Plenary, 11 Dec 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, December 11, 2003

Official Report 675KB pdf

---

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-711, in the name of Bill Butler, on the general principles of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill. I call Bill Butler, on behalf of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, to speak to and move the motion.

Before I talk about the committee's preliminary stage report, it might be helpful if I were to set out the background to the bill and the work of the committee.

The Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill is the third private bill to be introduced in the Parliament, but it is the first bill relating to transport and works. The promoter of the bill is Clackmannanshire Council, which seeks the necessary statutory powers to reopen the railway that runs between Stirling and Kincardine via Alloa. The promoter intends to use the route from Stirling to Alloa to operate freight and passenger trains, while it is intended that the line from Alloa to Kincardine will operate only as a freight line.

The promoter has cited three main objectives for the scheme. First, it wants it to improve public transport access from Alloa, especially to Stirling, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Secondly, it wants it to provide an alternative, shorter and more efficient route for coal traffic from Hunterston and opencast mines in Ayrshire to Longannet power station in Fife, which will reduce congestion on both the road and rail networks. Thirdly, it wants it to remove coal trains from the Forth bridge, thereby providing scope for improving the reliability of existing passenger services between Fife and Edinburgh and for increasing the number of such services.

The bill does not seek to give permission for the promoter to operate the railway and its facilities, for which a licence would be required under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993. The bill seeks to provide the promoter with the power to acquire by compulsory purchase land and rights in land.

The bill was introduced in the Parliament on 15 May 2003 and, at the conclusion of the 60-day objection period to which all private bills are subject, 55 admissible objections had been lodged, of which 52 remain. I shall refer to objections later in my speech.

Perhaps I could remind members of the procedures to which the bill has been subject during the preliminary stage, which is the first stage to which a private bill is subject. The committee has three functions at the preliminary stage. First, it has to consider and report on the general principles of the bill. Secondly, it has to consider and report on whether the bill should proceed as a private bill by deciding whether the purpose of the bill is to obtain for the promoter particular powers or benefits that are in excess of, or in conflict with, the general law. The committee has to ask whether the accompanying documents satisfy the technical criteria that are set down in standing orders and whether they are adequate to allow proper scrutiny of the bill. Thirdly, the committee has to give preliminary consideration to the objections and reject any objection where the objector's interests are not, in the committee's opinion, clearly adversely affected by the bill.

To use the words of the Minister for Transport, the committee's approach must be "fair, cautious and objective".

With that in mind, it is fair to say that the onus at the preliminary stage was on the promoter to convince the committee of the merits of the bill. As such, it was desirable for the committee to take evidence from the promoter and other witnesses on a number of topics to enable us to report to the Parliament. Those topics included the scope of the bill, the need for the railway and its associated works, alternatives such as non-rail and alternative rail routes, consultation and compensation, funding, and the environmental statement.

The committee took evidence on those six broad themes during three evidence-gathering meetings in Alloa town hall. That was the first time that a committee of the Parliament had been to Alloa; it was appropriate that we held the meetings in the area that is most directly affected by the bill, as that allowed people from the local community to attend the meetings. All committee members undertook a site visit to familiarise themselves with the general layout of the route and that was helpful in broadening our understanding of the issues surrounding the project.

For the remainder of my speech, I will speak to the report and the key issues that are identified, and recommendations that are made, within it. The committee was mindful that none of the objections to the bill related to the principle of the bill. Nonetheless, it was incumbent on the committee to ask itself whether it considered the reopening of the railway line between Stirling, Alloa and Kincardine to be a sensible policy to pursue, taking into account factors relating to the environment, economic development and social policy, and the level of public expenditure that would be involved.

The project has been costed at £37 million, with £30 million coming from the Scottish Executive. The promoter carried out a line reopening benefit study that estimated 30-year direct and indirect benefits of around £35 million and £22 million respectively. The promoter indicated that its economic model pointed to a net present value of between £15 million and £19 million.

In analysing the economic benefits, it was clear to us that two major issues stood out, the first of which was the lifespan of Longannet power station and how long there would be a need to transport coal. Secondly, was there a reasonable prospect that there would be a shift in how coal was transported to the power station, that is, away from the existing route over the Forth bridge to the proposed route?

It quickly became apparent to the committee that the 30-year benefits were not going to accrue in relation to how coal is transported to Longannet. That is because the current information is that Longannet is highly unlikely to be open beyond 2016. Given that the earliest that the railway line could open would be 2006, we are talking, at best, about a 10-year benefit in relation to that objective. Indeed, it is possible that the power station might stay open only until 2012. That scenario would put the direct and indirect benefits at approximately £20 million and £3 million respectively, which is down 41 per cent and 86 per cent respectively on the 30-year model. The net present value would then be between -£14 million and -£15 million.

That leads to the second big issue: will Scottish Power use the new route to enable the existing freight pathway over the Forth bridge to be surrendered for, say, an additional passenger service to Fife? Scottish Power highlighted the strong economic imperative in it using the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, which offered some reassurance to the committee.

Further reassurance was provided in the evidence from English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd, the company that transports the coal to Longannet. It indicated that, should it have no commercial need for track access rights over the Forth bridge for freight traffic—and it does not anticipate that it will—under the terms of its track access agreement it would surrender those rights back to Network Rail. Those rights would then be available to the Scottish Executive to pursue its objectives in relation to increasing and improving passenger rail services to and from Fife and Edinburgh.

The committee considered that there was good reason to believe that direct economic benefits—albeit significantly reduced—could be realised if the scheme were to progress, but recognised that the promoter was keen to stress that beyond those direct economic benefits, there are other reasons why the bill is desirable in public policy terms. I am sure that colleagues from Fife may wish to comment on the effect that the scheme could have on rail services to the kingdom. Other colleagues may wish to pick up on the environmental benefits that would accrue from getting freight on lorries off the road and on to rail. I will comment briefly on the benefits that were suggested in relation to the economic development of Clackmannanshire.

There is a perceived lack of suitable transport links and connectivity in the Clackmannanshire area, which has hindered economic opportunity and performance. Officials from Scottish Enterprise and the local council were quite blunt in describing Clackmannanshire's poor-relation status—certainly in comparison with the Stirling Council area. Of course, all members will recognise the likelihood of improved transport infrastructure leading to enhanced economic development prospects, but the committee had a duty to see whether there was any more tangible evidence that the railway would provide the stimulus for economic regeneration.

On a confidential basis, Scottish Enterprise provided details of a number of companies that are considering whether to expand or provide new investment in the area. The committee was satisfied that there is a sound basis to believe that the prospect of a reopened railway is a material factor in the decision-making process on whether a business should expand its operation or provide new investment in the area. Furthermore, the indication is that businesses are alert to using the rail line not just as a passenger line, but as a freight line. That is particularly encouraging, given the shortened lifespan of Longannet.

While the decision to pass the bill is a matter for the Parliament, the question whether the funding is in place to allow the project to be built is largely a matter for the Minister for Transport. As I said, the Executive has committed £30 million to the project if the Parliament passes the bill. The committee's main concern was whether the likely truncated lifespan of Longannet power station had changed the minister's mind about the worth of putting public funds into the project. The minister said no; he still believed that there was a solid business case for the project.

On the basis of evidence that was put to us by the promoter, the committee believed that, in public policy terms, the reopening of the line would produce considerable transport, socioeconomic and environmental benefits on local, regional and national scales. The promoter provided sufficient evidence for the committee to have confidence that those benefits were real and attainable. The committee believes, therefore, that the Parliament should approve the general principles of the bill.

The second of the committee's three functions was to consider and report on whether the bill should proceed as a private bill. I am mindful that I am relatively short for time and that this material is fairly technical in nature, so I refer members to paragraphs 70 to 130 of the committee's report, which make good reading.

The committee was satisfied that the purpose of the bill is to obtain for the promoter particular powers or benefits that are in excess of, or in conflict with, the general law. The committee was also content, on the whole, with the adequacy of the accompanying documents to allow for proper scrutiny of the bill. In transport and works bills, environmental statements—which, in effect, are environmental impact assessments—are pivotal documents. In the case of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill, the environmental statement is a long document, running as it does to three volumes and—thankfully—a non-technical summary. However daunting the task may have appeared, it was nonetheless important that the committee satisfied itself that the information in the document was adequate and that the statement displayed a consistent and common approach throughout, so that the committee could conduct an informed and detailed debate at the consideration stage.

I will pick out a few highlights from the environmental statement. The chapter that dealt with noise and vibration caused concerns. Noise and vibration were the most commonly cited factors in objections to the bill, so the committee wanted to satisfy itself that that chapter was adequate. We commissioned a peer review of the chapter from Arup, which made several recommendations for the promoter to act on. The recommendations were that the promoter should prepare an inventory of potential noise and vibration sources, sensitive receptors and impacts; commit to and draft a code of construction practice; review and revise the assessment methodologies for operational train noise and vibration; check the frequency weighting functions and calibration of the equipment that was used for train vibration measurements; prepare operational noise and vibration impact plans; and tailor operational noise and vibration mitigation to address the impacts so identified. The promoter has responded to those recommendations.

Does the member agree that although the current legislative procedure is reasonable, something of an anomaly arises in economic planning? If all the coal, or extra coal, were moved on existing railway lines or by lorries on existing roads, nobody would be able to say a dicky-bird about it and the movement could go ahead almost immediately. However, somebody who wants to reconstruct a railway line must jump through many hoops to create what might well be an environmental benefit.

That might be an anomaly, but we must follow the procedure in the law, and I do not think that the member would say that we should do otherwise.

I will refer to one other matter that stems from the environmental statement. Scottish Natural Heritage expressed concerns about the ecological impact of the works that are proposed in the bill on the River Teith, which is a candidate site for special area of conservation status, and, in particular, on the river, brook and sea lamprey that are present in the river, along with Atlantic salmon.

An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 is required to gauge the impact on the River Teith of the development works that the bill proposes. Before members suggest that I and the other committee members should roll up our trouser legs and go to the river with our jamjars, I inform them that SNH has advised us that it is content that the proposed works will not adversely affect the integrity of the River Teith candidate site. The decision will be a matter for the Parliament, but the procedure is that such an assessment should take place at the final stage of the bill, immediately before the Parliament decides whether to pass the bill.

The committee conducted a preliminary consideration of objections. On balance, we agreed that the interests of those who made the two objections that we examined would be adversely affected, so if the Parliament agrees to the motion today, those objections will go forward to the consideration stage.

Some press coverage of the committee's report went along the lines of saying that it was full steam ahead for the railway. I make it clear that the situation is not so. Should the Parliament agree that the bill should proceed to the consideration stage, the committee will still have considerable work to do to hear the case of the promoter and objectors on the linear route and how the proposed route may affect individual householders and businesses.

With that cautionary note, I will move motion S2M-711, which is in my name, on behalf of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill and that the Bill should proceed as a Private Bill.

The Scottish Parliament was established back in 1999 and has existed for only four and a half years. In that time, many historic occasions and firsts have happened, and today brings another important first. For the first time, the Parliament is considering the delivery of a major new rail project. That is an exciting prospect for all members in the chamber, for Clackmannanshire and for the whole of Scotland. For the first time, we have the chance to decide in Scotland whether a new railway should be built here.

As we heard from Bill Butler, the committee convener, the committee met three times in Alloa. It was the first time that a parliamentary committee had met in Clackmannanshire. Local people were able to attend and to hear the evidence for themselves.

Bill Butler and his committee—Rob Gibson, Nora Radcliffe, David Mundell and Richard Baker—have led the way in hearing the evidence on the principles of the bill and in making the recommendation to the Parliament today. We should thank them for the excellent work that they have done to date. I am very pleased that they have recommended that the bill should proceed to its consideration stage. The railway can bring significant benefits to the people of Alloa, to the local economy, to the wider Scottish rail network and to our efforts to promote public transport and the greater use of passenger rail and rail freight.

The Executive has made a clear commitment to expanding the rail network and to completing the vital missing links in Scotland's transport infrastructure, particularly its public transport infrastructure. It has also made a clear commitment to improving accessibility and integration. Reopening the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail link meets all those objectives, which is why I stand to support the bill today.

All members recognise the positive remarks that the minister has made and welcome the bill that is before us today. Does he have in mind any other proposals, for either the reopening of disused freight lines or the construction of new lines? I hope that the Executive will promote positively other such reopenings and openings.

Opportunities will arise from the proposal that is before the chamber today to expand the network in the Clackmannanshire area still further. There are opportunities to create linkages through to the port of Rosyth. Most of the proposals that we are developing—there are a significant number—involve passenger and freight traffic and, wherever possible, we should allow both options.

We are mindful of the need to encourage a shift from road to either rail or sea traffic—we also need to make use of our water routes and linkages. In the Clackmannanshire context, the port of Rosyth is very important. There are real opportunities to create new routes into the Baltic, to Scandinavia and to other parts of Europe. We also have the opportunity to create linkages across Scotland: to Hunterston, to other parts of Ayrshire and to Stranraer, with the linkages that they offer to Ireland. There is an exciting prospect in front of us, if only we seize the opportunity. I am certainly committed to doing as Tommy Sheridan suggests, which is to make the most of those opportunities.

The committee heard clear evidence from Clackmannanshire Council and Scottish Enterprise Forth Valley about the need for the railway to end Clackmannanshire's economic isolation. A compelling case was made that the local economy would perform significantly better if its strategic accessibility were improved. Major new opportunities would be created.

Shorter journey times, especially to Glasgow, and the reconnection of Alloa to the rail network will help to make Clackmannanshire a better, more accessible place not only in which to live, but in which to work. I believe that that will attract new and significant private sector investment to the area. The improved public transport links will make it easier for the people of Alloa to access jobs, education, training and other opportunities and give them the chance to take part in a range of economic and educational activities that people in many other better-connected towns take for granted.

The scheme will bring wider benefits to the passenger network in other parts of Scotland. It will remove freight trains from some of the most congested parts of Scotland's rail network, including the Forth bridge and the Edinburgh to Glasgow line. That will improve the reliability of passenger services on those routes and clear the way for additional services between Fife and Edinburgh. In turn, that will reduce pressure on the Forth road bridge.

By providing a shorter, quicker route for coal freight from Hunterston to Longannet power station, the route will offer significant freight benefits.

You have one minute, minister.

I thought that I had seven minutes in total.

We have heard, in essence, a positive case being made for the scheme. In the time that the minister has remaining to him, perhaps he will clarify two points. What are his concerns about the size of the contingency costs in the budget? The costs amount to some £9.9 million out of a £37 million spend, which, at first glance, seems to be a rather large proportion. Is that enough or is it too much? Does he have anything to say about the objectors' views on their loss of amenity and their concerns about safety?

You have one minute this time, minister.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Objectors' views should be taken seriously and the process that we are going through provides the opportunity—provided that we move forward today—for those views to be listened to. That should be done fairly and appropriately; I have great confidence that the committee will do exactly that.

As we move forward in a project such as this, the expectation is that we get tighter and more accurate all the time in relation to the costs. Members know the problems that we have got into by underestimating the costs of significant public sector projects in Scotland, particularly in the light of my earlier remarks about the past four and a half years. It is important that we are realistic, but we must endeavour wherever possible to minimise costs and to squeeze out that contingency element as the costs become more accurate.

I will rush to conclude my remarks, although I hope that there will be some leeway for interventions. During the evidence sessions in Alloa, it became clear that Longannet power station might close earlier than the promoter had previously thought. That time is not, however, outside the promoter's estimated range of dates. I believe that the potential early closure increases the need to deliver the rail line now, particularly in consideration of the economic and jobs benefits that it could bring to the area.

As I heard at a business dinner in Alloa last night, several local businesses are considering expanding their operations to take advantage of the freight opportunities that would be provided by the railway. There is strong support for the project in the community. Those opportunities could be seized now if we had a rail link today.

As I have mentioned, ambitious future projects—I will not go into the details, although I have the words in my notes—rely on the development of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line.

Much detailed work is still to be done before a final decision on the railway can be taken. I believe firmly that the case has been made to approve the general principles of the bill and I now ask the committee to consider the bill in detail. At the consideration stage, the objectors to the bill will, rightly, be given a full and proper hearing. However, the case for the principles of the railway is strong, and the principles are widely supported, not only by local businesses, people and communities, but throughout Scotland.

The bill has historic importance as it concerns the first new rail link to be considered by the Parliament. [Interruption.] In recognition of the Presiding Officer's tapping, I end by strongly supporting the committee's recommendations to the Parliament.

It gives the Scottish National Party great pleasure to support the motion and to endorse Mr Butler's words and the minister's ambition. We have been critical of the fact that, although much rhetoric has been expended in Parliament, there has been little delivery, so it is satisfying to participate in a debate on something on which we are making progress.

As Bill Butler and the minister said, the bill is of significant moment not just for the wee county, but for the whole country. The venture has significant effects elsewhere, because it is not simply about providing a passenger service for Alloa, which is long overdue, or indeed about providing freight and coal access to Longannet. The railway will also free up capacity and improve services in places as diverse as Fife—on the Fife circle—and Ayrshire. It is perhaps too grudging to say that the link is long overdue, but at least we have reached this point.

I have a point about procedure. Mr Butler and the committee deserve a great deal of credit, if not sympathy. However, we will have to review and revisit whether we are using the best method of delivering major rail infrastructure projects. The procedure for the link project is rather an anachronism when the construction of the M74 is dealt with by a public inquiry. A major infrastructure project such as an airport would also probably be dealt with differently. Why are we dealing with road and rail projects differently?

As we approach the introduction of a bill to launch the tramway in Edinburgh, we face being sucked into having never-ending committees to deal with matters that should be dealt with differently. I pay tribute to the committee's work, but we must think about whether using an antediluvian process that is a hangover from Victorian days—indeed, it is a hangover from Westminster—is the best way of delivering major rail infrastructure projects.

I support what the member says. Does he welcome a cross-party approach in considering how such projects might be best speeded through the legal and statutory processes? Does he have any views on the best resolution in respect of speeding up the delivery of rail projects in Scotland?

Such matters should be non-contentious and non-partisan. Finding the best possible way of dealing with such matters is in the interests of the Parliament and the country. I do not have any particular views. Perhaps the issue is within the remit of the Procedures Committee; if so, I hope that the committee will deal with it. As I said, an anachronism must be addressed, especially if we are to deliver on other rail projects that the minister and the Executive are committed to and are ambitious to implement. We must find a better way of dealing with matters.

I think that members will find that there will be a spirit of consensus not only on the projects that we hope will be delivered but on the procedure by which they can be delivered. In addition to outside criticism about planning, there will be justifiable criticism within the Parliament if we are left with such an antediluvian delivery framework.

We require to consider some points of clarification and concern. Some of those points are specific matters and some are general. On general matters, who will deliver the project? Will the Scottish Executive or transport Scotland deliver it? Clarification is required. If transport Scotland is to deliver it, will it have the appropriate powers to do so?

We also need to know who will operate the rail line. An assumption is being made that Network Rail will operate it, but so far I have not heard Network Rail confirm that it will. We simply assume that it will operate the line because it operates almost every other line, apart from lines such as that from Bo'ness to Kinneil. There has been no commitment. Given the press leaks earlier this week about Network Rail retrenching various aspects of its work to Leeds—I know that the minister is concerned about that—we cannot necessarily rest assured that Network Rail will fulfil the ambitions of not only the Executive but the Parliament. We must have some control. Transport Scotland should not only deliver the project, but perhaps operate the line to ensure that there is joined-up delivery and joined-up transport. The minister correctly touched on that issue in respect of Rosyth and other work.

On specific matters, we should recognise that the Rosyth link is important, as the minister said. I appreciate that there are difficulties in ensuring that the line goes to Rosyth, but we are in danger of making a grave mistake if that short link on that short journey is not made now. I understand from the rail sector that the bulk of the costs for extending the line into the port of Rosyth relate to signalling and that the cost of the rail infrastructure is fairly minimal. If a little bit extra is not spent now to take the line into Rosyth and to give us the critical nucleus of a transport hub there, costs will be significantly more, because people will have to go back to the beginning to rejig and rejuggle all the signalling. That is where the major costs lie; they do not lie in the physical infrastructure and the provision of the line. We must consider extending the line to Rosyth.

In respect of Clackmannan, it is not just the provision of a rail link for passengers to Alloa that is important. We must ensure that, rather than simply allowing passengers to go from Alloa through Stirling to Glasgow, we consider creating the opportunity for people from Alloa to go eastwards towards Dunfermline. Work is available in Dunfermline and, in many cases, there is a shortage of labour. We must consider how to move passenger services east as well as west and how to allow Clackmannan to benefit from the creation of loops so that places such as Cambus are not denied access to freight. The minister touched on that matter. Again, we are talking about a short distance, but there would be significant gains.

I have spoken about specific and general matters that must be addressed. However, fundamentally, we support the project, which is long overdue and very welcome. We must find new methods of ensuring that we deliver similar projects in due course, as we need to speed up the delivery of those projects that have so far not been delivered in modern Scotland. We pay tribute to all those who have worked hard and endeavoured to deliver the project so far.

I have found it to be both a pleasure and interesting to serve on the committee and to be involved with the project. I have some sympathy with the comments that Kenny MacAskill made. Similar comments have also been made by Bristow Muldoon, with whom it is unusual for me to agree in a transport debate. We must look into the way in which the matter has required to be handled and consider the whole committee procedure.

Most members are probably intimately familiar with the route of the proposed line. However, for those who are, like me, new to the matter, I should point out that much of the line of the track for the proposed link already exists—the bulk of the route is not virgin territory, although there are alternative proposals for parts of it. We must consider whether the procedure that has been gone through is overly cumbersome compared with the procedure that would have been followed in relation to a road.

Given the rules that are set down, however, I believe that the Parliament has done well. When the Parliament does things well, we should recognise that. I pay tribute to the committee's convener, Bill Butler, who has presided over the proceedings—mainly in Alloa town hall—with great diligence. I also pay tribute to my fellow committee members, particularly Richard Baker, who always sat in front of me, thus saving me from the draught.

I pay particular tribute to our clerking and technical staff. As members will appreciate, the committee had to consider highly technical evidence about vibration, level crossings and environmental issues—as Bill Butler said, the environmental statement, which had to be satisfactory to the committee, has been one of the most contentious elements of the process. Without the technical support, members would have found it much more difficult to put forward our case.

The matter has been discussed in an open and accessible way. I was gratified by the number of ordinary members of the public who felt able to come along to Alloa town hall to participate in our meetings and I am sure that they will do so again when the committee goes back for the next stage. That is why, as a committee member, I do not want to say too much about the objectives—the committee will have to return to them.

I was heartened by the Minister for Transport's evidence at the preliminary stage. I felt able to sign up to the report because he stated that, regardless of the fact that the worst-case scenario might develop at Longannet, he would still provide the funding that he had promised. That is important, because the evidence about Longannet that emerged was different from the evidence that the promoter had initially given.

I was disappointed by the lack of liaison between the promoter and Scottish Power about that information. It would have been preferable for the information to have been available at the start of the process rather than for the committee to have to tease it out. If the information in some of the other presentations that we received at our initial evidence session had been much more clearly focused, that would have aided the process.

On the committee's final evidence session, if our friends in the Scottish Environment Protection Agency had bothered to read any of the documents on the consultation, the committee's work might have been a lot easier and there would have been no thought of having to wade into a river with jam jars. I hope that SEPA and others have learned lessons from that.

For those of us who support rail links elsewhere in Scotland—notably the proposed Borders rail link—the most important point that emerged from the process came when Nicol Stephen said:

"It is important to emphasise that the whole Scottish transport appraisal guidance process is about more than simply the NPV figure. We assess any appraisal under the five criteria that have been mentioned. It is clear that this scheme has many benefits that are not captured in the NPV calculation."—[Official Report, Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, 10 November 2003; c 116.]

That makes it quite clear that a proposed scheme that produces a negative net present value will, rightly, not necessarily be ruled out for consideration for Scottish Executive funding.

A compelling case has been made for reopening the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway. As a committee member, I am happy to support the convener's motion and to continue to support the project.

I, too, support the motion in Bill Butler's name that the Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill. We have already heard about the economic benefits that Clackmannanshire would derive from the reopening of the line. After all, Clackmannanshire is the only local authority area in the central belt that does not have rail access, which has been to its detriment. Reopening the railway line will have major benefits not only for Clackmannanshire, but for Stirling, as I am sure my colleague Sylvia Jackson will mention later.

I will concentrate on the economic and social benefits that the line will have for Dunfermline and wider Fife. As we know, a large proportion of the opencast coal that is required for Longannet power station originates in the west of Scotland, which necessitates a major amount of road and rail transportation. As far as rail transport is concerned, the coal has to be brought across the Forth bridge to Longannet via the Charlestown junction just outside Dunfermline Town station. However, as trains can access that single-line junction only on the down line, the coal freight trains for Kincardine have to go either all the way around the Fife circle through Burntisland and Kirkcaldy or up to Townhill sidings outside Dunfermline to be recoupled and brought back down the line. That is a major impediment to passenger services on the east coast main line and the Fife circle.

Fife passenger services have improved tremendously over the past few years. However, those of us—me included—who use the service regularly will know that it is not totally adequate to deal with the increasing number of people who require to travel to Edinburgh.

Does Scott Barrie agree that removing the coal freight trains from those Fife lines will increase service reliability, which, along with overcrowding, is a big issue for my constituents and his constituents? Does he agree that such a measure will improve the situation for those people, who must be among the most patient rail users in Scotland?

Indeed. In fact, I was about to make that very point. As other members have acknowledged, removing the coal freight trains from the Fife circle and the east coast main line might increase the frequency of services across the Forth and, almost as important, might result in a more reliable service.

Rail capacity is not the only problem. The amount of road traffic, in particular coal lorries, that goes through Kincardine village is absolutely horrendous. Members will be aware that I have raised that issue before. The Executive is currently overseeing the completion of the eastern link road, which will make a difference to some of the traffic that goes through the village, particularly the coal lorries that go to Longannet power station. The new Kincardine bridge will also help in that respect. However, the reopening of the line will allow us to ensure that most of the coal is transported by rail rather than by lorry, which will go a long way towards making the constituents who have been plagued by that road traffic problem for more than a quarter of a century very happy indeed.

Kenny MacAskill talked about the Rosyth ferry terminal, to which we can open up access in two directions by rail. We have the existing line from Inverkeithing, but with a wee bit of extra planning we can also create the possibility of bringing freight in from the west. The economic argument relies not only on the viability of Longannet power station, but on building up Rosyth as a truly international ferry port. That is certainly something that I would endorse.

I shall turn briefly to the objections to the scheme. The proposals are clearly of major concern to people who have bought property since the railway was closed. Kincardine constituents in Hawkhill Road, Kilbagie Street and particularly Ochil View have real concerns about the reopening of the line. Ochil View is a new development, built on rafts, and the points that Bill Butler made about noise and environmental impact are key issues for the residents. Those people need to be listened to.

I am interested in the fact that—if we assume that Parliament approves the bill's general principles—the role of the committee during the next phase of the legislative process will be to act as an arbiter between the promoter and the objectors. I am sure that the committee, which was courteous in listening to the objections from a large number of people during the preliminary stage, will continue with its work in that respect. I hope that we will be able to come to a resolution.

I take this opportunity to point out to members of the committee, as they are all present, that there is a good alternative route that would appease almost all the objectors in Kincardine. As members who know the route will know, a bad S-bend leads from the old Kincardine power station to where the old Kincardine railway station was. Land has now become available between that and the Forth shore. That land is currently owned by Scottish Power, which is quite willing for the line to be realigned. That would remove the S-bend and take the line a considerable distance from the residents of Ochil View, thus resolving their objection.

I thank members of the committee for their diligence and work to date. I hope that the Parliament will endorse the principles of the bill tonight. I also hope, for the sake of Richard Baker's general health, that in whatever venue is used for the next meeting, David Mundell will offer to sit in the draught to protect my poor colleague.

We now move to the open debate. I wish to call every member who has pressed their button, so I shall set the time limit at a strict five minutes.

It is nice to see that, yet again, the Fife mafia are in the chamber today. Many of the comments that I shall make will support what Scott Barrie and Marilyn Livingstone have said. Having spent some time reading the committee's report and the evidence, I pay genuine tribute to committee members and clerks for the work that they have done on behalf of the Parliament. Their work has been time consuming and extremely thorough. In holding its meetings in Alloa, the committee has truly gone out to the people of Clackmannan to hear their views.

Paragraph 50 of the committee report states:

"the Committee is convinced that the freight/passenger options that would be provided by the S-A-K route could be the catalyst for a major boost to the development of the local economy through attracting new business and encouraging the growth of existing enterprises."

That alone would have been sufficient to merit support for the general principles of the bill, but the successful development and expansion of Scotland's wider rail network is dependent on the reopening of the line. As Scott Barrie and other members have said, the development will free up capacity on the Forth bridge and in Fife. According to English Welsh & Scottish Railway, the beneficial effect of the development will be felt right across the network. As Marilyn Livingstone said, reliability and frequency of service on the Fife to Edinburgh line has not been given the attention that it deserves and is a priority. Freeing up freight from that line gives us an opportunity to ensure that the passenger service from Fife is the best that it can be and that Fife can benefit from the investment that it has been starved of for at least the past 25 years.

As has been said, the proposal is incomplete. There is no indication of who will operate the railway and I would have liked the comfort of some agreement, in principle, on that. Nicol Stephen said that the Executive will support the line and I am heartened by his comment that he will try to ensure that the line is developed as far as Rosyth to link with the ferry terminal. That is absolutely essential, because we must make sure that we get all the benefits from the line.

Earlier this year, Nicol Stephen said:

"I want not only to support the principles of the project, but to help to develop it."—[Official Report, 12 June 2003;
c 743.]

I urge the minister to ensure that the project's benefits are extended beyond Clackmannanshire to Fife. The line should be extended to Rosyth, to take advantage of freight and passengers going to and coming from the ferry terminal. There is an opportunity to develop the project and open up access to Europe. That opportunity must be grasped and I urge the minister to roll out Rosyth proposals alongside the consideration and implementation of the project, if it is agreed by the Parliament. Kenny MacAskill almost said earlier that for a ha'p'orth of tar, the ship was spoiled. The project and the line will be spoiled if the huge benefits that would accrue from extending the line to Rosyth are not grasped. I urge the minister to take that on board and to ensure that we get all the benefits of the project.

I have been on the same journey as the other committee members. We dealt with a great deal of evidence, both written and oral, and no stone was left unturned in examining the evidence and the issues before we arrived at today's debate on the preliminary stage report.

I join David Mundell in congratulating Bill Butler on his convenership of the committee. I enjoyed the meetings, even though I had to act as a windbreak for David. I also thank Scott Barrie for mentioning that; perhaps I have found my niche. I pay particular tribute to the clerks, who had to deal with the great number of hefty documents that made up the evidence and who ensured that the committee meetings took place efficiently in Alloa—the committee's work has been brought to the area in which the decisions on the bill will have an impact.

I would like to record the fact that I found the site visit extremely useful. Committee members were given the chance to see exactly where the new line will run, which enabled us to see clearly the areas that will benefit from the new line and the properties whose residents argue would be adversely affected by the proposal. It was pleasing to see good attendances at the committee meetings in Alloa. Local people have clearly taken a great and active interest in the matter and I am sure that we will see some of those who attended our first evidence-taking sessions again when we return to Alloa to gather evidence for our deliberations at the consideration stage.

Today, we are debating our report on the bill's general principles. The committee has concluded that we should recommend that Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill and that the bill continue as a private bill. We have received written and oral evidence from some of the objectors to the bill, including the Kincardine railway concern group. Those objections and others will be fully examined at the consideration stage. Inevitably, I will touch on some of what Bill Butler and other committee members have said, but I want to mention some of the issues that the committee considered during its evidence-taking sessions.

The committee acknowledges in its report that some of the benefits of the railway may be

"difficult to quantify at this stage",

but I believe that we worked hard to ensure that our conclusions were based on the most robust evidence that we could obtain. We pushed witnesses for that evidence. We asked MVA for revised net present value figures in the light of new information on Longannet's potential lifespan and we pressed the promoter for full details of the consultation that had taken place with residents.

We heard a great deal about the benefits that the railway could bring to Clackmannanshire, both from representatives of the local authority and from Scottish Enterprise. We did not just accept Scottish Enterprise's hypothesis; we gained hard evidence of businesses that would be attracted to the area if the railway line went ahead. As Bill Butler said, that information was supplied to the committee confidentially.

As the report says, it soon became clear that the anticipated lifespan of the Longannet power station in MVA's original benefit study did not tally with Scottish Power's assessment. That complicated our assessment of the economic benefit. The future of Longannet is not clear cut; if electricity prices change, Scottish Power could viably make the necessary changes for the station to meet the new environmental directives and so prolong its life. The lack of dialogue between the promoter and Scottish Power, to which David Mundell referred, was concerning. However, it was reassuring for the committee to hear from the minister the Executive's assessment that, despite the revisions in the economic-benefit case, investment in the project was still appropriate and valuable.

Of course there are other benefits to the scheme. I have referred to the evidence that we heard from local authorities and Scottish Enterprise on the potential local economic benefit, but another area of potential benefit is the freeing up of rail paths as coal freight is transferred from being transported across the Forth rail bridge. That presents the opportunity for improved services for passengers on the east coast line, which would be a significant development, as Scott Barrie and Marilyn Livingstone said.

We also heard that the reopening of the line would have other effects on the overall strategy for improving rail services. The scheme represents one of the biggest contributions to meeting the target of 80 per cent growth in freight transported by rail this decade; although it represents only about 0.5 per cent of that target, it is still one of the single biggest contributions.

The committee has concluded that the proposed line will bring clear benefits in public policy terms. I urge the Parliament to support the general principles of the bill and I look forward to the consideration stage, when we will hear further evidence from the objectors and the promoter.

Nicol Stephen and others have been generous in their remarks about the members of the bill committee but, like David Mundell and Richard Baker, I extend those remarks to the clerks and expert advisers who have done a power of work.

It has been a privilege to work on the bill and not only to be involved in a first for the Parliament but to feel connected to our Victorian forebears whose private acts of Parliament enabled the building of the magnificent railway network that they left us—although I take on board the valid point that Kenny MacAskill made.

The bill does not open up an addition to the rail network, but seeks to empower the sponsors of the bill to reopen 21km of line that have lain unused for many years. In preparation for dealing with the bill, I dug out an old quarter-inch map of the Firth of Forth, which cost five shillings and sixpence, so it is not new. It was published in 1964 and reprinted with the addition of new major roads in 1967. In a way, that illustrates what the 1960s were all about—railways out; roads in. I am pleased that we are doing something to reverse that decline in the railways.

In the first instance, the committee's job was to examine the proposals in order to satisfy ourselves on various counts that the bill should proceed to its next stage. In doing so, the interconnectedness of things has become apparent. Members might not think immediately that the price of electricity would have a bearing on our deliberations, but an issue of real concern that emerged was the length of Longannet's operating life. Because of modifications that will be required to meet increasingly stringent controls on polluting emissions, there is a question mark over whether it will be commercially sensible to fund the modifications or whether operations should be closed down altogether. We explored that issue in depth and were able to satisfy ourselves that the implications of early closure of Longannet power station were not enough to tip the balance against reopening the line.

We had concerns about parts of the environmental statement in relation to noise and vibration and the line's potential impact on a candidate conservation area and a historical monument, which we explored in our evidence-taking and discussions. Part of the argument for proceeding with the project relates to the economic benefits that it will generate, mainly through more direct and faster rail transport of coal between Hunterston and Longannet.

The availability of a rail freight option is a factor for businesses that are considering locating in Alloa. The opportunity to extend the passenger service to Alloa, thus enabling direct rail access to Stirling and Glasgow, will make Alloa a more attractive place in which to live and work. It has been argued that easier access to Alloa and Clackmannanshire will encourage tourists and visitors. I can vouch for the immediate effect of the bill: I had never been to Alloa or the surrounding area but, having travelled there on a site visit and to committee meetings, I have every intention of going back. The tourist visitor numbers in Clackmannanshire will be up by two as soon as I have leisure to go and enjoy that lovely part of our country.

I mentioned interconnectedness which, as others have said, is evident in the fact that opening the rail link for freight will take slow coal trains off the Forth rail bridge and will open up capacity, thus allowing increased reliability and perhaps expansion of services from Fife to Edinburgh, locally, and on the east coast main line, with wider benefits. Other genuine opportunities should be kept in mind. We cannot do everything at once, but I hope that we will come back to the matter. In the meantime, on the basis of the work that we have done to date, I am happy to join my colleagues in recommending to Parliament that the bill proceed to its next stage.

I am pleased to contribute in support of Clackmannanshire Council's bill to promote the new railway line from Stirling to Kincardine via Alloa. I commend Bill Butler and his colleagues on the bill committee for the work that they have put in—work that is evident from their speeches this afternoon.

The construction of the new railway line will be of considerable benefit to my Fife constituents who live in the area and to people further afield, because the railway line will, in due course, become part of the national network. Not only will the development of the railway be of direct benefit to individual constituents, but it will make an important economic contribution. If the economy is to thrive, Government has an important role in providing suitable infrastructure to allow easy movement of goods and people around the country. It is a function of Government to provide transport spending and I welcome the Scottish Executive's proposed investment in this particular project. It is to be hoped that the construction of the railway will act as a stimulus to economic development in the area.

I particularly welcome the new rail link if it means that we can go further than we do at the moment in removing freight from our roads. With increasing vehicle traffic, we should be looking for all opportunities to move freight off roads and on to rail. That is not always practical, however—transporting freight by rail works only when both the supplier and the customer are within easy reach of a rail head. However, I understand that the new rail link offers opportunities, particularly in delivery of coal, a bulk product that is especially suited to transportation by rail.

As a number of members have said, another advantage in moving coal on to this route and off the Forth rail bridge will, we hope, be improvement in reliability of passenger trains on the bridge. I have heard numerous complaints from constituents about the lack of reliability in the current services. If we can improve that reliability, it would be most welcome.

I understand that, since privatisation of the railways, the volume of freight that is moved by rail has increased by some 50 per cent. That is an excellent and welcome statistic, but we should always be looking to increase that figure. If I may, I will mention two examples where I believe that that could be done.

I recently visited the Highland Spring Ltd factory at Blackford in Perthshire. Highland Spring is a very successful and growing business; it is now one of the largest employers in Perth and Kinross. The bottled water that it produces in bulk is presently delivered throughout the UK by road, but the company would be very interested in transferring its product to rail. The factory lies immediately beside the Perth to Stirling main line, and immediately adjacent to the disused Blackford station, so transfer to rail must be a serious possibility. A local campaign is under way to have Blackford station reopened for passenger traffic and I understand that Highland Spring has commissioned a feasibility study into utilising the station, with suitable adjustments and sidings, to allow transport of goods by rail. That would bring considerable benefits to Highland Spring as a business, to the wider economy of Perth and Kinross and, indeed, to Scotland. There would also be benefits to the environment if the development were able to proceed. I have written to the minister to encourage him to look favourably on the proposal when it crosses his desk.

I will give another brief example of goods that are transported by road at present that could be transported by rail. On Monday, I met representatives of the Forestry Commission at Inver, by Dunkeld. There is a plan for major tree felling at Rannoch forest in Perthshire. At present, that would involve transfer of logs in large vehicles over small country roads, which would not only cause damage to the roads, but disruption and inconvenience to people living in the area. However, the west Highland line passes nearby in the forest and the Forestry Commission has a proposal to load the timber directly onto freight wagons. As there is no siding at the appropriate point, that is heavily dependent on the timing of trains on the west Highland line, but the Forestry Commission seems to be confident that any problems in that regard can be overcome.

There is still a problem in relation to English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd, the freight operators, agreeing a realistic cost. If the minister were able to ease the way, that would be welcomed by the community and would have major environmental benefits. I am sure that both the Forestry Commission and Highland Spring would make excellent use of the new rail line between Kincardine, Stirling and Alloa.

I feel that I might have digressed a little from the strict subject matter of the bill before us. However, I think that there are wider issues about the expansion of rail that should be addressed and I thought that it would be remiss of me to miss the opportunity to raise them in this debate.

I support the general principles of the bill and wish every speed to the project.

I was unsure which page of the report you were talking about.

I congratulate the promoter of the bill and the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, which has put in a lot of hard work while independently scrutinising the basic principles of the bill to enable it to proceed to the consideration stage.

Since I became involved in politics in the early 1990s, the Stirling to Alloa rail route has always been writ large across the political landscape of Stirling and Clackmannan. In 1999, when I was a candidate in the first Scottish Parliament elections, Donald Dewar's visit to Alloa's town centre resulted in a bare-knuckle punch-up between Labour and SNP activists in the middle of the high street. At that time, the Green party was organising a photo-call on the abandoned railway lines next to the old Alloa station.

We are delighted that we are moving towards reopening the line. It is irrefutable that the line has significant local importance. I reiterate comments that were made earlier to the effect that the railway will put Clackmannanshire and Alloa back on the map. It will also take hundreds of freight lorries off the roads every day. Those freight lorries pass through communities causing pollution and misery and lead to escalating road maintenance costs for local authorities. The line's reopening will also help to reduce congestion caused in Stirling by commuter traffic, some of which comes from Clackmannanshire.

I will leave aside the local importance of the line to say that the railway also has enormous strategic regional importance. If we are to bring about a genuine renaissance in passenger and freight rail in this century, we need a route that follows the northern bank of the Forth. That will alleviate pressure on the network on the south of the Forth and on the Forth rail bridge. We have already heard today that freight traffic on the Forth rail bridge is a problem. I add that inadequate signalling on the bridge is a problem that limits the volume of passenger traffic that can pass over the bridge.

It is important that we build capacity in our rail network. I would like a route to be opened from Stirling to Dunfermline with the potential to open an offshoot down to the Rosyth port.

The bill is good; the only aspect that is a little disappointing is that it proposes only one new station, which will be in Alloa, although a good case could be made for reopening more stations along the route. As an ex-student of the University of Stirling, I suspect that there will be significant demand for a station at Causewayhead, for example.

On the reopening of stations, the community rail partnership approach, which involves local authorities and other organisations that are based in communities, has met with success elsewhere. That approach could be useful not only in building a case for reopening stations but, once they are open, for encouraging innovative use of the stations with communities' full backing.

I am aware that there have been some local concerns about noise and vibration, but the use of modern track and freight bogeys will allay most of those concerns and, although I am pleased that the bill committee found that the mitigation measures that are proposed in the environmental statement will be adequate, I stress that we need those measures to be implemented fully. I will be extremely disappointed if, in construction of the railway, corners are cut and funding is cut, which will mean that mitigation measures are not put in place.

I take the point about continuous rail making a huge difference to noise levels, but does Mark Ruskell accept that some of the objections are about not only noise but the proximity of the proposed line to a new housing development? When that development was built, it was not envisaged that the line would ever be reopened, and the objection is also about the fact that some of the houses are extremely close to the railway line.

I accept that, and those are issues that need to be dealt with further during the consideration stage, perhaps even with regard to compensatory measures.

Today is a good day for Clackmannanshire, but the bill must be only the first step towards an expanded rail network. I call on the Executive to take the strategic view and find out how we can develop more of a mid-Scotland and Fife rail route that runs along the northern side of the Forth.

Although I enjoyed Murdo Fraser's meanderings up to Crianlarich and Tyndrum with timber freight, I will try to keep to the bill in my speech.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate because, as I have constituents who are directly affected, I have not been allowed direct input to the bill committee. It is therefore good to air some of the issues that my constituents have raised with me, to which I will come later. That said, as the promoter, the minister and all speakers today have said, the bill is an important step forward and will bring great benefits, particularly for Clackmannanshire. In Stirling, we will welcome the prospect of fewer cars coming into the city.

Bill Butler ably outlined the bill's objectives, so I will not labour those, but I like the comment in the promoter's memorandum that the project would reinstate

"a missing link in the national network",

which indeed it would, with the passenger service from Alloa to Stirling leading to connections to Glasgow and elsewhere, as well as the longer route for freight and the opportunity for an extension to Rosyth, which all speakers have welcomed.

As always with such documents, some of its history interested me, such as hearing about the Stirling and Dunfermline Railway Company. Nora Radcliffe remarked on some of the other historical context for the bill, which I might be able to explore at a later date.

The fact that the bill is a private bill is to be welcomed because, in addition to the arguments on the bill being necessary because of the abandoned nature of some of the railway line and the fact that Network Rail would not have all the powers to deal with the matter, it has allowed the full environmental impact assessment. It was important that the committee consider the environmental statement very carefully, and I am sure that constituents in Fife, Stirling and Ochil will examine extremely closely the information that is to come on the vibration and noise study. It is important that the opportunity be given to members of the community, such as Causewayhead community council, to make their representations at a later date.

The rationales for the development are all agreed: improving economic development in Clackmannanshire; improving the public transport system; and enabling a better freight service, which will take lorries of the road. Scott Barrie mentioned how reopening the route will allow for more passenger services over the Forth bridge, which should be more reliable.

One of my concerns about the bill was raised in paragraph 52 of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee's preliminary stage report. It states:

"The Committee notes that Network Rail … provided evidence that careful timetabling would be required in order for the diversion of the Longannet coal traffic via Stirling to be accommodated without a detrimental effect on the current passenger and freight timetables applicable to the Scottish central route between Motherwell and Stirling."

We will certainly be asking for assurances from both the Minister for Transport and the bill committee that those points will be taken on board, and that we will have reliable services and no cuts in the services that Stirling enjoys to Glasgow, Edinburgh and destinations in the north.

There is no doubt that the Scottish Executive's transport delivery report, the local council's transport strategies and the "Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan", as well as the Strategic Rail Authority and the Scottish Enterprise network whole-heartedly support the development of the route. With a predicted increase of 20 per cent in road traffic over the next 20 years, we certainly need initiatives such as the reopening of the route so that we can try to stem that increase. There is to be an 80 per cent increase in the volume of freight, and other statistics are included in the committee's report. As the minister said, reopening the route is a good step forward in that regard.

I turn to some points that have been made to me by Causewayhead community council and individual constituents, relating to the effects of vibration and noise on properties that are directly next to the railway line. I welcome the fact that Causewayhead community council is to come and give evidence in February or March next year, and I also welcome the setting up of the Arup study to examine the issue. Speed restrictions will be an on-going issue, and points were raised about noise barriers and anything else that can prevent noise travelling to properties, including planting by developers, Network Rail or whoever is to take over.

Frequency of freight trains has been mentioned; I am told that there will be up to 18 trains a day, so we will certainly need to know more about that. Night traffic is obviously something that constituents are not very happy about. The promoter's memorandum says:

"The ability to use heavier and faster coal trains also improves line capacity on the Ayrshire Coast route."

I ask that it be taken on board that that should not increase levels of vibration and noise. I hope that that will be covered in the study that has been recommended.

Mark Ruskell made a very good point about the possibility of opening more stations and it has been suggested to me that Causewayhead would be a very convenient place to have a station, not only for the University of Stirling but—if there was additional car-parking space—for the large number of people who come into that part of Stirling.

The benefits of reopening the route to Clackmannanshire will be enormous. The £4 million investment by the Scottish Executive that allowed for completion of the so-called road to nowhere, the A907, has already improved traffic flow between Alloa and Stirling. Having used that road with children for many years, I can say that it is much improved. The £30 million investment in the rail link will lead to vast improvements. Hopefully, people will use the railway instead of their cars, and job prospects will be improved. We might not want house prices to rise, but the railway will certainly improve the housing market in the Alloa area.

The Presiding Officer is not in the chair or in the chamber, but I am sure that, as the constituency member for Ochil, he would welcome my support for the bill.

I am pleased to participate in the debate. I recall a debate on the possibility of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line being reopened in the first session of Parliament, which was sponsored by Nick Johnston. We seem to have travelled some distance, both in time and cost, to get to where we are today.

While looking through my file, I discovered that in the days when Wendy Alexander was a minister there was an announcement that the cost of establishing the railway was going to be some £24 million. If my memory serves me correctly, I am pretty certain that before that, the project had been costed at less than £20 million. I mention that in relation to my earlier intervention, in which I raised the issue of the contingency costs being put at £9.9 million, when the budgeted expenditure on the railway is £37 million. Given that there has already been a significant increase in the costs of the project, it is probably wise to have a contingency of £9.9 million.

That is the sort of the issue that the bill committee will be expected to tease out, along with many of the other points that members have made today. I pay due respect to Bill Butler and his fellow bill committee members for the work that they have done so far.

A small point that I would like to mention is the fact that it would be useful for parliamentary reports to include a full map when they deal with projects such a railway line or a road. Members such as Nora Radcliffe might well be able to source rather old maps that show the line, but even though we can source maps through our research teams, we should also be aware that the wider public has access to parliamentary reports and it would be of some use and interest to them to have a more comprehensive explanation of where the line will go. That is not a niggle—it is just a suggestion for improving the way in which we present our information to the public.

A number of useful points have been made. Today's debate is the first that I have attended from which a member such as Murdo Fraser has managed to extract two press releases, rather than just the statutory one. Of course, he was correct in what he said, because the report says that the establishment of the railway line will affect the entire rail network in Scotland by having a knock-on effect on train timetables and many other aspects. Therefore, it is quite pertinent to draw into the debate consideration of issues such as what might happen in Dunkeld and Blackford.

I would like to add that, if there were to be a station at Blackford, it would take off the pressure on Dunblane station. If the railway line were to go ahead and the station at Alloa were to open, that would take off the pressure on Bridge of Allan station. That is what happens once such stations are reopened. During the campaign for the May elections, I went to Bridge of Allan station to try to win support from voters. I found that to be rather futile, not because I was a Conservative, but because most of the people there were from Alloa—they had driven in their cars to get to Bridge of Allan station. Needless to say, I did not spend many more days there.

I thought that it was a tad unfair of Tricia Marwick to say that the Fife Labour mafia was in attendance—

I referred to the Fife mafia, which includes me as well as the Labour members.

I am sorry that I embellished what the member said with the word "Labour"; I was going to make the point that it was rather unfair of Tricia Marwick to say what she said, given that Christine May was not here: there is no show without Punch.

As well as making some important and well-made points on the regeneration of Fife, Scott Barrie raised the issue of the Ochil View residents' objections. In respect of the objections of the residents of Ochil View and Causewayhead, I would like the committee to take up the issue of compensation, where it will come from and how it might be agreed. If we are trying to allay the fears of local residents but find that, in some respects, they cannot be allayed, the residents might be satisfied by adequate compensation. That issue has to be considered.

Mark Ruskell made the useful point that a station—although I suggest a halt—could be incorporated into the line. A halt at Causewayhead might go some way to allaying the fears of the objectors from Causewayhead. A nearby railway station or halt at Causewayhead might ensure that property values do not fall, and might instead make it a more attractive proposition to sell property.

The debate has been useful and it is useful to bring such issues through Parliament in this way. It allows members the opportunity to discuss matters and the bill committee to consider them in detail. I commend the bill to Parliament.

I welcome the report. I should say to Brian Monteith that maps are available in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

Only for us.

The maps are also available in libraries around the country. However, the fact that they run to 40 sheets of A1 paper might be a good reason for not including them with the report.

I am glad to participate in a debate on reopening a railway line. After leaving university, my first job was with British Rail and I was associated—in a non-guilty fashion I hasten to add—with the closure of the Newport and St Andrews lines. That was in 1969 and the line to Alloa had been closed three months previously. I also notice that the Kincardine passenger service, which it is not planned to reopen yet, went out of service as early as 1930, so it might have a longer period of slumber.

Although it is difficult to quantify, the increase in the economic potential for Alloa and Clackmannanshire is one of the most important aspects of the proposal. We have also heard about the benefits to rail traffic on other routes, particularly on the Forth rail bridge, which is a severe bottleneck because of its signalling and its severe speed restrictions for freight trains. Any line that caters for slow-moving freight trains along with fast-moving passenger trains is a recipe for disaster. That is particularly true of the type of coal trains that we are talking about that use fairly elderly ex-merry-go-round wagons.

As an occasional traveller on the Fife circle, I am also aware of the delays that can be caused. The most recent one that I faced was on Tuesday morning.

I know that there have been question marks about whether EWS will release freight paths. Even if it does not release the freight paths and uses them for other freight trains, that will still benefit the economy because lack of paths for freight trains is one of the biggest single issues that is stifling the development of rail freight throughout Scotland.

I will touch on the length and complexity of the bill process. We need to consider that matter again in the longer term, and other members have also alluded to that. On 10 November, Keir Bloomer of Clackmannanshire Council stated in evidence:

"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.]

The rails are in place along the length of the route, although I accept that they will have to be lifted and reused because in their current state they could be used only by a train preceded by a man waving a red flag. However, 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? That is a strong argument for looking more closely at the process before we have to go through it again.

On the time scale, there is some indication in the evidence that, since the idea was first raised, the process has not moved as fast as some of us would have liked. I have noticed that a small part of the powers taken in the bill replace existing powers under the British Railways (No 2) Order Confirmation Act 1994. That has not been exercised to date and it will expire very soon. Of course, that is the same problem that is affecting the Larkhall link, work on which I hope will start in the near future. It says a lot about the lack of commitment—I will not say on the part of whom, other than to say on the part of all agencies that needed to be involved—that the powers were taken and not exercised over almost 10 years. Clearly, we are now at a better stage in our promotion of rail transport in Scotland.

Another criticism made in the evidence for the report is that some parts of the bill—notably part 2—include compulsory purchase provisions. The criticism is not of the bill, but of the confused state of compulsory purchase legislation in Scotland today, which has made part 2 necessary. One of the footnotes to the report notes that compulsory purchase legislation in England was reformed as long ago as 1965. Clearly, because of the lack of time for Scottish legislation at Westminster, reform of the Scottish legislation was not done at that time. I hope that the Justice Department will address the issue in the near future.

On the life expectancy of Longannet, I have read the evidence, and all I will say is that projecting the source of new power supplies—in particular when looking more than 10 years into the future—is not an exact science. Even if we meet the Executive's targets for renewable energy, we will need some baseload and back-up supply. Even if Longannet power station is no longer there in its current form in 10 or 15 years, there may well be another power station there, which may be equally reliant on rail freight.

Will the member give way?

No, the member is over time.

I welcome the bill, and I hope that the project reaches fruition in the near future.

Today is the start of something significant for Scotland—the first of several proposals to transform Scotland's railways by expanding the network and providing new and better services for passengers and freight. It is important to proceed as quickly as possible, and to instil confidence that we can deliver major new projects at the start of the 21st century.

I welcome Kenny MacAskill's views on the need to examine our approach to delivering such projects. Bill Butler and the members of the committee, who have been directly involved, will have a key role to play in advising on the issues. I am pleased to offer my support, and offer to join a cross-party approach on the issues, to ensure that we can speed up the delivery of major rail projects in Scotland by making best use of the Executive and the Parliament.

Today, we have to focus on the merits of the case put by Clackmannanshire Council as promoter and decide whether the principles of the proposal for the railway have been established. I hope that we will agree unanimously and with enthusiasm that they have been and that we will take the project forward to consideration stage. In doing that, we ask the committee to maintain the excellent progress that it has already made. As has rightly been mentioned, it is important for all concerned—objectors as well as promoter—that the committee's hearings are fair and objective. It is also important to reach an early resolution of the issues. I am confident that the committee will do exactly that and move the project forward swiftly, provided that we give it the endorsement that it deserves today.

I support the bill because of the many significant benefits that the scheme will bring. Three primary achievements will arise from the project. First, we will reconnect Alloa to the rail network and create significant new opportunities for Clackmannanshire. Secondly, we will provide a more efficient route for freight from Hunterston to Longannet power station. Thirdly, we will enable the introduction of improved passenger services between Edinburgh and Fife.

I agree with Alasdair Morgan that if the railway allowed only new freight services across the Forth rail bridge, that would be a benefit in itself, but the opportunity will be created for both improved freight services and badly needed passenger service improvements.

I will give members the story of the current rail journey that the coal trucks must take. The route from Hunterston to Longannet is less than impressive. The coal travels through Ayrshire to the Edinburgh to Glasgow line, then along the line through Winchburgh and Dalmeny, over the Forth rail bridge—where it clogs up rail space on the east coast main line between Edinburgh and Fife—and up to Dunfermline, where locomotives must turn round, after which they return west along the north shore of the Forth to the power station.

The new route that we propose is 18 miles shorter and will be significantly faster. The scheme will surely give Scottish Power a clear incentive to shift more coal freight from road to rail. As Scott Barrie said well, far too many coal lorries still trundle through the towns and communities in the area.

Apart from the three primary reasons that I mentioned, many other reasons can be given for supporting the line. The railway will give the local economy a significant boost, as it will create inward investment and give the local business community the confidence to expand its businesses. The line will bring greater flexibility to the rail network and provide future opportunities for further freight traffic from local firms and inward investors.

The line will also lay strong foundations on which other schemes, such as the station reopenings that have been spoken about, the Menstrie branch line and the important Rosyth freight link, can build. Some of those developments could not happen without the delivery of the project. The line will allow better and more efficient use of the busiest parts of the network and will support enhancements such as the Airdrie to Bathgate line and the Edinburgh airport rail link. Another benefit is a reduction in overcrowding on Fife services, and I could go on.

The scheme will have clear and definite benefits that we know that we can realise. In addition, the scheme will create huge new opportunities of which business and local communities can take advantage. That all adds up to a major project that has major potential.

I referred to the possible detrimental effect on current passenger and freight service timetables for the central route between Motherwell and Stirling. Will the minister give an assurance that he will ensure that no detrimental effect is created?

I give Sylvia Jackson that assurance. As in the rest of Scotland, we seek to maintain and improve rail services to Stirling. I am convinced that we will achieve that. The scheme should in no way detract from services in any part of Scotland. More difficult schemes have been mentioned. Perhaps, in future, some schemes might involve trade-offs and might require consideration of the balance of convenience, but that is not the case with the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway, which will bring nothing but benefit to the rest of the rail network in Scotland.

On Tricia Marwick's point, I know that the promoter proposes that Network Rail should operate the line. Whatever views on Network Rail we have heard not only today but in previous debates on transport issues, we must acknowledge its expertise. The cost of establishing an alternative infrastructure operator and of securing and maintaining a rail safety case that Her Majesty's railway inspectorate could approve, for example, would be significant and would run to many millions.

For all the reasons that have been given, the Executive supports the scheme, which has major potential. The change will be to the benefit of Clackmannanshire and the national rail network.

I am not sure whether the Presiding Officer will be in the chair at decision time. Perhaps it would be tactically better if he were not, because I am sure that he will never have a greater temptation to press the green button to approve the bill's principles at 5 o'clock. I know that he has taken a keen interest in the bill. Indeed, when I was giving evidence, he was there to listen to the evidence that was being given to the committee. I know that the scheme is close to his heart. I also believe that it is a scheme that will be well supported by all the 129 MSPs in the Parliament.

We have heard many useful and informed speeches during the debate. I want to take the opportunity to respond to some of the points that have been raised. For those members who have taken a keen interest in the bill, it is important to realise that the thorough work that was done by the committee extends to giving answers to some of the points that have been raised—or at least I hope that it does.

I will first respond to the question of the need for a private bill. It stems from the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845, which shows that rail is among the oldest forms of public transport. Indeed, given the methods for dealing with the creation and reopening of a railway in this day and age, cross-party effort to bring that about quickly would be welcomed by the committee and, I am sure, by all members.

The specific statutory authorisation of the bill is required because of the public or private nuisance that could arise and because the project involves the compulsory purchase of land. Several members raised that matter and it is important to clear it up at this point.

We are glad to hear from the minister that, alongside the private bill, consideration will be given to a link to Rosyth and on to Dunfermline, which was raised by several members. That link would open up the north side of the Forth and I am sure that the committee would welcome it. Our remit, however, restricts us to dealing with the issues that are raised specifically in the bill.

I will add to the response that the minister made to Sylvia Jackson's question on the Motherwell to Stirling rail link. Network Rail's submission confirmed that careful timetable planning is anticipated on that link. Network Rail could see no reason why the addition of coal traffic along the route that the scheme proposes would have a detrimental effect on current passenger or freight timetables. The committee will keep that issue under consideration.

Scott Barrie asked about alternative routes in the Kincardine area. We should point out that, at the preliminary stage, the committee is concerned with the general principles of the bill. It is also concerned about the adequacy of the information that is provided by the promoter to allow it to undertake more detailed scrutiny at the consideration stage. The promoter commissioned the Kincardine bypass, the Clackmannan bypass and the Bogside alignment options. We limited our consideration to the methodology that had been employed by the promoter in commissioning those appraisals and did not examine the merits of each alternative. I know that that answer might not satisfy Scott Barrie, but he has options in the future.

Brian Monteith made points about compensation for members of the public who are affected. Negotiations over compensation claims are a matter for the promoter and for individual objectors. Any compensation disputes are a matter for the Scottish Land Court to resolve.

With regard to the biodiversity action plans and so forth, all the supplementary information is available in the public domain through the Parliament's website and, of course, through our partner libraries. I hope that members will commend the libraries to their constituents.

It is important to recognise at this stage that the MSP whose constituency is most affected by the bill—George Reid, the member for Ochil—could not participate in the debate because he is also the Presiding Officer. Mr Reid is in regular contact locally with the sponsor and the objectors. I confirm that Mr Reid has referred their concerns to the convener and me. Those concerns will be given full consideration if there is a positive preliminary stage vote tonight.

In those circumstances, I anticipate that the committee will thoroughly examine the needs case that has been put forward by Clackmannanshire Council that it will examine the objectors' concerns about compensation costs and the whole issue of sustainable development.

In reply to a specific question that was asked, I say that we are well aware that 55 objections cover more than 300 signatures and that that has been taken into consideration.

I will outline the next stages in the unique procedure that a private bill requires. The bill goes next to the consideration stage, which is the second of three stages in the process. The overall purpose of a consideration stage is to consider the detail of the bill. There are two distinct phases in that stage that are distinguished by the style of the proceedings. The first will involve the committee meeting in a quasi-judicial capacity to hear evidence on the bill and objections to it. The second will involve the committee meeting in a legislative capacity to consider and dispose of any amendments, some of which could arise as a result of the evidence considered on the objections. At the beginning of the first phase, the committee must agree from whom to invite evidence and whether to invite from each group oral evidence, written evidence or both.

The committee has only limited discretion about whom to invite. It must invite the promoter, but with objectors, the committee will first need to group those objections that it considers to be the same or similar and then for each group select one or more objectors to lead evidence on the group.

For the purpose of groupings, objections will normally be treated as similar only if they give similar reasons in opposition to similar aspects of the bill. That is important to note. That ensures that all legitimate arguments in respect of the bill are considered while avoiding unnecessary repetition. In relation to the remaining objections—those we cannot or choose not to group—we must invite to give evidence every objector whose interests we believe would be adversely affected by the bill.

As Bill Butler mentioned in his opening speech, 55 admissible objections to the bill were lodged, although 52 remain outstanding. Should the Parliament agree to the motion today, the committee will prepare a timetable for the hearing of evidence. We hope to start the process next week with our first consideration stage meeting, at which we intend to group the objections—assuming that the Parliament agrees to the motion on the financial resolution, which is down on the business programme for next Wednesday.

At consideration stage, the committee's role is to act as an arbiter between the promoter and the remaining objectors. That will involve allowing differences between the parties to be resolved by negotiation and, where that is not possible, choosing between them. [Interruption.]

Order. There is now a level of conversation in the chamber that is affecting the ability of some members to hear what is being said. I would appreciate it if members would let the debate proceed.

We must ensure that each party has had a fair opportunity to present its own case and to question the opposing case. That might involve the leading of evidence and the cross-examination of witnesses and their evidence. That is a unique function of a private bill committee—the direct cross-examination of witnesses by non-members.

When that first phase has been completed, the committee will prepare a report giving its decisions on the objections considered, with reasons where appropriate. The report might also indicate areas where the committee expects the bill to be amended during the second phase of the consideration stage.

The debate has been worth while in highlighting some of the key aspects of the bill and, no doubt, the committee will consider some of those issues in much greater detail at the next stage. We received written evidence from the promoter and from 16 organisations. We heard oral evidence from 40 witnesses during our three evidence-gathering meetings in Alloa. The committee has been thorough in its approach to the preliminary stage and on that basis the committee has produced a fair, objective and thorough report.

In the light of the report of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, I invite Parliament to agree to the motion in the name of Bill Butler.