Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 29 Mar 2006

29 Mar 2006 · S2 · Plenary

Item of business

Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill

Gallie, Phil Con South of Scotland Watch on SPTV

I start by saying how sorry I am that my colleague Rob Gibson has not been called to speak; he had important points to make about construction programmes and noise, although we have heard quite a lot about that today.

As I have only seven minutes in which to speak, I will start at the back end and offer some thanks. I thank Jackie Baillie, who was the committee convener, and Helen Eadie and Rob Gibson for being a joy to work with, believe it or not. Jackie said a lot earlier about noise and I reckon that she read her notes well, but she is an expert on noise and controlled the committee well. As well as thanking my colleagues, it would be right to thank the clerks and other parliamentary staff, particularly the audio staff, who kept me well equipped with earphones.

We should not forget the promoter's team, who did extremely well, nor should we forget the objectors. I was impressed all the way through the exercise by the standard of the objectors. It was not an easy task for them to deal with the technical detail that was put before them and argue with the so-called experts, but they did it magnificently. They certainly prepared a case that gave the committee a lot to think about when we took evidence.

There was a considerable amount of technical evidence and we were reliant in the main on the promoter's expert witnesses. We took much of the technical evidence as it was stated, and although we queried, pressed and delved—and brought about change—at the end of the day we were to a large extent reliant on the experts' information.

Similarly, we were reliant on the promoter for the forecast of costs. Quite honestly, the committee dealt with costs all the way through the consideration stage. We kept asking about costs and were informed that they were on schedule as previously stated. We all know now that that was not the case, and that certainly concerned the committee. We have expressed our concern in our report.

The other aspect that was continually hammered home to the committee about tramline 1 was that the circular route was all-embracing and there could be no deviation from it—it was set in stone. As we all know now, the route was changed in the latter stage. However, it is interesting to note that the committee queried in the preliminary stage whether there would be benefit in having an all-through service with tramline 2 linking with tramline 1 right down to Leith. We raised that point, but were told that it was not an issue.

I say to Kenny MacAskill that what we have now is, effectively, an enabling bill. The pressures are now on the councillors and the minister to ensure that the project is delivered at a reasonable cost and that the costs are fully justified and in line with all the assurances that we have been given.

I turn now to the objectors, some of whom will feel that, after months of hard work, the bill has gone through in any case and that there has been nothing in it for them. I would say that they were wrong in that view. Many changes have been made to the bill. Helen Eadie described the situation with respect to the Western general hospital. I sympathise with Margaret Smith's view on that, but the committee did consider the issue. We visited the site and walked around it. We thought about the possible implications of a tram stop and the extent of the effect that would have on travel times from Haymarket down to Granton. We took account of all that and that is why Helen Eadie and I supported and accepted the bus-link option that was delivered for us.

When we consider the loop of the whole route, we can see what the objectors achieved. The change of route at Haymarket, for example, started the process. We got that change of route, other amendments were made and the evidence is there for all to see. There were objectors who pointed to traffic blockage problems that will come about on Queen Street. We say to the councillors—this is also in our report—that they must address that at an early stage and not wait until the line is constructed. They should get stuck in now and find solutions.

The committee listened to Newhaven community council's plea for Victoria primary school's garden to be saved and the promoter went along with a change that achieved that, so that plea was worth while.

Although it may not seem that Robert Drysdale's work on the alternative route at Starbank has been worth while, the fact is that the committee walked the route on more than one occasion. On each occasion, we decided that the promoter's route was marginally more beneficial—although our view was weighted by considerations of time factors for each of the alternatives, which we had to take into account.

Much has been said about the Western general hospital and I will not say anything further.

Roseburn residents will be disappointed that the Roseburn corridor will be used for the tramline, but the committee made various improvements. For example, we secured improvements on property values, animal life and the landscape and habitat management plan. We took objectors' views into account.

Overall, the members of the committee believe that we have done a reasonable job. The bill could never have been perfect, and there were disappointments. For me, one such disappointment was that we did not set a 40mph speed limit. I did not flip-flop on that; I was consistent.

We now look to the minister, to councillors and to the promoter to ensure that, if or when this project goes ahead, it goes ahead in a properly costed way that provides value for money and meets all the criteria that we would expect it to meet.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 29 Mar 2006

In the same item of business