
Ind
Will the member give way?
Mr MacAskill:
SNP
No, I do not have enough time.The tramline would run in parallel with a railway line and undermine an excellent, flagship bus service for Lothian Buses.We ag...
Mr David Davidson (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
I congratulate members of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee on their diligence.The bill is an enabling bill, so I am confused by the minister's st...
Margo MacDonald:
Ind
Will the member give way?
Mr Davidson:
Con
I do not have the time. I am sorry.Our colleagues on the City of Edinburgh Council supported the bill at the preliminary stage, as we did here in the Parliam...
Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab):
Lab
I am delighted to speak in support of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill. I am very glad that we have reached final stage, and I add my congratulations and t...
Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
LD
I am pleased that, after literally decades of debate about the future of public transport in Edinburgh, the Parliament has the opportunity to give the go-ahe...
Mark Ballard (Lothians) (Green):
Green
It is worth remembering why we are debating this issue. Edinburgh currently has one of the best bus networks in the United Kingdom and, helped by the high po...
Mr Monteith:
Ind
Wearing his other hat, as rector of the University of Edinburgh, is the member able to tell me how many of the 41 per cent of people in Edinburgh who do not ...
Mark Ballard:
Green
No, I am not. The areas of the city that face congestion—including those around the university—are also those that have problems with air quality and are the...
Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP):
SSP
The debate is about both the principle of trams and the feasibility and value of trams in Edinburgh. The Scottish Socialist Party welcomes in principle the p...
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Ind):
Ind
I speak as an Edinburgh resident. I have not studied every section of the bill and every detail of the committee's work, but I have no doubt that the committ...
Margo MacDonald rose—
Ind
Mr Monteith:
Ind
Cue intervention.
Margo MacDonald:
Ind
Does my colleague agree that the minister should tell us in his summing-up whether the money is on the table? If it is not, the business case will be not jus...
Mr Monteith:
Ind
I have visited many cities that have tramlines. The one thing that I have noticed about most, if not all, of them is how wide the seats are—Laughter. I mean,...