Plenary, 01 Jul 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, July 1, 2004

Official Report 691KB pdf

---

Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill: Final Stage

The next item of business is consideration of motion S2M-1541, that the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill be passed.

The Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill was introduced on 15 May 2003 and 56 admissible objections were lodged. At the preliminary stage debate on 11 December 2003, the Parliament agreed to the general principles of the bill and that the bill should proceed as a private bill. That approval allowed the bill to progress to the consideration stage, to which I now turn.

The overall purpose of consideration stage was for the committee to consider the detail of the bill. Within that, there were two distinct phases. The first phase involved the committee meeting in a quasi-judicial capacity, which means that it had to weigh up the competing arguments before reaching its decisions. The second phase involved its meeting in a legislative capacity to consider and dispose of amendments to the bill.

Our first task at consideration stage was to group objections that we considered to be the same or similar and to select one or more objectors from each group to lead evidence on behalf of the group. That process ensured that all legitimate arguments would be considered, while avoiding unnecessary repetition. Eighteen groups were formed from the 52 objections outstanding at the time; objectors were consulted on the formation of those groups. Parliamentary officials held a meeting with objectors and the promoter to discuss the committee's decisions and to explain the procedure that would be followed at consideration stage.

The objectors and the promoter were invited to submit written evidence in respect of arguments, concerns and issues that had been raised in the objections, and copies of that evidence were made available to both sides so that each had the opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence. Both sides were invited to submit the names of witnesses who would appear on their behalf at the evidence-taking meetings. The committee agreed to hear evidence from all the suggested witnesses.

Before the evidence-taking meetings commenced, the committee undertook a site visit to each of the properties that had been suggested by the objectors. Those visits allowed us to meet objectors and to see clearly, for example, the proximity of properties to the proposed line. I thank all the objectors whom we met for their hospitality as we trampled through their back gardens and for the courteous way in which they explained and presented their concerns to us. We all found the experience extremely useful in visualising the concerns that had been expressed by objectors.

We also viewed the type of freight train that would operate on the line, which was—for the benefit of the train enthusiasts among us—a class 66 diesel locomotive. We viewed the train both stationary and in operation; again, that gave us a better idea of its size and speed, and of the noise and vibration effects.

By the time that we commenced taking oral evidence at our meeting on 8 March, seven objections had been withdrawn, thereby reducing the number of groups to 11. The meetings were held in Alloa town hall on 8, 15 and 22 March.

Private bill committees at consideration stage operate in a unique way, in that they allow third parties to cross-examine witnesses. The promoter and the objectors can examine their own witnesses as well as the witnesses of the other party. The committee can also question all the witnesses. That process might appear to be cumbersome, but we found that administratively, organisationally, and procedurally, it worked well and gave all parties the opportunity to bring out key issues and to question the evidence before the committee.

Before I talk briefly to the two reports that the committee produced, I want to say something about those who were involved in the processing of the bill. First, and above all, I thank the staff of Clackmannanshire Council for their assistance in allowing us to hold our evidence-taking meetings in Alloa town hall.

As I said, the bill was the first works bill to be subjected to this parliamentary process. We acted in accordance with the standing orders and the guidance on private bills. That said, the experience was new for all involved and one that we will never forget.

The committee was impressed with the performance of witnesses, particularly on the objectors' side. Many of the witnesses were not legally represented and had no professional experience of the complex issues that were being considered or of taking part in such proceedings, which we recognised might have been fairly daunting. The arguments were competently and eloquently put, the questions that were asked were pertinent and everyone acted with due respect, courtesy, and consideration.

On the whole, and bearing in mind the fact that the parliamentary process was also a learn-as-you-go experience for the promoter, the committee felt that the promoter did a good and reasonable job through its various agents and consultants. On a number of occasions, there was a need for supplementary evidence to be provided at short notice and, invariably, the promoter was able to meet deadlines.

I turn to my fellow committee members. I am not sure that we all knew what would be involved when we received a tap on the shoulder from our respective business managers, but a year on, we know a lot more about noise attenuation, whisky warehouses, pylons and sea lamprey than we ever thought possible or even necessary.

I warmly thank my colleagues for their participation on the committee. The complexity and diversity of the issues meant that, at times, the scrutiny process was arduous. However, given the importance of our task, there should be no doubt about the seriousness or thoroughness of our approach in discharging our duty as a committee. Without compromising that approach, I also commend my fellow committee members' willingness to attend meetings, often at short notice, in order that the process could be expedited.

Last but not least, I express the committee's thanks to the parliamentary clerking team and to our adviser. Their work was essential and their diligence was admirable.

Members are aware that there has been discussion about whether the existing private bill process is necessarily the right way in which to scrutinise major public transport projects. Clearly, my fellow committee members and I have a view on that and we have communicated that view to the Presiding Officer. I leave the matter there, other than to note that the Procedures Committee has agreed that its next inquiry will be into the private bill procedure—

Will the member give way?

I will finish my point. Mr Richard Baker is in the happy position of being a member both of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee and of the Procedures Committee and no doubt he will be able to give the Procedures Committee's inquiry a starter for 10.

I think that this is the first time that such detail about a private bill has been presented in the chamber and I seek explanation from Mr Butler on two matters. I assume that the second phase of consideration stage did not actually take place, in the sense that no amendments were lodged. Paragraph 186 of the SAK committee's consideration stage report says:

"The Committee is content that an amendment should be lodged on behalf of the promoter at the second phase of Consideration Stage."

What is the significance of that paragraph? It does not seem to be relevant to the paragraph that immediately precedes it. Did the promoter decide not to lodge that amendment?

Paragraph 197 of the same report says:

"The Committee respectfully requests a response on this issue prior to the second phase of Consideration Stage."

Was a response received and if so, what was it?

Amendments were lodged by various committee members at the second phase of the consideration stage. The situation was rather artificial because all the amendments were tidying-up amendments that addressed technical matters, so they were dealt with without contest. There is an opportunity for members to lodge amendments at the final stage, but amendments can be moved at consideration stage only by a member of the committee, who has followed the entire process. No member has lodged an amendment at the final stage, so I hope that that clears up the matter.

Given the time constraints, perhaps the committee's deputy convener will pick up on Alasdair Morgan's second point in his summing up.

Members are aware that the committee published its consideration stage report in May. At the final stage, it is not our job to revisit the issues in great detail, especially as no amendments have been lodged at the final stage, as I indicated. Perhaps I can summarise the situation by saying that the outstanding objections that the committee had to consider could broadly be split into two categories: objections from businesses; and objections from residents. The concerns of businesses such as Diageo plc and Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd were specific to their own circumstances. I refer members to the committee's report, which contains the background to those circumstances. In short, the committee was content that the promoter was able satisfactorily to rebut the cases that those businesses put forward and the objections were not upheld.

I turn to community and individual residents' objections. The committee received a large number of objections from residents whose properties were adjacent to or close to the proposed route. Most residents were concerned, understandably, about the impact of the railway's construction and subsequent operation. The major areas of concern that were identified related to noise and vibration, safety and loss of amenity. As a result of those concerns, a number of objectors were keen that changes should be made to the proposed route of the railway. The committee examined three options: a Clackmannan bypass; a Kincardine bypass; and the Bogside alignment option. In the case of many residents' objections, the promoter did not contest the fact that the railway would have an adverse impact. However, the promoter took the view that such adverse impacts can be mitigated, so that residents would be in no worse a position than are individuals who live next to urban railways elsewhere in the country. The promoter's position was also that powers to construct public works are granted only when that can be justified by public policy and that the public interest might justify disturbance that might cause depreciation in property values. Furthermore, where there has been disturbance, compensation will be payable.

The committee, therefore, had to balance the merit of each objection against the merit of the general principles of the bill having been agreed to by the Parliament. Objectors believed sincerely that there would inevitably be adverse local environmental impacts as a consequence of the construction and operation of the railway and that those impacts were of such a magnitude as to justify either the route being amended or, failing that, the project being halted.

Once again, I stress that the committee gave serious consideration to all the points that were raised. In some cases, the arguments were finely balanced. In the case of those objectors who proposed an alternative route, the committee decided that mitigation measures that the promoter discussed in evidence and made clear could be applied led to the conclusion that the adverse affect was within acceptable limits. With that in mind—and setting the suggestions against the wider public policy benefits of the scheme and the projected costs of the various alternative routes—the committee decided that the alternative routes did not need to be explored in any more detail as part of the process.

I should make it clear to the Parliament that the committee has regard to all the evidence given both orally and in writing at consideration stage. Unanimously, the committee did not uphold the objections either on an individual basis or on a cumulative basis.

The committee was mindful that the bill process is by no means the final step in the progress of the scheme and we have made a couple of important recommendations to the promoter in that regard. Mr Rob Gibson will pick up on those points in his closing speech.

Before the Parliament makes a decision on whether to pass the bill, I should inform members that, in accordance with the habitats directive, the Parliament must satisfy itself that the proposed works contained in the bill will not adversely affect the integrity of the River Teith candidate special area of conservation. That river is of particular importance to salmon and lamprey. In the interests of time, I advise the Parliament that the committee has explored this matter in some detail and has reported to the Parliament. The committee's conclusion was that, on the basis of evidence provided and, in particular, the recommendations of Scottish Natural Heritage, there are sufficient measures in place to deliver the mitigation measures, thereby ensuring that the works proposed in the bill will not adversely affect the integrity of the River Teith candidate special area of conservation. Furthermore, the committee recommended that the Parliament accept the view of the committee when it carries out the required appropriate assessment.

Presiding Officer, I think that I speak on behalf of my colleagues on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee when I say that it is with a sense of pleasure and just a modicum of relief that I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill be passed.

This is an important and historic day. It is appropriate that we are debating such a vital issue in our final hours in this chamber. We should all thank Bill Butler, in particular, and the committee members—Richard Baker, Rob Gibson, David Mundell and Nora Radcliffe—for the huge amount of work that they have done in connection with the bill. We should also thank Clackmannanshire Council, the smallest mainland authority in Scotland. If Clackmannanshire Council can deliver a scheme such as the one that we are discussing today, that lays down the gauntlet for other authorities in Scotland to deliver other major rail infrastructure projects. Like Bill Butler, I thank the advisers, the clerking team and all the other people who have been associated with this project. The Parliament owes them all a significant debt of gratitude for their efforts.

The process has been very positive. The committee has performed a lot of close scrutiny and done a great deal of hard work. When I appeared before the committee, there was detailed questioning in relation to value for money. Key issues, such as the future of Longannet power station, were tackled. The impact on the local economy was assessed. Objectors and supporters got the opportunity to state their case and those to whom I spoke found that the experience was a positive one in which there was open access and they got the opportunity to state their cases fairly.

The new rail scheme will have many benefits, but I will mention three of the key ones. Alloa will now come back onto the rail network for the first time since 1968 and those dark days of the Beeching cuts.

It was a Labour Government that closed that line.

I am disappointed that, during this consensual debate, Brian Monteith seeks to make a political point.

Shame. Shocking.

Through this new rail scheme, freight traffic will have a shorter route and traffic will be taken off the most congested parts of the rail network. That is very important for the third key reason for passing the bill. The new line will free up space on the Forth rail bridge and allow extra and improved passenger services on the Fife circle line.

I am pleased that the bill has come before the Parliament today. Does the minister agree that not only will the new line free up capacity on the Fife circle, but it might increase the opportunity for us to link the community of Levenmouth back into the main east coast rail line?

The new line paves the way for a significant number of improvements. As well as the one identified by the member, I would like there to be a link to the freight terminal at Rosyth for access to the Superfast Ferries. There are further significant improvements that I would like to encourage during the coming months and years.

All of that will be good for Scotland and good for Scotland's economy. The scheme represents £37 million of investment, but I am sure that every member in the chamber believes that it is worth while.

We look forward to starting work on the scheme in the autumn, and to being ready for service in 2006. The new passenger service will be able to take all of us from Alloa, through Stirling, to Glasgow Queen Street station. One of the first passengers on the new service will be our Presiding Officer; I know that George Reid attended several of the committee hearings. In his former life, he was heavily involved in campaigning for the improvement.

Will the minister give way?

I will when I have finished this moment of praise for our Presiding Officer.

I am sure that the member for Ochil would have wished to speak in today's debate, but he cannot speak or signify his support, save through the strength of his smile at decision time. I suspect that if there was a tied vote at four o' clock, or whenever the vote is taken, we know which way he would exercise his discretion. I am sure, however, that the decision will be overwhelming and I hope that the bill is passed without opposition.

When that train has its first venture out of Alloa, will it stop at Stirling and pick me up?

It will stop at Stirling and, if I am still the Minister for Transport, I hope to be on the train and will be delighted to welcome the member on board.

There are other schemes—

Keith Raffan can come as well.

The minister has failed to mention someone who should be mentioned. I refer to a former colleague in the Parliament, namely the former member for Ochil, Dr Richard Simpson. I, Dr Jackson and the Presiding Officer attended many meetings at Clackmannanshire Council about this project. While the minister is doling out generous paeans of praise, I think it would be worthy and worth while that he should pay tribute to Dr Simpson, who is a member much missed in this chamber.

I agree with everything that Keith Raffan has said. I am pleased to correct my omission by thanking Richard Simpson for all his efforts and for the significant role that he played in making the line a reality.

Other similar schemes will require private bills to deliver our new initiatives, which include the Borders rail link and tram lines 1 and 2 for Edinburgh. In due course, we will have rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports and we will reopen the Airdrie to Bathgate line.

Will the minister give way?

Let me just finish this point.

We need to consider how the approval procedure might be simplified and speeded up so that we can deliver more major transport projects as quickly as possible, but we should be able to move forward on that issue on a cross-party basis. The committee convener, Bill Butler, has already provided some views on that, and I know that the Procedures Committee is considering the matter. I strongly support those developments. Along with the Presiding Officer and representatives from all political parties, I will continue to try to drive the issue forward. It is important that the Parliament addresses the matter as soon as possible.

In listing the rail projects, the minister missed out the Edinburgh loop, which is the cheapest and easiest of the lot.

Robin Harper knows that I am anxious to see many improvements to the rail network; I am sorry that there are so many that I occasionally miss one out.

Our final meeting in this chamber is a time for all who have been involved over the past five years to reflect on some of the events that we have seen here, but we should celebrate and be positive about today's debate. People look to the Parliament for real achievements and for real delivery and progress. There could be no stronger and more solid example of that than the delivery of the new rail line that the passing of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill will bring about.

I should perhaps make it clear that, in the unlikely event of a tied vote in this evening's decision time, the Presiding Officer will cast his vote in accordance with precedent rather than in accordance with his personal tastes.

Following the tone and tenor of the minister's speech, I pay tribute to all those who have been involved in bringing the bill to where we find it today. In particular, I thank Bill Butler, the other members of the bill committee and the committee clerks. Given that the development has been promoted not only during the tenure of the current Minister for Transport but through those of previous ministers—both those who are still members of the Parliament and those who are not—I thank Nicol Stephen and his predecessors for driving the issue forward. The bill is something that we should be rightly proud of.

Three important aspects must be mentioned. First, this is an historic event. As the minister and Mr Butler said, there is important symbolism in the bill being the last legislation that we will deal with in this chamber. Secondly, our procedures need to be considered. Thirdly, we require to consider our future aspirations for the reopened Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line. As the minister correctly commented, it is logical that the line be extended to the port of Rosyth.

On the historic nature of the occasion, it is apt and symbolic that our final deliberations are on a positive and constructive bill that has come to fruition during both the current and the previous parliamentary sessions and during the tenure of current and previous transport ministers. The bill has rightly been supported by all parties. Much of our work in the chamber is deliberative in nature, so it is a change to deal with a bill that is about delivery. That is something that we can be rightly proud of. It also allows us to end on a note of consensus rather than controversy. Much that has gone on in the chamber has brought this institution into disrepute—sometimes justifiably, sometimes unjustifiably—but our leaving this chamber to move to the new one is an historic opportunity to relaunch the Scottish Parliament. I therefore think that we should take cognisance of the fact that we are finishing on a constructive note and go forward to the new chamber trying to build upon that.

It is important that we consider procedures. To be fair to the minister, it has been acknowledged that our current procedures are not appropriate. To be fair to the Executive, matters are now being addressed in relation to how we consider planning overall. This summer, we will move not only into a new chamber but into a Parliament that has, I hope, enhanced powers over rail. We believe that the powers are coming, but there is a debate about the extent to which they will come and whether funds will be made available that will allow us to do anything of substance. It is to be hoped that the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway will be the first of many such improvements that we and future Parliaments will be able to build on.

We cannot go on dealing with such developments using the private bill process, so we must consider new methods of doing so. The minister has already commented on that and Bristow Muldoon, in his role as convener of the Local Government and Transport Committee, has also pursued the issue. With Richard Baker's knowledge of private bill procedure, the Procedures Committee must find a better way of proceeding with such matters in order to ensure that we can continue to deliver.

It is right to dwell on the blessings that the railway will bring to Alloa; other members have commented on the improvements that will affect not only people along the rail link but those who will benefit from the capacity that will be freed up on the Forth rail bridge. There are significant log-jam problems that limit the number of trains that cross the bridge, which has an adverse effect on transport in Fife. The new railway will provide an opportunity to remedy many such wrongs.

The minister is to be praised for taking cognisance of the requirement to roll the railway into Rosyth. Trans-European network grants and funding have recently been provided to areas not just in the rest of Europe but within the United Kingdom. Some of those areas are, in fact, competitors for what the port at Rosyth can offer. A press release was published just last month announcing European Union funding for rail and road projects, and I note that a trans-European programme of 30 projects will receive EU funding. Those projects include a rail corridor that will link Dublin, Belfast and Larne, road and rail links from Hull to Liverpool, a rail line from Felixstowe to Nuneaton and a rail line from Crewe to Holyhead.

The port of Rosyth hopes to benefit from being on a land bridge that will create an opportunity for goods that are manufactured or created in Northern Ireland to be trans-shipped through the north channel, which is important to the south-west of Scotland, and on to Rosyth. If we do not allow the land bridge to be united, with a significant part of that bridge being a rail link, we will not be competitive. If exporters can access direct rail links at Holyhead or Liverpool through the ports of Larne or Dún Laoghaire in Ireland, they will use them. Unless we link the rail route to Rosyth, we will not just undermine the rail network that we are constructing in Stirling, Alloa and Rosyth, we will fundamentally undermine the port of Stranraer and the other north channel ports, because it will be significantly easier to export goods through Larne or Dún Laoghaire by rail to connect to sister ports and related ports such as Holyhead or Liverpool. The logical extension of that argument is that we should not see the passage of the bill and the construction of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway as the end of the process. Rather, we should take the next step, which is to roll the railway into the port of Rosyth to allow the trans-shipping opportunities that I described.

We can look back with some satisfaction on our scrutiny of the bill. This is the last formal debate in this chamber—although the final debate will be members' business—and we can end on a positive and constructive note. I hope that all of us will take cognisance of the points that have been raised and that we will go forward leaving behind us some of the difficulties that we have had in this chamber and ready to make a fresh start in September.

I am not going to break the consensus; in fact, I will go further and agree not only with the minister but with Kenny MacAskill and even with Bristow Muldoon, which is a rare occurrence for me these days.

I pay tribute to all those who have been involved in the process, especially Bill Butler, the convener of the committee. In his usual self-effacing way he did not emphasise enough the part that he played in the process. Skill is required when nobody knows what will happen in the process that is being negotiated until it has happened. I do not think that anyone who objected to the bill can legitimately feel that they did not have a fair crack of the whip. Our convener and all those who were involved extended courtesy to all who participated. Everybody had the opportunity to make their case and all the issues were considered as part of what has been described as an exhaustive and sometimes exhausting process.

It is clear that the process is not appropriate for taking forward such measures, because it is overly bureaucratic and too time consuming for members of Parliament relative to the contribution that they can make. We worked very hard with the expert evidence that we had so that we could deal with the issues of noise, vibration and the intrusion or otherwise of the railway. However, at the end of the day, we were no better placed than a reporter, for example, to make a final determination on the issues. I hope that that point will be considered as a matter of priority. It is unfortunate that a number of other major projects have commenced under the same process; there is no doubt that the process will be extremely demanding for members of the Waverley Railway Bill (Scotland) Committee, the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee and the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee and that it will absorb a great deal of resource. That must be dealt with.

David Mundell talked about the impact on members of the Scottish Parliament who have to deal with a relatively cumbersome procedure. Does he have any views about members of the public being involved in the procedure? Might the public inquiry process also be more straightforward?

It might. As I said, members of the public who were involved in the process on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill were greatly helped by the convener and by the way in which they were brought into the process. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the way forward is to have a system that allows people simply and in a way that they understand to have their say. It is also important that people have information in advance.

One of the issues that we picked up was that there was, through no fault of the promoter, a great deal of confusion about the arrangements for compensation. The information about compensation was not provided to members of the public in a way that allayed concerns, which were brought to the committee late in the day but could have been dealt with earlier. There is a great deal of scope to improve the process in respect of providing information to the public about compensation.

I was particularly pleased by the flexibility that Mr Stephen demonstrated in relation to the project—I am sure that he will demonstrate the same flexibility in relation to the Borders rail project—when he made it clear in his evidence to the committee that Scottish transport appraisal guidance assessments and other such Executive stringencies are not the overriding concern in determining whether a project should go ahead or be funded. I hope that the same attitude will apply in relation to the Borders rail link, which is a significant project that also has support throughout the chamber.

Kenny MacAskill made an important point about there being a link between Rosyth and Stranraer—which I am pleased that the Local Government and Transport Committee will visit in September, because it is Scotland's principal freight gateway—to Ireland because there is a real threat from freight going from Dún Laoghaire to North Wales and into Europe that way. A great advantage could be gained for Stranraer and Cairnryan through a link to Rosyth, so we should all argue for that.

From all the evidence that was given to the committee, I am sure that the project stacks up. I hope that many people, not just those who have been mentioned, will be on the first train. We have often heard in this Parliament about people being on the last train from somewhere or other. It will be good when people are on the first train. I hope that, wherever I might be then, I will be one of them.

This is the third private bill to go through Parliament, but it is the first that has dealt with transport and works. It has been an interesting, if demanding, experience to work on it. When the mountain of paper that I have collected during the passage of the bill is recycled, I will not be surprised if it causes a blip in the recycled paper market.

There are more serious issues about the process and how it might be improved and I am glad that the Procedures Committee will examine them. It should also review the situation in which the Presiding Officer finds himself as a local member who is prevented from speaking in the debate. There are occasions when we should assume that people have integrity—this is one of them. Parliament should set a precedent that local members not be debarred from speaking in debates that concern their constituents.

The three-stage process for private bills parallels the process for public bills. There is the preliminary stage, the consideration stage and this final stage. I give heartfelt thanks to the clerks and special advisers for guiding us through and assisting us in the process. I commend them for the huge amount of work that they did. I mentioned the mountain of paper, but all that paper had to be organised, presented, tabulated and so on. Just moving paper around was a huge job, never mind doing it in a way that made it interpretable and useful.

It was a pleasure to work with my colleagues on the committee—we worked well together and I appreciated the convenership of Bill Butler.

At the preliminary stage, the committee considers the general principles of a bill and whether it should continue as a private bill, and it gives preliminary consideration to objections—basically, it considers whether they are admissible. The committee's report at the end of the preliminary stage has to be approved by Parliament before the bill can go to consideration stage, at which the detail of the bill is examined and each group of objections is dealt with.

The procedure for consideration of objections was unfamiliar, as the committee sits in a quasi-judicial way, and its role is to act as arbiter between the promoter of the bill and the objectors. I commend the way in which the objectors rose to the challenge of operating within that formal framework. I was impressed by the different groups of objectors who argued their points extremely effectively and with great courtesy, and who were extremely helpful to committee members on our various site visits, to which Bill Butler referred.

A bill committee reports on its conclusions at the end of consideration stage, having heard the arguments of promoter and objectors. There is a further opportunity for amendments to be made, and the bill arrives at its final stage to be debated by the whole Parliament. It will be obvious from the report that the committee gave a great deal of detailed consideration to the various objections and suggestions that were made by individuals and businesses that were affected by the proposed reopening of the stretch of railway line. It was our job to weigh the disbenefits to objectors against the wider benefits of the proposal. We did considerable work to satisfy ourselves that the alleged benefits were well founded.

Although I know that objectors have been disappointed that the committee eventually decided that various rerouting suggestions should not be upheld, I hope that they accept that we gave their objections serious and detailed consideration.

It was possible for the bill to deal directly only with a narrow set of matters; it was not possible to have anything in the bill on compensation, noise and vibration mitigation, safety fences and so on. However, the committee went to some lengths to ensure that the promoter gave fairly detailed assurances on those matters, which weighed heavily in balancing our conclusions.

I hope that Parliament will agree to the motions on the bill that are before it today and that the rail project will go ahead and deliver the benefits that the minister and others outlined. It is exciting to stand at this time looking forward to the reopening of 21km of railway line that will connect Alloa to the passenger network and cut many rail miles and even more lorry miles out of the delivery of coal to Longannet. It will, I hope, encourage economic development, free up capacity on the Forth rail bridge, with benefits to the wider rail network, and open up even more exciting opportunities. I commend the bill to Parliament.

Before I call the first speaker in the open debate, I point out that I am mindful of the importance of there being a quorum when decision time comes. On the basis of the number of names that I have on screen, it appears as if decision time will be close to 5 o'clock.

I am glad to speak in the final debate on the final bill to be discussed by the Scottish Parliament in this chamber. I am pleased that the bill will improve the quality of life for many, if not all, of my constituents. To take up David Mundell's point, I am not sure whether the phrase "first train to Alloa" has the same ring as "Last Train to Clarksville" but I, too, wish to be on the train, because the reopening of a railway line that was closed in the 1960s will be a tremendous thing.

During the debate on the general principles of the bill, several members spoke in favour of it and talked about the benefits that opening the line will bring. Those benefits include the economic regeneration of Clackmannanshire and west Fife, the taking of coal off the road and on to rail and the taking of freight off the Forth rail bridge, which will increase passenger services, not only on the Fife circle, but on the east coast main line. All of those benefits should be welcomed.

Kenny MacAskill talked extensively about the importance of the Rosyth ferry terminal, which is in my constituency. I say to him—if he does not already know this—that a number of the points that he raised have been discussed or are in the process of being implemented. We must remember that the Rosyth ferry terminal can be opened up in two directions by rail. The existing link from Inverkeithing could be improved, with a bit of adaptation. With foresight, we could take the line that already exists to Kincardine on to Rosyth to bring freight in from the west, not just coal to Longannet power station.

As one of the people who participated during the consideration stage at Alloa town hall, I thank my colleague Bill Butler—or Railway Bill as I believe he is now known—and other members of the committee for the courteous way in which they conducted the hearings and helped ordinary members of the public to make known their views, particularly given that most of them did not have legal representation.

During the debate on the general principles of the bill, which was held in December 2003, I raised the issue of my constituents in the Ochil View area, which is adjacent to the railway line between Longannet and the former Kincardine power station. Ochil View is a 1980s housing development that was built on concrete rafts, which meant that the residents there had a particular cause for complaint on the grounds of vibration and—given the proximity of the line—of safety and amenity. Paragraphs 111 to 117 of the committee's consideration stage report explain why the committee could not accept the objections of the people who gave evidence as part of group 9 of objectors.

I understand from the report that the arguments about the option of a Kincardine bypass were finely balanced, with the principal argument against it being the cost of re-siting four electricity pylons, rather than the one pylon that I and my constituents believed would need to be moved. It is therefore with deep regret that I note that the committee did not uphold my constituents' concerns, which could have been completely mitigated had the committee endorsed option B.

I share some of the concerns that have been expressed in Kincardine. However, will Mr Barrie acknowledge that some mitigation measures have been introduced? In particular, the line within Network Rail land will be moved further away from Ochil View.

I accept that the line will be moved as far as it can be, within the possible parameters. However, in Alloa town hall on the Monday morning when the issue was discussed—although I think that it was actually the afternoon by the time we gave evidence—I pointed out that another option existed. I am disappointed that the committee felt unable to take up that option in the fine balance that had to be struck. I should put on record that those concerns are shared by people who live in Clackmannan village. They live in the constituency of Ochil, the member for which is the Presiding Officer. Because of his official role, the Presiding Officer can neither speak in nor chair this debate. However, I am glad to raise his constituents' concerns on his behalf.

The Clackmannan residents bought or built their houses after the line was closed. About 200 homes lie in proximity to the railway. None of the owners ever seriously thought that trains would one day run again on a line that was closed in the 1960s. The objectors put up a sturdy case at the various hearings in Alloa town hall. Like my constituents, they have not opposed the principle of the railway; they have merely sought an alternative route. Members might have considerable sympathy with the argument that those constituents' quality of life will be adversely affected by freight trains passing their homes 18 times a day between 6 am and 11 pm. However, the committee has had to judge between gain for the greater public good and loss to individuals.

I am sure that members will join me in urging the promoter to introduce proposals for compensation and mitigation at the earliest opportunity. I know that Mr Reid, as the constituency MSP, will support his constituents during that process. I endorse the Presiding Officer's sentiments for my constituents and I hope that we end up with a reopened railway that will benefit everyone and disappoint no one.

Bill Butler and his committee colleagues will be glad that they have reached the end of their line as the final stage of this bill comes to Parliament. I offer—as convener of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee—my sincere congratulations to Bill Butler and the committee on their work during what I now know was a tortuous process.

As the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee starts its journey, my committee colleagues and I will be looking to Bill Butler—or Railway Bill, as Scott Barrie called him—for any advice that he can give us on the private bill process. Any changes to the process that might result from investigation by the Procedures Committee will come far too late for us.

Wearing my Mid Scotland and Fife hat, I warmly welcome the completion of the bill. I know that members of all parties will support it at decision time today. The Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail link has been a dream for a long time for many people, particularly in Clackmannanshire—the wee county will at last have a rail link, which will help to release the potential of the local economy.

From a Fife perspective, I am disappointed that the rail link will not extend to the ferry port at Rosyth, which is a wasted opportunity. However, I and many members and other people outside Parliament will continue to press to make that extension a reality. I welcome the minister's comment today—just as I welcomed it during the previous debate—that he, too, sees the opportunities. However, there is a difference between seeing opportunities and seizing them. We will ensure that the minister understands that difference.

The new rail link will take freight pressure off the Forth rail bridge and free up capacity for more passenger trains. The Executive must take the opportunity that is offered by the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail link to ensure that there is an increase in passenger trains from Fife to Edinburgh. Like Christine May, I urge the minister to work with Fife Council and other partners to ensure that Levenmouth—the largest conurbation in Scotland that has no rail link—will have access to the Fife circle, with connections for Leven and Thornton. Long-suffering Fife passengers deserve a far better rail service than they have at the moment. If the minister needs to be reminded of that, I point out to him that a number of those Fife passengers sit around him in the chamber. We will ensure that we continue to press the case for Fife at every opportunity.

As Scott Barrie said, the Presiding Officer is not, as constituency member, permitted to speak in this debate. However, I am sure that the Presiding Officer will agree that it is now up to the promoter of the bill to review compensation. I am sure that Mr Reid's office and Scott Barrie will work closely with the promoter and the objectors to try to reach a fair solution. Balancing public gain and private loss is never easy, but if the promoter is willing to assist, I think that all the people of Clackmannan and Fife will welcome the new rail link, which few of us believed would ever be restored.

After the bill is passed today, the imperative is to ensure that the rail link is up and running—only that will turn the dream into reality. Ensuring that that happens is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that, like all the other members who have spoken, I want to be on the first train.

I welcome the final stage of the bill and congratulate the clerks, who produced a clear report on the consideration stage, the committee members, who put in a lot of time, the promoter and the witnesses who gave evidence.

As I said in the preliminary stage debate, the link is incredibly important because it will put Alloa back on to the rail passenger network, as the minister said. It will also take coal lorries off our roads and coal trains off the Forth rail bridge, which will allow more passenger traffic into Fife. The route has enormous strategic importance for the whole northern side of the Forth estuary and is perhaps one of the few issues that is relevant to the whole Mid Scotland and Fife region. I certainly hope that the bill will be a start and that, in time, we will be able to establish a direct link from Kincardine back through to Dunfermline, and that the development of the spur down to the port of Rosyth will be included as part of that.

With any major development in Scotland, a balance must be struck between the benefits of public policy to society, and local concerns. Judgments must be made and matters must be balanced all the time. That must be done with the pylon upgrade between Beauly and Denny, with wind farms and with rail developments. That will be at the heart of the debates on third-party rights of appeal that will follow. I do not think that any member believes in a completely unconditional third-party right of appeal, but we must get the balance right in our planning system.

The promoter struck the right balance with this scheme, but only just. There might have been fewer final objections to the overall scheme if the promoter had been a little clearer about the compensation process. Mitigation is important, but how can we mitigate some of the local effects? I am delighted that the promoter has reached an agreement with Scottish Natural Heritage on environmental management of the River Teith, which is vital, but we must also consider the commitments that have been offered to local people and ensure that the mitigation that has been promised to them is delivered.

The promoter made a number of commitments during the consideration stage and I hope that those commitments will be delivered. There were commitments to individual residents who will be affected by the route that they will be offered a choice of mitigation measures to be used on their properties; that there will be vibration testing of housing, especially at Causewayhead; and a commitment was made in Clackmannan to the important, high-quality fencing off of children's play areas and to the educational work that will be needed in the local community to advise children and their parents of the dangers of straying on to railways. All those commitments must be delivered.

When I looked through the report, I was interested to note that when the Clackmannan railway concern group gave its evidence at the consideration stage it described one of the original public meetings to discuss the route as "spiky". We must move away from spiky and confrontational public meetings at which there is a top table of folk—who will usually be in suits and will give a PowerPoint presentation—at which the body of the Kirk metaphorically throws rotten tomatoes. We must move away from them-and-us situations with developers and local people. There are participatory techniques that use community development, which can ensure that there is genuine dialogue among promoters, developers and local communities. Such front-end development—whether of legislation or planning proposals—ensures that there is a much smoother planning system and genuine dialogue.

I hope that the bill will be passed. The Greens would warmly welcome its passing today, our last day in our temporary chamber. The bill will deliver real improvements, not only in our transport infrastructure, but in our environment.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the final stage debate on the bill, which is also the final debate in our temporary chamber. In my constituency, there has been concern around Causewayhead. Since we had the preliminary stage debate in December, Jim Thomson, the chair of Causwayhead community council, has attended one of the committee meetings and outlined his concerns, which were along the lines that I had represented in that earlier debate: the frequency of trains, when they would pass through Causewayhead, their speed and the effect on infrastructure.

There was also some concern near the Ladysneuk level crossing, particularly about noise levels. I see that the promoter gave a commitment to monitor those noise levels for the first year and that the predicted noise levels would be likely to trigger the requirement to offer the objectors the option of installing air conditioning. The committee has acknowledged that the objectors will be adversely affected, but it believes that the promoter has sought to address that adverse effect positively.

Alasdair Morgan's question, which seemed to be asking for information about paragraph 197 of the committee's consideration stage report, seemed to be pertinent. It is a bit of a shame that Rob Gibson, who I think will give us that information, will speak at the end of the debate, but I understand from what I have gleaned from what members have said so far that it is now up to the promoter to fulfil the commitments made during the committee meetings and to address the committee's recommendations and conclusions.

I have worked closely with the Presiding Officer, because the Causewayhead area is shared between our two constituencies. He, like me, is concerned, and we expect the commitments that we have been given to be upheld.

I will not say any more about the recommendations in the committee's report, because compensation and mitigation might be elaborated on a little more, but I will pick up a point that I also made in December. At that time, I got assurances from the minister and the bill committee that the additional freight that would go on the line through Stirling would not have an adverse effect on passenger services through Stirling. However, I am slightly concerned. I raised the point last week that slight changes that have been made to the Edinburgh to Dunblane service, so that it now comes through Newcraighall, have meant that the train has often terminated at Stirling, stranding passengers who want to go to Bridge of Allan and Dunblane. Because even a small change has had quite a big effect on the Edinburgh to Dunblane service, I seek again the reassurance that we will not have any problems because of additional freight. In fact, the minister said to me that we were going to get an enhanced service on the Stirling line, so I hope that that will happen.

There is obviously a lot of support for the line and there are benefits to opening the route to Clackmannan. Most of them relate to the economic development of Clackmannanshire, but I hope that there will also be benefits for Stirling because fewer cars will come into the town because people catch the train instead.

Keith Raffan mentioned that a number of members and Richard Simpson were very involved in earlier meetings in Alloa. We should not forget all the people who have been engaged in work on the bill, but most of all, the bill committee. Because the Presiding Officer is not able to say it, I say to members that I am sure that he welcomes the final stage of its consideration.

I share other members' delight that the bill is going to be passed by the Parliament tonight. I accept the point that was made by Kenny MacAskill and others that improvements that are made in one part of the country can influence the transport situation in another, remote part of the country because they build in cross-Scotland links. That is a significant issue for transport infrastructure.

I have two points to make on procedure. I take the point that the minister, David Mundell and other members made about the need to examine the private bills procedure. In the preliminary stage debate, I quoted Keir Bloomer of Clackmannanshire Council, who said:

"The Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway is probably the easiest railway link in Scotland to reopen."—[Official Report, Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, 10 November 2003; c 111.]

My response in that debate was:

"if this is the easiest link in Scotland to reopen, what on earth is it going to be like once we start to reopen some of the more difficult lines?"—[Official Report, 11 December 2003; c 4265.]

That was before I knew that the bill committee was going to hold many very long meetings and that it would take six months to get to this stage. What I said then applies in spades now.

We must also remember that, if many such bills are introduced at the same time, we will have difficulty in finding enough members to be on the committees that are set up to consider them. That is not just because I think that members are unwilling to undertake the work, but because of the legislative requirement that all members of private bill committees must be present all the time, to ensure that the process is not open to judicial challenge. For that reason, too, we need to re-examine the procedure.

My second point is that it is clear that any procedure that we have needs to work for all members of the Parliament. After all, we are all going to make a decision on the bill tonight. Although this is not such an important issue tonight, because the bill is not controversial, it could be important if the bill were more controversial. One looks at the Parliament's website to find out the relevant documents for a debate. When I was presented with the committee's second report in 2004, in my naivety, I presumed that that was basically that. That is what we assume when we have a report in front of us. That situation is not helped by the parliamentary habit of never putting dates on our reports, other than the year. We do not know when the report was published. One looks at the document—I actually read most of it—and at the committee minutes and one thinks, "That is it." In fact, more committee meetings were held after that report was completed. A member would have to be a real anorak to find that out, unless they were on the bill committee. We are not in the House of Commons, where the purpose of procedures is to make things as inaccessible to members as possible. We should be doing far better than that. We need to consider that bit of the procedure.

A thought occurred to me about the objectors. Although I can understand why some people felt that they needed to object, if I had a railway line at the bottom of my garden—regardless of when last a train had come down it—I would still think that there might be a chance that at some stage a train could come down it. There are other out-of-use railway lines in the country that we may wish to reinvigorate at a later stage. Tricia Marwick mentioned the line that goes to Methil and there is a short spur from Dumfries out to Maxwelltown, which might be of use for freight.

With some of those lines, although the rails are still there, the whole infrastructure is being allowed to deteriorate. In situations in which Network Rail has allowed the railway line to deteriorate to a state in which a train could not use it, even though the track is in situ, people have a reasonable case for objecting to the line's reopening. Is there not some way of ensuring that railway lines that are still there but are not in use are at least kept free of weeds so that people know that there definitely is a railway line there that could be used by a train at some stage in the future? That would mean that when we want to reinstate such lines—I hope that we will want to do that in many cases—we will be able to do so without receiving the same number of objections.

I welcome the bill.

Before I call Richard Baker, I point out that we now put dates on reports.

In this final debate on the bill, we have already heard members using phrases such as "coming to the end of a journey" and "reaching a destination". In many ways, it has felt as though the journey has been challenging and long. However, it has certainly been worth while and the fellow passengers have been great. I congratulate Bill Butler, the whole clerking team and my fellow committee members on their efforts.

It became clear to me from examining the evidence as a member of the bill committee that the reopening of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway line will be a huge boost to the community in Clackmannanshire and to all those who will use the new service. Of course, the line will benefit not only them but, as the minister said, everyone in Scotland. By freeing up paths on the Forth rail bridge, it will benefit rail services on the whole of the east coast line.

We heard strong evidence from Clackmannanshire Council and Scottish Enterprise on the substantial benefits that will come to the local economy as a direct result of the construction of the line. I certainly appreciate the council's argument that the lack of such a facility in the past has meant that the area has not developed as it might otherwise have done. In agreeing that the line should be built, we not only benefit passengers but give a green light to more business in the area—that has been a vital consideration. Ultimately, we agreed that the line should go ahead, and we agreed with the promoter on key aspects such as the route, because the overall benefit of the line will be so great and we were persuaded that that should be the overriding concern.

It is important to stress that we took the concerns of the objectors to the bill very seriously, as others have said. We visited many of the people who are concerned about the impact of the new line on them and their homes, and we visited them in their homes to get a clear idea of what the line would mean to them. They were vocal and clear about their worries and about the potential for the line to impact on their lives. We carefully considered what they had to say. Ultimately, we have not been able to accede to their requests where we firmly believe that those requests threaten the economic viability of the project.

I know exactly why Tricia Marwick said that this feels like the end of the line, but it is not the end of the line for the promoter, who will act on the committee's report and provide mitigation in a number of ways for those people who will be affected by the line. Those measures are outlined in the report. Mark Ruskell referred to compensation, and we have made it clear that the promoter must be better at informing people who live near the line about the compensation that they might be entitled to. There is no doubt that in the evidence-taking on the bill objectors were given substantial opportunities to put forward their points of view, both in writing and in oral evidence, and the process allowed their views to be well aired. Of course, the promoter had more resources with which to put its case, but I do not believe that that hampered the committee's ability to weigh up the evidence.

It is important to point out that although there are perhaps some benefits in the private bill process for the consideration of transport infrastructure proposals, there are significant drawbacks—that comment echoes what others have said and follows on from Alasdair Morgan's comments. At times it seemed odd for a planning proposal to be handled by parliamentary procedure and in many ways it was an onerous task in terms of parliamentary resources. Westminster no longer considers such planning proposals and I am pleased that the Procedures Committee, of which I am a member, has decided to review the Parliament's future involvement in such processes.

For me, the most important aspect of being involved in the process is that it will result in a new railway line being built. In terms of the Scottish Executive's transport policy, that is a good thing. The reopening of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway is a good thing not only for the economy of Clackmannanshire and the people in the local area who will be passengers on the new line—I hope to join them in a crowded train on the first journey—but for the whole of Scotland. I commend the bill to the Parliament.

The Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill is, as today's debate has demonstrated, important to the whole of the region that I represent, Mid Scotland and Fife. Like the minister, I will indulge in a moment of nostalgia—by the way, we all look forward to reading the diaries that we know he so assiduously keeps. The project has run like a thread through much of my constituency work during the past five years, so it is only right and fitting that it should be concluded in our last debate in this chamber.

I, too, thank those colleagues who served on the committee. I know how demanding and arduous serving on a private bill committee can be, but it is extremely important work. To hear the views of local people and take their objections into account is part of the democratic process. I am glad that the minister gave way to me and that I had the opportunity to intervene and express appreciation for the work that was put in on this project by our former colleague Dr Richard Simpson, the former member for Ochil, who is a great loss to the Parliament. Like me and the Presiding Officer, he was involved in many meetings way back in the early days with Clackmannanshire Council, which has been the lead authority in this crucial project.

The paradox is that although Clackmannanshire is centrally located in Scotland, it has some of the worst communication links, which have been a substantial block to its economic development. The railway line's construction will help. Many of my colleagues in Mid Scotland and Fife and I also look forward to the construction of a second Forth crossing at Kincardine, which will also markedly improve communications to and from the wee county.

The bill gives Clackmannanshire Council the compulsory purchase powers that are necessary for building the railway, for constructing a new eastern Alloa link road, for allowing Network Rail to build the linked improvements, such as signalling and track upgrades, and for ancillary works, such as closing level-crossings and footpaths and opening new footbridges.

As many members have said, the bill allows us to introduce a passenger rail link to Alloa for the first time since Lord Beeching cut services in 1968. The track will restore a much shorter route for coal to Longannet power station since freight ceased to be carried on the route in the late 1980s. This will reduce congestion on the whole rail network, as the minister said. We are all indebted to Clackmannanshire Council for its foresight in safeguarding the route from development in its 1986 local plan. That has enabled the route's reopening.

The beneficial side effects of the line's reintroduction have also been mentioned—perhaps calling them side effects diminishes their importance. The route will allow coal trains to be removed from the Forth rail bridge, which will increase the capacity for passenger services to and from Fife. In her intervention, Christine May was right to mention the importance of bringing Levenmouth into the network.

Many members have talked about the importance of extending the link to Rosyth. Like other members, I have been involved in the establishment of the Superfast Ferries connection from Rosyth to Zeebrugge. Along with fellow European and External Relations Committee members last Sunday, I had the opportunity to travel on that ferry from Rosyth to Zeebrugge. I am glad to say that it is doing well. On board that ferry were 479 passengers, including the three of us, so the ferry was two-thirds full. The amount of freight on the ferry has also increased markedly from an initially low level.

We must do all that we can to support that ferry service. I know that several members will campaign for the rail link to be extended. When I raised that before, the figure given for the cost of extending the link was rather dramatic. Officials told me that it could cost as much as £110 million. However, I am sure that under a Liberal Democrat minister, we can bring that way down to an affordable cost, so that the link can be constructed. We are an ingenious party.

Will the member give way?

No. I will not spoil my speech, my last day in this chamber or the consensual atmosphere by allowing a partisan intervention by our colleague from wherever he is from. [Laughter.] I think that he is a member for my region, but he lives in Edinburgh.

The bill fulfils a Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment. We are greatly indebted to the Executive for providing funding of £30 million that has made the railway possible. I understand that it will take approximately 18 months to construct the line and that trains will run on the route from 2006. I am grateful to the minister for the invitation to join him and others on the first train service. I hope that it will not be like my recent trip to Glasgow, when standing room only was available, and that he will ensure that enough rolling stock is available so that we can all have a seat.

It is important to say that the bill would not have happened without devolution—the project had been sidelined for years. The bill will improve public transport for passengers, increase the opportunities for freight to travel by rail and bring undoubted benefits to the people of Clackmannanshire, whom I along with other members represent, and to the area's economy. I am delighted to support the bill and to see the conclusion of a long-awaited project.

I support the bill. Naturally, I congratulate the committee and the bill's sponsor on all the hard work that they have put in to see the bill through. However, in case the Parliament is unaware of it, I should say that I am not a consensual politician, but a conviction politician. Unlike some members of the Parliament, I am not a conviction politician without convictions. I say that because I was surprised to hear the minister mention Dr Beeching in the debate. Many other members have committed the same sin. The minister seemed rather to crow about the opening of the line, as if the actions of Dr Beeching were all that dreadful.

I think that Dr Beeching was someone with foresight. On many occasions, he made poor and objectionable recommendations, some of which were worthy of challenge. I would go so far as to say that the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line was a good example of such a recommendation.

Will the member give way?

Not at this stage—I am developing a point for the sake of debate.

However, to suggest that all Dr Beeching's recommendations should be castigated is to generalise too much. It raised my ire and caused me to make a sedentary intervention when I saw some members applaud the minister's point, even though the party to which they belong followed through Dr Beeching's recommendations. When, as a trainspotter, I watched and waved at the last train on the Waverley line as it passed by, I recalled that Harold Wilson's second Government was introducing that cut.

Does the member not feel that his point is weakened slightly by the fact that the Alloa to Stirling line was closed to freight in the mid-1980s, not as a result of Dr Beeching, but as a result of the Conservative Government's animus to rail freight?

I do not think that that weakens my point at all. Rather, it serves to weaken the point of the minister and the sometimes here, sometimes not member, Mr Raffan, about Beeching. It is not proper to crow about achievements on the back of Dr Beeching. The bill is worthy of support on its own merits, irrespective of what has happened on the railways before.

As a trainspotter, I know my Bo-Bos from my Co-Cos. I have driven a Deltic and I know my brushes from my shunters. I look forward to being on the footplate, if possible, of the first train that travels on the new line. If he is still in office, the minister will no doubt be a guard. It is worth our paying tribute not just to Richard Simpson, the previous member for Ochil, but—to show that I am a magnanimous member of the Parliament—to Nick Johnston, a former regional member for Mid Scotland and Fife who also campaigned for the line.

There has been discussion of the use of bills to progress railway lines such as this. Careful consideration needs to be given to that issue not just by the minister but more broadly, as part of the examination of our planning laws. It is notable how quickly the bill has progressed. Members of the bill committee believe that people with objections were able to raise them and to feel that they were heard. The comparison with the way in which motorways are treated suggests that the process can be speedier, but given that there is a significant consensus behind the bill it might be a poor example. We may need to consider introducing an inquiry system for future bills like the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill, the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill and the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill. Such a system might be more amenable.

There are other areas in which I must spoil the self-congratulation. We should not welcome the line without considering the cost. When Keith Raffan would not take an intervention from me, I was hoping to make the point that, when we started talking about the need for the line, the cost was estimated at £14 million. Since John Prescott's intervention, which delayed the ability of the Parliament to move forward, that cost has risen to more than £30 million. As far as I can tell, that point has not been commented on in the debate. It is a disappointment that the cost has more than doubled in such a short time. We must ensure that, in future, the delays that can beset improvements in transport infrastructure that receive cross-party support do not lead to the doubling of costs and that improvements are brought about far more quickly.

Despite the comments about Beeching and my concerns about the cost, I welcome the bill. It will bring much-needed improvement not just to Clackmannanshire, but to Fife and other parts of Scotland. It is well worthy of Parliament's support.

I hope that I will not take up the full seven-minute allocation available to me.

I welcome the bill. Its passage—which I am sure will happen unanimously in due course—is a good way for the Parliament to end its stay in the Assembly Hall. When we go down to the new Parliament building, I hope that several more transport infrastructure improvement decisions will be taken.

I echo the thanks that people have given to the committee members, who showed considerable dedication in scrutinising the bill. The various objectors received a fair hearing and detailed consideration was given to all the points that they made. Much credit is due to Bill Butler, as convener of the committee, and to the other members of the committee—Richard Baker, Rob Gibson, David Mundell and Nora Radcliffe. When they were asked to serve on the committee, it is probable that none of them appreciated the volume of work that they were undertaking, which it has taken them a considerable part of the past year to do. Credit must be given to them for their dedication and for the outcome of their work, which is the recommendation that we pass the bill today.

I noted in particular Bill Butler's reference to the dedication of members who stood by a railway line to watch a freight train roll past in order to consider fully the effect of the noise. I just hope that they were not so dedicated that they took note of the wagon numbers as they passed by. I am assured that that was not the case.

The benefits that the completed line will bring will be considerable. Primarily, the benefits will be to Clackmannanshire and the Forth valley area. Once the line is completed, it will enhance the transport systems of the area and the ability of Clackmannanshire Council and neighbouring authorities to develop the economy of the area in a sustainable manner. As many others have said, the line will also produce benefits for other parts of the central belt of Scotland, including alternative routes for taking coal to Longannet and a reduction in the need to move freight across the Forth rail bridge, thus enhancing the possibility of more passenger rail services across the Forth bridge. That change will benefit many services in Fife.

The bill represents a major step forward in overall Executive transport priorities as well as in the priority set by the Labour-Liberal Executive to reopen railway lines throughout Scotland. It sets a marker for making progress on a number of other key projects, none closer to my heart than the reopening of the Bathgate to Airdrie line, which will be developed in due course.

I welcome the cross-party consensual approach to many such transport projects. Irrespective of party, most of us in the chamber recognise that Scotland's transport infrastructure is not currently of sufficient capacity and quality to ensure that the Scottish economy can grow into the 21st century. Railway enhancements will help to create a transport infrastructure that the Parliament will be proud to have brought about and from which Scotland will be able to benefit, both economically and environmentally, because passenger and freight journeys will be transferred from road to rail. That is important.

I refer briefly to the private bill procedure, which many members have mentioned. It is worth reflecting that the procedure is largely similar to the one that was in place in the 1840s when the Kincardine-Alloa-Stirling line opened. It is right to say that we should review the procedure, which has been very time-consuming for a number of members. I know that members are in the Parliament to do a job, but the committee members have probably been taken away from several other key aspects of their work loads and many other members who serve on private bill committees, such as Tricia Marwick, who is a member of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, will have to bear an increased work load. We should probably move towards having an inquiry process that is similar to the one that is in place for road projects to hear from objectors to proposed railway enhancement projects. I acknowledge that Kenny MacAskill has taken a constructive approach to supporting moves towards a reform of the procedure. I welcome that, and I hope that we can move forward on a consensual basis.

I echo the comments that Kenny MacAskill and others have made. We should extend the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line in due course and reconnect Rosyth into the railway network, to maximise the port's economic benefit.

When the Parliament moves to the new building at Holyrood, it will be judged on the delivery of projects that will improve Scotland's transport infrastructure. I hope that the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine project will be delivered as planned in the projected timescale of 2006 and that it will be the first of many such enhancements to Scotland's transport infrastructure.

There have been several useful and informed contributions to the debate and I take the opportunity to respond to some of the points that have been raised.

The Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee was thorough in its approach throughout consideration stage. On the basis of that, I believe that it has produced a fair, objective and thorough report, although I accept that the objectors will be disappointed with the report's conclusions.

The convener, Bill Butler—Railway Bill—referred in his opening speech to issues about consultation and compensation. Objectors expressed several concerns about the promoter's performance on consultation arrangements. Although the committee indicated in its report that it was satisfied with the adequacy of the accompanying documents to the bill, one of which sets out the promoter's arrangements for consultation, the promoter could have been more forthcoming in explaining to objectors the basis on which compensation would be paid. Some objectors had to go to unnecessary lengths to extract information from the promoter on the matter.

The committee asked the promoter to set out how it intends to explain more clearly the basis on which compensation may be paid. The promoter responded positively to the committee and offered to provide a leaflet on the matter, which would be widely distributed. Objectors have been informed of the promoter's intentions.

I understand that the promoter has awarded the contract for phase 1 of the design and build and that, during that phase, the promoter will work with the contractor to develop a consultation strategy for the remainder of the project's duration. In tandem, the promoter will commence detailed discussions with landowners who will be directly affected by the works, to discuss the possibility of obtaining land and rights by agreement, rather than by exercising the compulsory purchase powers that are in the bill. Those discussions will continue until land acquisition is complete.

Continuing consultation and dialogue between the promoter and individuals about the detailed design of the project and the specific mitigation measures that will require to be put in place will be an issue. The identification and agreement of mitigation measures will be a key element of those discussions. During this first phase, the discussions will revolve around concepts—for example, whether noise mitigation is required and whether the landowner would prefer physical mitigation, such as a wooden noise barrier, or financial compensation in lieu of physical works. Once the second phase of the design-and-build contract commences, such agreements relating to physical mitigation measures can be finalised. It is expected that consultation on detailed mitigation matters—for example, the exact position and colour of noise barriers—will continue for approximately one year from the start of the second phase.

Along with the specific consultation with affected landowners, the promoter has undertaken that there will be more on-going general public consultation to ensure that the wider community is fully informed about the project's progress and any direct impact that it might have on their lives, such as road and footpath closures. That public consultation exercise is about to commence with a leaflet being issued to communities along the route, advising of the forthcoming ground investigation works that require to be carried out in advance of the detailed design.

I am certainly encouraged by that, and I hope that the spirit of consensus that the promoter has expressed on paper converts into consensual working on the ground, meaning that objectors and other affected residents along the route are able to achieve appropriate measures to minimise the adverse effects of the railway during its construction and operation.

The members of our committee have been able to deal with the bill within a parliamentary year. Our committee has been working right through to the beginning of June, with extra meetings right up until the last minute to deal with matters such as the Balfour Street level-crossing and the River Teith candidate special area of conservation.

On a personal note, it is gratifying to see the rail network in central Scotland taking new, dynamic, shape. However, we in the north have to press the Scottish Executive to meet our rail needs next. While other central belt projects are on line, the Inverness to Aberdeen improvements are now urgent. I hope that the Aberdeen-based Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen, will make that a priority of his. Those of us who live in the far north know that the routes to Inverness from the south and the north-east need to be in good condition if travellers are to be funnelled north. Since the lead time for planning, approval and parliamentary scrutiny is many years, we think that it is necessary to speed up the plans for the Inverness to Wick services and to get them into the next rail development plan, which is due to be published before 2007.

To return to the bill, in the light of the reports to the Parliament of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, I invite the Parliament to agree to the two motions in the convener's name.