Hansard

On behalf of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, I am pleased to speak to the motion. Before I discuss the committee's report on the preliminary stage of the bill, it might be helpful to provide members with a brief background to the bill and our work.

The bill was introduced on 29 January 2004 and is promoted by the City of Edinburgh Council. The bill's principal objective is to secure authorisation from the Parliament for the promoter to construct and operate a tramline in Edinburgh. The proposed route starts at St Andrew Square, travels west along Princes Street, goes past Haymarket station to South Gyle, then goes north to Gogar roundabout and then north-west to the airport, with a shuttle service to Newbridge from Ingliston park and ride.

The bill would give the promoter power to acquire the land that it needs to build and run the tramline. It would also authorise a number of consents—such as planning permission and listed building consent—as well as avoiding claims in nuisance for both the construction and operation of the tramline.

The bill also provides the promoter with the power to purchase land compulsorily—which, as members can imagine, has generated a great deal of concern among those who would be directly affected by such a power. I will say more about such objections in due course.

Given the often highly technical nature of the bill, the committee has had to plough through a veritable forest of paperwork. I must therefore thank our advisers—Bond Pearce Ltd, Casella Stanger and Ove Arup & Partners Scotland Ltd—for the effort that they have put in to help the committee untangle some extremely complex issues.

I must also thank the promoter and the objectors for their hard work and input, and my fellow committee members for their diligence thus far. It has been said before in the chamber that the existing system for dealing with bills of this type is not satisfactory. It speaks volumes for the commitment of members that they have given so much time and effort to their complex task.

I would also thank Graeme Elliot from clerking, but sadly he cannot be with us tonight as he is on a secondment to Australia. As I look outside, I am very envious indeed.

In producing the report that we are discussing this afternoon, our committee had three main functions. First, we had to consider the bill's general principles. Secondly, we had to consider whether the bill should proceed as a private bill and whether the general principles should be agreed. That meant deciding whether the bill's purpose was to obtain for the promoter particular powers or benefits in excess of, or in conflict with, the general law, and deciding whether the accompanying documents were satisfactory and allowed for proper scrutiny of the bill. Thirdly, we gave preliminary consideration to the objections that we received.

I will deal with each of these functions in turn, but I want to make it absolutely clear from the outset that the committee is agreed that this bill should proceed as a private bill. I can therefore devote more time to highlighting the substantial issues in our report, rather than going into the technical minutiae.

We gave preliminary consideration to the 85 admissible objections lodged to the bill, then determined whether objectors had demonstrated that they would clearly be adversely affected by the bill. We agreed that all objections relating to specified provisions should go forward for detailed consideration at the consideration stage. However, we agreed that none of the objections—or parts of objections—to the whole bill was based on a reasonable claim that the objectors' interests would clearly be adversely affected by the bill. Therefore, they were all rejected.

We then considered whether the bill should proceed as a private bill. The committee was content with the technical explanations given by the promoter as to why a private bill was necessary for this project.

The committee then had to decide whether the accompanying documents were adequate. Again, the short answer is that the committee was content with the documents. However, I should mention briefly that some particular issues arose to do with the environmental statement. The committee has highlighted those issues to the promoter and other relevant bodies.

Our third consideration was the general principles of the bill. The committee took a broad look at the policy behind the bill and its objectives. In doing so, we felt it necessary to consider the levels of public expenditure involved in the proposed route.

To help members' understanding, the promoter's view is that there are many benefits to be gained from constructing this route. The promoter feels that it will contribute to a maximisation of economic growth by relieving congestion, providing connectivity within and beyond the city, reducing pollution and increasing social inclusion.

The promoter believes that the tram should be seen not as the solution to Edinburgh's transport problems, but as part of a wider strategy of transport improvements, including those in rail, bus and guided bus services and park-and-ride facilities.

As members can imagine, the committee has placed a great deal of importance on evaluating thoroughly the promoter's substantial claims. If the bill proceeds, examination at the consideration stage will be far more forensic and we will take detailed evidence from those people who have objected to the detail of the bill.

To help shape our deliberations, we took evidence from the National Audit Office on its extremely helpful and relevant report, "Improving public transport in England through light rail", which assesses a number of light rail projects. Crucially, it includes consideration of the extent to which the benefits that scheme promoters had identified were delivered.

Generally speaking, the study found that existing tram projects have been able to offer a fast, frequent and reliable service, that they have scored highly in passenger surveys and that they have provided greater passenger comfort and safety. In addition, all systems are viewed as having enhanced the image of their cities and towns. The committee can identify no reason why trams in Edinburgh could not bring the same benefits.

However, the NAO placed some question marks over the ability of schemes to deliver a number of other benefits. In heeding the NAO's conclusions, the committee agreed to focus its oral evidence taking on four broad headings: economic development and regeneration; congestion; social inclusion; and the environment. I may leave the detail of our discussions on those broad headings to my colleagues. Suffice it to say that although we fully acknowledge the potential pitfalls that the NAO flagged up, we are satisfied with the promoter's arguments that benefits will materialise.

I want to highlight two areas on which the committee had serious reservations, both of which relate to the economic case that the promoter provided. The first of those relates to the impact on the tramline of the proposed Edinburgh airport rail link, which is known as EARL. To put our concerns simply, we were worried that the patronage of the proposed tramline was to some extent dependent on customers not being taken by EARL. We were concerned to note that the promoter's own documentation says that

"the impact of heavy rail on tram can be large".

For the tram to be viable, passengers must be encouraged to use, and to continue to use, the tram. To entice people out of their cars, there must be proper co-ordination between different public transport modes and good through-ticketing and park-and-ride facilities. The promoter appears to have given that due consideration. However, although the promoter has stressed that EARL and tramline 2 will serve substantially different markets and overall purposes, we remain sceptical about the assertion that heavy rail will not have a significant impact on tram patronage. Therefore, we cannot give an unqualified endorsement of the promoter's case at the preliminary stage. We feel that there are scenarios in which EARL could undermine the case for line 2 to such an extent that it would no longer be a viable proposition. The committee has asked for clarification on the impact of EARL as regards competition for passengers and has received assurances from the promoter that that will be provided.

Our second main concern is about the robustness of the preliminary financial case. To put the matter in context, the Executive has given a commitment to provide £375 million towards the cost of the Edinburgh tram network to secure, at least, the completion of the north Edinburgh loop. Provided that it receives a robust business case, the Executive will come up with the money, but the Minister for Transport has been adamant that no funding beyond the £375 million will be available.

The promoter has indicated that line 2 will receive £165 million of capital. Given that the cost of the entire line is £266.5 million, we are naturally keen to establish where the missing £100 million is to be found. Moreover, we asked the promoter whether the stretch of the line from the airport to Newbridge could be jeopardised if sufficient funding were not in place. Our fears have been partially allayed by the promoter's assurance that it is committed to completing the full line. It has also made a commitment to provide us with an update on the progress that it makes in securing additional funding through other sources.

To conclude, I have made it clear that the committee is content that the criteria for the bill to proceed as a private bill have been met. I have outlined some of the concerns that the committee still has, which we will examine in more detail at consideration stage, if the Parliament agrees to the motion today. During that stage, we will take detailed evidence from objectors on their concerns and from the promoter on whether and how those concerns can be addressed and, I hope, allayed.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill and that the Bill should proceed as a Private Bill.