Chamber
Plenary, 23 Nov 2006
23 Nov 2006 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill: Preliminary Stage
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.
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.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
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 Airdri...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
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 tha...
The Minister for Transport (Tavish Scott):
LD
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 t...
Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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...
Tavish Scott:
LD
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 mee...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
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...
Tavish Scott:
LD
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 ...
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):
SNP
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 re...
Mr David Davidson (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
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 beha...
Tavish Scott:
LD
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 ...
Mr Davidson:
Con
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...
Bristow Muldoon (Livingston) (Lab):
Lab
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...
Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP) rose—
SNP
Bristow Muldoon:
Lab
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 p...
Alex Neil:
SNP
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?
Bristow Muldoon:
Lab
The Herald would have more credibility if it published independently commissioned polls by System Three rather than polls commissioned by the SNP. I am fairl...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
We come to the open debate. There is no time limit on speeches this morning, which makes my role in proceedings somewhat redundant.
Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
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 re...
Bristow Muldoon:
Lab
Will the member give way?
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
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...
Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab):
Lab
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...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
We did not say that.
Cathy Peattie:
Lab
Fergus Ewing did.
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
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—state...
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
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 tha...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
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 r...
Karen Whitefield (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab):
Lab
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 o...
Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
He is just misunderstood.
Karen Whitefield:
Lab
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 ...
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab):
Lab
I spoke in Karen Whitefield's members' business debate on this matter, because the line will hugely benefit my constituents in Coatbridge. However, although ...