New Petitions

Yes. Thank you very much, convener, for coming down to the Borders and seeing for yourself the strength of feeling that exists here.We were overwhelmed by the support that we gained for the petition, which contains more than 17,000 signatures. It is fair to say that the reopening of the Borders rail link has its roots in the community; that is demonstrated by the fact that, when the campaign started less than 18 months ago, we had no members. We now have more than 400 members, who are spread across the Borders. Indeed, we have members in all areas of the Borders, which lays to rest fears that areas in the Borders do not work together—they work together on issues such as this. We also have members far beyond the Borders—from Dorset, the north of England and from the Highlands. Support for the campaign has been good.The 17,000 signatures were collected over three months. We could have continued collecting and we could have gained many more signatures. Some people wanted to sign the petition twice or three times, as they felt so strongly about the issue. We have, however, been fair and there is no duplication whatever.We found that a scheme such as the reopening of a railway needs—in line with Sarah Boyack's words—a partnership approach. The Campaign for Borders Rail is willing to take part in that partnership, with others such as the local community, the local authority and the local enterprise company. Most important, the partnership also needs the Scottish Parliament's resources.My colleagues will go into more detail on the various aspects of why the community feels so strongly about this issue. It is about time that we put right an injustice that was done 31 years ago. The Borders is the only mainland region in the UK not to have a rail service. Here is an interesting statistic: in the Highland region, which has a population of approximately 220,000, there are 57 stations; in the Borders region, which has a population of approximately 110,000, we have no stations. It is time for us to put that situation in order.To show that we are politically correct, the order in which we will address the committee will be alternately male and female. The person to speak after me will be Lorne Anton, who is from the Peebles area—we have been careful to select people from throughout the Borders—and he will speak on freight in particular. After that, Anna MacKenzie will express the feelings of teenagers and young people in the Borders. Then we will hear from George Fraser, a retired company director who lives in Midlothian, who will explore some of the issues that are faced there. Marge Elliott is a seasoned campaigner. She wants to have the railway back and fought hard to keep it open 31 years ago. Finally, there is David Mackey, who will explain what it is like to live in excluded communities such as Newcastleton.

Great North Eastern Railway recently produced a report that concluded that rail-linked areas enjoy better prospects socially, economically and industrially than areas that are not rail linked. As rail use increases, for both passengers and freight, the Borders will, unless it is rail linked, become increasingly isolated. A fully reopened route would provide direct and fast links not only to England, but to Europe and its markets. When a train leaves the Edinburgh suburban area on the west coast main line, the only place between Edinburgh and Carlisle at which the stock of Mr Branson and his Virgin Trains can earn revenue is Lockerbie. On a reopened Waverley route, direct from Edinburgh to Carlisle, the potential for passenger and freight revenue would exist in Dalkeith, Stow, Gala, Melrose, St Boswells, Hawick and Newcastleton. We live in Innerleithen. If we want to visit our son and daughter in the south of England, our journey begins with an hour's drive to Lockerbie. The other options for us are Edinburgh, Carlisle or Berwick. Before moving to the Borders, we lived in North Berwick and had the benefit of a rail link from there to Edinburgh. An essential part of East Lothian's attractiveness as a place to live—and of its prosperity—is its good transport links. The journeys are faster, safer and environmentally cleaner than they would be by car. Generally, the reopening of rail routes exceeds expectations of use and revenue. Accountants and present-day railway planners are not known for their optimism. The reopened Bathgate link has been a success. The reopening of the Robin Hood line, reconnecting Mansfield—formerly one of England's largest towns without a rail link—has been a great success. That project involved reopening a link of 32 miles between Nottingham and Worksop. The re-emergence of the Settle and Carlisle line as a major route for freight and passenger traffic is another example. The British Railways Board was desperate to close it in the 1980s.There is a great potential in the Borders for all kinds of freight traffic: timber products, finished and unfinished; agricultural produce; aggregates; fuel and oils; and perishables and non-perishables. The list is endless. The Borders forests are set to produce 750,000 tonnes of timber a year for the next 20 years. How is it to be moved from forest to end user? Beattock yard is an example of what can be done. Six days a week, a 20-wagon train leaves there for north Wales pulp mills—120 lorry loads a week. That only scratches the surface of what could be moved from pick-up points in Kielder and on the Waverley route. The traffic might be economically marginal, but, if it is to be moved, is not rail the best way to do so? I know that it is unfashionable to say this, but the main issue is not profitability. Wider social and environmental costs must be considered if the timber is to be moved by road. I am not a Borderer—I am from Callander in Perthshire, another town that got the doctor's snip—but no one would have to live here for long to see the determination of Borderers to make their communities work. The Borders needs an effective passenger and freight link. The area needs to be connected. The Westminster and Scottish Parliaments were elected on policies of social inclusion, on a promise to reduce environmentally damaging emissions and dependency on cars and lorries and on a shift from road to rail—a radical transport policy. Let us be radical. The people in this hall and thousands of others in the Borders want to be connected to the rail network again. They believe that a recent decline in the fortunes of the Borders can be reversed in part by the reinstatement of the rail route. I hope that that message goes back with the committee, loud and clear, to the Scottish Parliament.

Although there are obvious and sound arguments for reopening the old railway line, such as the fact that it would be good for tourism, how far do such arguments fit into a young person's perspective? Not far, you might think, as the majority of us will leave the area at one time or another and for whatever reason—college, university or a job. However, that need not be the case, and might not be if we had a railway.After the Highlands, the Borders has the highest rate of emigration of young people. The opportunities for young people are becoming fewer. That is a sad fact. However, I am being rather pessimistic. This area is littered with decent schools and there are good colleges in Galashiels and Hawick that offer a wide range of courses. Unfortunately, the range is not wide enough and we are forced to go elsewhere to find the courses that we want. That need not mean that students must leave the area. They could commute to their places of study, but what about the ones who cannot drive or afford to run a car? A railway would benefit them. Although there is an adequate bus service, the train would be a lot quicker; on a cold, winter's night, after a long day of lectures, I would prefer a 45-minute train journey to a drawn-out one-and-three-quarter-hour bus journey. It is not fair or sensible to force students out of the area because of substandard travel facilities that could be put right by the installation of a railway. The railway would also allow students from other areas to travel to the colleges in the Borders that run courses that are not available elsewhere. As you are aware, the number of cars on the roads is always increasing. To someone who has been driving for only a year, that is rather a daunting fact. I am arguing not only from the point of view of an irritable car driver but from that of a young driver who finds the thought of driving into a city as busy as Edinburgh quite scary. Many of my peers share that fear. I have mustered the courage to drive into the big city only a couple of times; the option of a short train journey, rather than a panicky car journey, is much more pleasing. As I am constantly reminded by my parents, it costs a lot of money to run a car nowadays. Everyday commuters to Edinburgh will be only too aware of that fact. Reopening the railway would allow them to travel by train, which would save them time and money. Cutting the number of cars on the roads would be a blessing as it would reduce road accidents, deaths and pollution caused by toxic car fumes.As a young person of the Borders, I do not intend to sit in front of you today and drone on about how boring and dull it is to live here. Do not hold me to this, but I do not think that it is. However, opportunities for young people in this area are dwindling. With unemployment rising due to the closure of Viasystems and various factories and mills, the young are having to look elsewhere for jobs. The clock cannot be turned back on that problem, but the situation can be helped. The rail link would certainly open up the area. Jobs would be provided on the railway and people would be able to commute to find employment.It might be argued that, as I am a young person, my arguments are slightly naive. I am not suggesting that reopening the old railway line would solve all the area's problems, but I think that it would be a step in the right direction.I will leave you with this thought: of the substantial group of Borders youths aged between 16 and 19 to whom I spoke, a whopping 95 per cent were for the reopening of the railway. Surely that is a large enough voice to be taken notice of.

What a refreshing example of Borders education that was.I thank the committee for choosing what I think is an appropriate venue for this meeting and for taking the time and trouble to journey here. I use the word "trouble" advisedly, particularly in relation to the people who travelled from the north. Between crossing the frontier at Midlothian and reaching the outskirts of Galashiels, you will have negotiated 80 bends, many of them acute. We could search western Europe—perhaps the whole of Europe—without finding a town the size of Galashiels and a mere 30 or so miles from its country's capital city that is linked by a similarly tortuous route. As an economic lifeline, it is positively varicose. This petition can be taken back to your temporary—or perhaps permanent—home and used to get the Borders back on the straight and narrow, where it once was. Some interesting statistics about the average weekly earnings of people in Scotland were published recently. As an ex-Aberdonian, I was pleased that, for once, Aberdeen won a league—and with a Rangers-like advantage over Edinburgh, which came second. I am pleased to see the renaissance of Edinburgh, but languishing at the foot of the league was the Borders. That is sad. What is even sadder is that that is not the perception that people have of the Borders—although this might be cheeky, I must say that it is not the perception that some MSPs had of the Borders until the figures were published.An hour's trip to the north of Galashiels brings us into a totally different economic climate. That burgeoning economy is spilling over into Fife, East Lothian and West Lothian. Those areas share a common factor: a rail link with Edinburgh that gives people a choice between cluttering up Edinburgh or doing Edinburgh a great service by commuting into the city, something which hundreds and hundreds of them do, although the frenzy of house building in Midlothian, where I live, might compound Edinburgh's problems. However, the effect of Edinburgh's burgeoning economy is not felt in the Borders. Neither of the parties that formed Governments in the 1960s had the vision or the foresight to maintain the rail link. Now, we have new Labour, a new Parliament, a new millennium and a feasibility study that is for the most part positive and has Sarah Boyack's blessing. We have to use that to try to bring prosperity and hope back to the Borders. All members of the Scottish Parliament have a duty to redress a wrong. We are not dealing with pounds, shillings and pence; we are dealing with human beings.

I will tell the committee a true story from last year about a young Hawick family. The family consists of mum and dad, two wee schoolgirls and five-month-old twins. The mum and dad were not planning to go on holiday last year until the wee lassies came home saying that they could not understand why their friends were going here, there and everywhere and they were not.The mum and dad booked a week's holiday in Blackpool. On the big day, they went to the bus stop to get the bus to Carlisle station, which is 42 miles away and Hawick's nearest railhead. At the bus stop, they waited and waited but the bus did not turn up. The dad went off to make inquiries and was told to wait for the next bus. They had no option, so they did. When they got to Carlisle station, the train that they had booked seats on had gone and they had to wait for the next train. When they got on, there were no seats available so they had to stand the whole way—not a soul offered them a seat. When they came home, the busy young mum wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, MPs and the managing director of the bus company, who said, "You wouldn't be pleased with a helicopter."In 1869, Hawick folk could travel to Edinburgh by train in two and a half hours. In the 21st century, Hawick folk take two and a quarter hours to travel to Edinburgh on public transport. It is perfectly true to say that the journey is quicker by hearse. I ask the Scottish Parliament to be careful and not to turn the debatable lands into a no-man's-land. Scotland begins at the border.

I do not know how I can follow that.I would like to try to sum up our case by referring back to the joint working party that was set up by the then Scottish Office two years ago, following the damaging effects on the local economy of the demise of Viasystems and other job losses in the Borders.The joint working party's report, and the subsequent report of a working party set up by the agencies in the Borders, highlighted four key objectives. One of the objectives is individual: to help people reach their full potential. Another is social: to ensure vibrant communities. The enterprise objective is to develop and maintain thriving businesses, and the final objective is to make the Borders a connected place, by countering remoteness, providing effective communication and making social exclusion a thing of the past.I will illustrate those four points by examining the position of Newcastleton, where I live, which is a small village with a population of about 800 in a beautiful valley that has a total population of about 1,300. However, the population has halved since 1969. Newcastleton met those objectives until the railway was taken away. Now, Newcastleton is a classic case of what should not happen. I will give some examples.Educational opportunities, such as the for secondary school and the library, are in Hawick, 25 miles away, which requires a journey of 50 minutes by bus. Borders College is here in Galashiels, which requires a journey of nearly two hours by bus, with several changes. To the south, Carlisle is 30 miles away, which takes about an hour by bus, with one change. With the railway, Carlisle and Hawick could be reached in half an hour and Galashiels could be reached in a little over three quarters of an hour.Almost 60 per cent of the population of Newcastleton are people over the age of 60. Young people leave for education and jobs and do not come back. Houses suitable for young families become holiday homes. The railway would reverse that trend, providing access to commuter jobs in Carlisle and Hawick, and even in Galashiels and Edinburgh, which would counteract the decline in, and the aging of, the population.Business opportunities in Newcastleton are not great. Eighteen months ago, the travel problems drove away our only major employer, and tourism is our mainstay. We have a splendid caravan park and excellent bed and breakfast businesses and hotels, but they struggle for business and are not helped by the poor roads and the problem of the log lorries—huge, 40-tonne vehicles driving on roads built for horse-drawn traffic. There is little hope for early improvement, given the recent measly funding allocation for Scottish Borders Council. There are many more problems, but time does not allow me to cover them all.Social exclusion, to most people, means deprivation, discrimination and poverty, usually in urban areas. Although Newcastleton is a rural community, it is a classic example of social exclusion. Our plight, and the plight of many similar rural villages, is not helped by current resource allocations. While urban areas get large resources to counter social exclusion, we do not. Improvements to their roads and transport links are given great priority, while rural areas get nothing. If nothing is done, the prognosis for Newcastleton and other similar villages is bad.In the 19th century, pushing a railway across America or through the Alps was not a problem. Surely, in the 21st century, we can once again link Edinburgh and Carlisle to the Borders by rail. That action would counter remoteness, provide effective communication, develop thriving businesses and do away with social exclusion in the Borders.The technology exists, the track-bed largely remains, the local and regional will is strong, as members of the committee have seen, and the resources would be available if the political will existed. This could be a flagship project for Scotland, not only making the Borders a connected place, but ensuring that social exclusion is a thing of the past.Please help us to achieve that dream. I thank you for listening.

As usual, I get the last word.We have tried to demonstrate that this is not just a transportation issue. We made five key points in our petition. The people who signed our petition agreed with our arguments that the railway is needed:"To make the Borders more accessible for industry and development, in order to create desperately needed job opportunities.To provide an alternative to the road system.To promote a more sustainable transport system.To reduce social isolation in the Borders communities. To improve access to the Borders for tourism."Many of us were not railway campaigners, but we are becoming railway campaigners because we want the railway back in the Borders. Applause.

I will kick off.First, how long is a piece of string? A feasibility study was carried out on the rail link that gave us some figures. However, some people say that the initiative would be gold plated. Figures are available in the Scott Wilson report on what the railway would cost to construct.We had an interesting debate on social exclusion with the shadow strategic rail authority. The precise question is: how does one estimate the cost of not building the railway? What would that mean to communities such as Hawick, which is desperately starved of population? There is no doubt that Hawick is dying on its feet. How does one put a price on that?Quality of life for youngsters such as Anna MacKenzie means not having the same opportunities as other youngsters. Single parents do not have the same opportunities for lifelong learning as others. It would be interesting to undertake a study to examine those figures. Elsewhere in Europe, such figures are available, but we need them in a Scottish context.

I totally agree with that. Like so many transport issues, our petition should not be left to just one committee, because we are talking about sustainability. It should be addressed by the Scottish Executive, which should implement these projects across the board, so that they are no longer compartmentalised. Because the Borders rail link has been left to one committee or to one department to deal with, progress on it has been hindered. That is why there are no figures on social inclusion or on the costs that you asked about.I will relate an interesting anecdote about our conference last year. Some of our members come from Edinburgh and would dearly love the opportunity to move to the Borders. We know that young professionals want to relocate to the Borders, because of the quality of life for their young families, but they will not do so because there is no transport infrastructure, which they would find difficult to deal with. Therefore, we lose out again.

The roads are vital. While there is a network of roads—I was being a bit facetious earlier—there are tortuous, dreadful roads throughout the Borders. However, they provide the hope for an integrated system. By selecting carefully railway halts, one could have feeder services covering Selkirk and all the other townships that are a short distance from the straight and narrow route that I spoke about.

Newcastleton has a lot of surrounding forests, such as Keilder and Newcastleton forests. We are involved in the extraction of timber, a business that is due to increase enormously by 2012 to nearly double the amount extracted currently.During my presentation, I mentioned the 40-tonne log lorries, which often have trailers and which use roads that were designed originally for horse-drawn vehicles. Apart from the problems caused by driving on roads that are shared with those lorries, the roads are being seriously damaged and resources are not available to maintain them. With no railway, we are in a catch-22—or even a catch-44—situation, with the economy and the importance of the extraction of timber on one side and, on the other, the roads that are falling apart. The difficulties with the roads reduce tourism and access and take business away from the area. It is a circular problem that we cannot break out of. We hope that the reintroduction of the railway will allow us to begin to break out of that cycle.

The transport policies that are emerging from Edinburgh give a clear indication of what is going to happen. We will be further penalised for not being given an alternative to the motor car. Places like Hawick, which are dying on their feet, as I said, demonstrate why we need a railway. It is important not to view this situation in isolation. I do not like the roads versus rail argument, the rural versus urban argument, or the idea of the Borders versus the capital.All that our group wants is an integrated vision of what is needed. In addition to a good road network, we need a good rail service. Increasingly, we will be penalised if we do not have a railway and have it soon. The policies that are coming to the fore in Edinburgh are right. We have to start paying the real cost of transportation by motor car. However, we also have to put in place alternatives so that people can make choices, and we do not have them in the Borders. Thirty-five miles from Edinburgh, we do not have a choice.

In the small villages in the Borders, and indeed in some of the larger towns, there is an increasingly aging population, which will cost the community a great deal of money in the future. The number of people providing those resources is decreasing, and individual social and health problems will get greater and greater unless there is a change to redress the current balance of population shift.

When thinking about what will happen if the rail link does not reopen, we must consider what is happening on the ground. Large numbers of people are returning to the railway, freight has increased by a third over the past few years, and we must be part of that system. If other people are looking for alternatives and we do not have one, we will be increasingly marginalised. Fife, the Lothians and the central belt, where the economy is successful, are all rail linked and all have freight sidings. There is a difference between not having any infrastructure and being able to develop existing infrastructure. If we have a rail link, we can do something with it, but we cannot make progress as the situation currently stands.

I can say wholeheartedly that we would welcome that long-overdue opportunity. Thank you. Could we get a date for that?

Hawick, the largest town in the Borders, had a population of more than 17,000, but it has reduced to 15,000. We are suffering, our mills are closing and young folk are moving out. There is nothing for them in Hawick and nothing to look forward to, although it was a good quality of life at one time. I recently read about the pupils from St Boswells who travelled to Hawick High School by rail. Apparently, our education department took them off rail and put them on to the road two years before the railway closed. There were various things going on at that time that we did not appreciate, but things were being cut back gradually.

I was on the phone to one of my friends at the University of Glasgow the other day. She was moaning to me because it takes 40 minutes on the train from Glasgow to Edinburgh and the journey from Edinburgh to Selkirk on the bus takes twice as long as that, which is ridiculous. It is a sad fact that few people I go to school with are staying in the Borders. All of them have to go elsewhere to find the education that will further them in what they want to do. Few of them can get home easily and, if they want to commute, there are not many opportunities to do so. Something must be done for young people.

It is possible to buy a flat in Hawick for less money than one would pay for a mews garage in the centre of Edinburgh to stable one's car. That sums up the situation in a nutshell.

Helen Eadie is right to say that co-operation is vital. You will be pleased to know that a Borders rail forum has been set up. CBR is a member of it, as are the local authority, the local enterprise company and a private company called Borders Transport Futures. It is important that all of us are sitting round the table together to get things going. It is also important that the Scottish Parliament sends the right signals, and that means that resources have to be found. We will be doing our bit, but you also have to do your bit.

Absolutely.

As well as the feasibility study, there is also a working party that draws together Scottish Borders Council, Scottish Borders Enterprise and various other public agencies together with a number of the private companies that were mentioned—Railtrack, ScotRail and other bodies. In parallel with the political campaigning, there is also the hard-nosed work of getting down to resourcing issues.

I offer the committee a warm Borders welcome. I appreciate the convener's recognition of the fact that this is probably the first time that Westminster parliamentarians have been subject to cross-examination and scrutiny by one of the committees of our sister Parliament in Edinburgh. I am delighted to be here. I am also delighted that you chose to hold this meeting in the Borders, and hope that you will be encouraged to get out from Edinburgh a little more and to visit the airts and pairts of the country. That will give you an opportunity to encounter a different perspective and to escape the cosmopolitan, political, rather incestuous talk that bedevils the public consideration of important questions, if my experience at Westminster is anything to go by.You may think that this is a big turnout, but if you had been able to come of an evening you would have had to convene the meeting in Netherdale park, such is the interest in the subject. This is not about transportation, but depopulation. The prosperity of the region in future years will depend on how we deal with the Borders rail link in both Parliaments; it is as simple as that.I concur with everything that Petra Biberbach and the delegation have said, but I want to put that in context. The working party report that was issued by the industry department in March 1999 was a direct response to a series of body blows that we suffered here—at Viasystems and at Pringle of Scotland—that led to job losses on an unprecedented scale. The honest truth is that we all got slightly frightened. However, we have picked ourselves up—as we do here—and have come together in a unique, co-ordinated piece of activity in which the public authorities are playing a full part. The local enterprise company and Scottish Borders Council have been peerless in their attention to the issue. One great advantage in south-east Scotland is that all the agencies work within the same geographical region. I assure the committee that in recent months, since the working party set up the Scott Wilson report, we have worked tirelessly to deal with a situation that is difficult to address in the longer term.The Scott Wilson Borders railway feasibility study was spawned by the Scottish Office working party report of March 1999. Euan Robson referred to the new ways study, which is the considered view on the way forward for the economic development of the Borders. The railway project is integral to the philosophy, approaches and detailed recommendations of that study. The Scott Wilson report cannot be seen in isolation, but must be seen in a social, economic and political context. It is essential that the committee leaves the region with the clear idea that the Scott Wilson report is not merely an exercise in accountancy and civil engineering—it is much more than that.To deal with all the problems, we need a 20-year vision. Recently, I have been lucky enough to travel to Hong Kong and Australasia with the House of Commons Select Committee on Social Security. One does not have to be in those countries for more than 10 minutes to see the investment that is being poured into long-term transportation infrastructure programmes. The opportunity to reinstate a Borders rail link as a strategic corridor through the region will come only once. If we do not take that opportunity, it will never come again.I detect from members' body language that the committee is willing to support the petitioners and I am pleased that Christine Grahame has suggested a debate in Parliament, as I am sure that that will be essential. However, a more consistent and coherent longer-term attachment to the campaign will be necessary, both at Westminster and in Edinburgh, to bring the project to fruition. A debate in Parliament is an essential first step, but I hope that the committee will go back with the message that a longer-term commitment is necessary if we are to achieve our goal. That commitment must come not just from local members, but from the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament as a whole.From my experience at Westminster, I believe that there is strong support for the building of a Borders rail link as a strategic corridor. Over the years, further burdens are likely to be imposed on the use of private cars. Michael Moore and I will have to hasten from this meeting to be in the House of Commons in time to vote against the increases in petrol duty that were imposed by the Labour Government in the budget. I know that in your heart of hearts, convener, you would be with us if you could—in more ways than one.

Mr McAvoy will be pleased to hear that.Seriously, there will be further downward pressure on the use of private vehicles. Anyone with any sense of what is happening will understand why. There is escalating pressure at Westminster to get more freight off road and on to rail; that pressure is increasing month by month and year by year. Carbon dioxide emissions are becoming an increasing problem internationally. The transport debate, which Michael Moore knows more about than I do, is moving further in the direction of integrated transport than it has done in the 20 years that I have been in politics. The social inclusion agenda is also being interpreted in a much wider sense and is being given much higher priority by central Government.Diversification, rural development, job creation and tourism in the Borders all depend on our getting access to a strategic rail route. This is not a short-term issue—we need a vision for the next 30 to 50 years. The consequences of not building the link are dire; if it is not built, the region will be sentenced to impoverishment and depopulation. We will become even more left out than we have been since the closure of the Waverley route, a huge psychological blow from which the region has never properly recovered. It is not acceptable to allow that situation to continue. We look to the committee for support, not just in the coming weeks, but in the coming months and years, in achieving the goal of a strategic rail through-corridor in the region.

I echo Archy Kirkwood's welcome for this historic opportunity for Westminster MPs to address a committee of the Scottish Parliament. Convener, you and I spent many long hours on the bill that set up the Parliament. I nearly said that I have spent many a long hour listening to your speeches, but that would have been inappropriate.Here we have a good example of the Scottish Parliament bringing something new to Scotland and of how we can use the Parliament to develop a political will and momentum on key issues. In the Borders, few issues are more serious than the railway network and the need for a through-route from Edinburgh to Carlisle, which would address many of our problems.Without wishing to butter up to you too much, convener, one of my great pleasures in the House of Commons in recent years has been serving with you on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. As you will recall, that committee visited the Borders as part of its inquiry into inward investment. At that time, the problems at Viasystems and Pringle were at their height, and I recall committee members from other parts of Scotland being quite shocked by what they saw, which undermined their image of the Borders as a leafy, green, wealthy place. I welcome that committee's report, and the fact that there has been a cross-party and cross-agency response to those problems.The rail link is vital to our economic development and to help address the social inclusion issues that have been mentioned repeatedly this afternoon. Most of all, it is vital symbolically to an area that has felt neglected at times, and that has needed to be convinced that it is part of the Scottish mainstream. As Madge Elliot and many others have made clear, there is great determination locally on this issue. I hope that the committee will take those strong feelings back to Edinburgh and deliver the message to other committees so that we may get some action.The message has not always got across, even to those who should know better. Recently, I received a letter from Railtrack, which advised me—as all corporate bumf does—of all the wonderful things that the company is doing for the whole of Scotland. It also advised me that Railtrack was running a competition and that it would let me know soon if a railway station in my constituency had been nominated as station of the year. Laughter. I have not yet calmed down sufficiently to reply to that.From where I live in Peeblesshire, the airport is but 45 minutes away; the nearest railway station is a good hour and a quarter away. Time and again, we are left out.This project is first class. It is absolutely essential for the rebirth and future prosperity of the Borders. I welcome your support.

I agree that we need capital expenditure. Before the cross-party cohesion breaks down too far, we must ensure that the man whose budget we will be voting against tonight hears the message. We are sitting with increasing surpluses in the country's accounts, and we need further investment. If the Borders is not a good example of an area with top-quality projects for investment, I do not know where is.

The consensus ends here.

There are some technical difficulties. I think that we would need to use private legislation. Because of the demarcation between reserved and devolved powers, a rail development that crossed the border would—perforce, as Phil Gallie knows—have to go through some pretty arcane private member's procedures. We are working on that. I would be happy to promote such a bill, and I know that work that has been done by Borders Transport Futures Ltd has broken the back of what needs to be done. We are well-prepared, and if it comes to it, I would be delighted to be the sponsor of the legislation that achieved the end we desire.

I am on the committee that is examining the Transport Bill—we will reach part 4 of the bill this week. The under-secretary of state, Keith Hill, has said that he commends the Waverley line project. He remembers that, as a young boy, he used the Waverley line to come here on holiday to go hillwalking. I intend to take full advantage of his memories in promoting the bill. I would like to invite him at some future time to travel back by train, so that he can have another Borders hillwalking holiday.What is done with the petition is very important. If the committee wishes to send a copy to Westminster, it will find two happy bag-carriers here.

Yes.

Yes.

I thank the committee for allowing me to take up some of its time this afternoon. Braemar is a long way from Galashiels. When the principal petitioner was asked if she wanted to present her case to the committee, she was not sure whether she would be able to arrange after-school child care for her four children, so she asked the clerk to the committee if I, as one of the co-petitioners, could present the case on our behalf. I am here to represent not only the people of my community in Braemar, but the 1,600 full-time keepers and their families whose jobs and homes will be at grave risk if Lord Watson's bill becomes law.Fox numbers have to be controlled, just as the number of deer and rabbits do, for the good of the countryside. If left uncontrolled, foxes do considerable damage to all ground-nesting birds, many of which are already under threat. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has scrapped its ban on predator control at Abernethy forest nature reserve on Speyside and now recognises the importance of fox control.How will keepers be able to control foxes if the hunting bill becomes law? Estates that rely on grouse and pheasants for a source of income will suffer through a lack of birds. Within three to four years, many estates will be forced to lay off keepers due to a decline in game birds. Once you take keepers off the ground, other vermin will increase, which will have a disastrous effect on other birds and animal life.Sporting clients and their families come from all over the world to Scotland and create employment for hotels, shops and garages in rural areas. The abundance of wildlife in this country is the envy of many countries, and due to man's management of the countryside. The work that the foot packs do in large forestry plantations, where foxes are flushed out to a team of marksmen, and the protection that is given to hill farmers and shepherds at lambing time, could never be replaced. Gamekeepers would find it impossible to carry out their fox control without the use of terriers. Within the next two to three years, we will have two national parks in Scotland. What bird or animal life will be left for people to come and see if the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill becomes law?The bill gives no thought to the countryside, its wildlife or the people who live and work there. For the people whose jobs and homes are at risk, and for the countryside and its wildlife, I ask the committee to pass this petition on to the Rural Affairs Committee so that it may broaden the Scottish study in line with the Burns inquiry into hunting in England and Wales.

The type of work that I do involves long, hard days on the hill. Fox control in the spring is carried out on bitterly cold days, in snow and rain. I do not get any enjoyment out of it. As far as I am concerned, it is not a sport but a job. I would welcome another humane or efficient way of controlling foxes that would reduce much of my work. However, until that happens, it would be a disaster if the dog work that we do were banned.

In the winter, we depend a lot on skiers, who bring money into the economy. Over the past five to 10 years, there has been very little snow and few skiers have come to stay in the Braemar area. From August to February, many shooters and their families come from all over the world to stay in Braemar. That is another iron in the fire for the local economy. If the type of work that we do is no longer allowed, that will have a big impact.

Yes, I would agree with that. It is an urgent issue, which should be sorted out as quickly as possible.

Many aspects of this have to be considered; the Burns inquiry in England is already going into the issue in depth and considering what would happen to the countryside in 15 or 20 years' time if there were no vermin control. The inquiry is considering whether there are other ways of controlling foxes, which is what we are all hoping for.

Yes.

Good afternoon, convener and committee members. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you today. This committee is a major step forward for Scottish democracy. If the convener follows the local press, he will no doubt be aware that I wrote to my local paper, pointing that out and complimenting the Parliament on its roles. In the short time available I can highlight only a few of the features concerning planning and associated matters. I will explain, first, why the petition arose and go on to explain briefly the main issues as I see them. Finally, I will suggest improvements that I feel can and should be made. A number of years ago, the local council at Perth and Kinross had a planning application before it that affected my property. To cut a long story short, neighbours and I made representations to the council, which were wholly ignored. That gave my wife and me a great deal of stress. There were errors in the plan that the planners argued breached their own plan. National planning policy guidelines required them to defend the plan, which they failed to do. There were buildings overhanging our property and fences were put up that would have done credit only to a scrapyard. Conditions were imposed, some of which were unenforceable in law and some of which were never enforced, because the council had no written procedure on enforcement policy. At the end of all this, I was dissatisfied because certain issues had, in my view, not been handled fairly and democratically. I complained to the council, through the chief executive. The complaints were never listened to or debated. I got nowhere. Finally, I appealed to the ombudsman. That appeal failed—I will explain why in a moment. The sum of all this was a recommendations paper, in which I prepared a summary of our bad experiences. To put it mildly, we had been treated shabbily. I submitted 12 recommendations to the council, giving them adequate copies. Not one of the recommendations was debated. No committee of the council considered them. It took almost a year to wring any form of written response from the council. All of this is catalogued in the documentation that I have provided to the clerk. I move now to the issues. There is no meaningful public participation, largely because nobody pays much attention to those who oppose planning applications or who merely comment on them, as is their right. The planners and the councils know that those people have no right of appeal and that they can do nothing about the applications. However, if they feel that there has been an error in the procedure, they can appeal or make a complaint to the ombudsman. On the other hand, councils can appeal; they can raise civil actions, if they feel that there is a case, to go to the Court of Session. In law, the public could do that as well, but they are largely debarred because of cost and time.My last point on the main issues relates to the ombudsman's role. His role is defined under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975, which was enacted as a forerunner to the formation of the regions as they were until two years ago. That piece of legislation restricted what the ombudsman could do. Many people do not know that and feel frustrated when, having written to the ombudsman, he says, "I am sorry. I cannot do anything about it." If any council makes a decision within its legal powers—no matter how unreasonable or unfair that decision might be towards a person's daily affairs, life or property—there is nothing the ombudsman can do. He is debarred from inquiring into the situation. Even the ombudsman's staff—I cannot name them, clearly—agree with me, after long discussions, that the public find it frustrating when they lodge a complaint and the ombudsman says, "I am sorry, but I cannot investigate that." He can examine the issue informally, but he cannot investigate it formally, and nothing more can be done. The ombudsman's staff also feel frustrated.Of the complaints that have been passed to the ombudsman—I do not have the current annual report, or even the one before it, but the one prior to that—housing and planning issues form the larger part. Housing comes first, with planning a close second. That is an indication that all is not well with the planning system in Scotland. The improvements that I have listed in my submissions to the committee are proposed in a spirit of common good. I have nothing to gain personally from any of those improvements if they are made now. The system requires streamlining. I have become quasi-expert on planning, as I have made it my business to find out about it. It is an absolute morass of procedures, national planning policy guidelines, planning advice notes, circulars and so on. The lack of appeal, which I have touched on, is a serious democratic deficiency. The public should have a right of appeal. It is common legal practice for people who are pleading any case to have independent appeal facilities. I suggest that it would be appropriate, through whatever means are available to the new Parliament, to introduce a petitions system similar to the one in which this committee is involved, to deal with national issues. The same should apply to local issues. In my case, I might have received a reply if such a system had been in place.The idea of having a Public Petitions Committee is part of the ethos of the Scottish Parliament, and I have already commented on that. There should be a right to hearings at development, control and planning meetings; the public should have a right to a hearing if they so desire. I learned obliquely that the council—not the present one, but its predecessor but two—had in place a system that would have allowed councillors to say, "Mr Whittet, if you write in we will look into your request and you can come and address our committee." However, they never had the courtesy to tell me that they could do that.The consultation document on planning and land use under the Scottish Parliament stresses openness, fairness, impartiality and public involvement and participation. I wrote a commentary on that document, and I received a very nice acknowledgement. I was also mentioned in the document that summarised the consultation process. Somebody must agree that I have a point to make. I would welcome a layman's guide to the planning system. It should be a must, and should come centrally from the Scottish Parliament. It should not only emphasise the procedures, but inform the public of their rights—what they are and are not entitled to do.Finally, the complaints system requires a complete review. I wrote to a select number of local councils—some city councils, some rural councils—asking them for details of their complaints systems. Not one had an appeals system. Perth and Kinross Council has a clear statement in its standing orders that no appeal will be considered unless it is required and is made under statute. Even the council could not ignore the law. I suggest a tripartite system: complaints would be dealt with initially by the local council; an independent body with independent people on it—not councillors—would look into appeals against the councils, which would siphon off a lot of work that is currently carried out by the ombudsman; finally, there would be a new, independent Scottish ombudsman who would operate under Scots law.I have summarised my arguments, convener. I feel that there is a sound case for change. The public have a clearly defined right to be heard in all matters that are controlled by public bodies. I ask the committee to support my petition and its various components and to take whatever procedural steps are necessary to progress those—assuming that you support them. I leave that to you, convener, with your knowledge and experience. I am well versed in legislation and I understand that legislative change would be required for several of these issues, although not for all of them. Some could be addressed through codes of practice and the setting of standards for councils. I rest my case.

The £500 compensation did not apply to me. I wrote to the council, posing questions about the man to whom it applied, and I was horrified that the report that I received from my local councillor contained no apology or expression of remorse for some disgraceful conduct towards that man. I asked simply what remedial action be taken. The compensation did not apply to me.

Councils seldom ignore the recommendation of the ombudsman; they realise that that is the decision of the Court of Appeal and that it should be upheld.

None of which I am aware.

Indeed, and it would be binding for authorities. I do not want to take up the time of the committee unduly in explaining the regulations under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975. That is a very large statute, comprising around 286 sections. Tucked into it are a few add-ons for Scotland, although it is essentially English legislation, as I wrote in my paper. Having said that, I am not anti-English or anti-anyone.

I have. I approached the planning department on several occasions, but it offered only statistics—not what I would call constructive information on which to base a reasonable judgment. Probably at least 50 per cent of applications are approved by officials through delegated powers and will not go before any committee. If no one objects or says anything, they are approved. The remaining 50 per cent are not all debated, in my experience, and the number of people who would be likely to request a hearing would be relatively small.

Would not it be reasonable, convener, to say to the public that if they have a case they can write to the council and it will be considered? I had a case where 10 of my neighbours, not just me, signed a petition opposing an application, yet no one told us that the matter would have to be considered by the planning committee. There could be a screening mechanism. I do not have all the answers.

Thank you for your time and attention. Finally, I want to tell the committee that it took two whole years of meetings, phone calls and discussions to get a written response and another whole year to get that into print.

I thank the committee for allowing me to give evidence. I should point out that, although there are only 70 or so householders' signatures on the petition, they represent 100 per cent of the village. I want to reiterate some of the points about which we feel strongly.We are responsible for a one eigthieth pro indiviso share of the maintenance costs for roads and lights. That was passed on to us at the time of the sale of the houses in Longriggend. Members have a copy of enclosure 1, in which the selling company says that the roads were made up to an adoptable standard. Everyone's lawyers must have agreed with that; similar information was passed on to all the buying parties. That was the starting point for us all.The second enclosure makes it clear that the Scottish Office intended to upgrade the roads "to the Region's requirements". That was seen as a clear commitment that the Scottish Office intended to take over responsibility for the roads; there was no indication that such costs would be passed on to the local residents. The Scottish Prison Service at HM Remand Institution Longriggend continued to maintain and repair the roads and met the cost of the electricity for the private lighting system in the village.With a partial influx of money, the SPS partially repaired further elements in 1994, bringing the roads into a better condition than they were in when we first moved into the houses. I refer to enclosure 3, which shows that back in 1982 there was an intention to upgrade the roads and lights to local authority adoption standard. That was some years before the sale of any of the houses in the village.We took our case to the late John Smith MP, who was convinced of the original intention of the Scottish Office. He wrote to the then Tory Government, suggesting that the SPS should carry out the work. That was also the opinion of Gil Paterson MSP and our local councillor Sandra Cox. I thank them for their efforts and for supporting our case.Recently, Gil Paterson provided me with a copy of the funding levels and strategic plan produced by the Scottish Office for 1999-2000—that is enclosure 6. It shows that the intention was to fund the improvements to the roads and street lighting. Can you imagine how we felt when we found out that that was going to happen? We were elated. However, last year, that funding was withdrawn.We are here today because HM Remand Institution Longriggend is due to close next month. We have been told that the street lights will be turned off. We think that that is unacceptable in the 21st century. After 18 years intending to do something, the SPS will be allowed to leave the villagers in the dark.

I am led to believe that it was withdrawn in the early part of this year.

If Gil had not given us that information, we would never have known about it.

No, it is switching off the lights and walking away from the area.

It is taking no responsibility.

Are you talking about the strategic plan?

I became aware only a few months ago that the money had been allocated for the upgrade of the roads so that the local authority could adopt; I found out just as quickly that it had been allocated elsewhere.

No, it is not fair.

No. The houses did not come on the market until 1987.

As I said, we were told, as the terminology goes in the missive, that we had an eightieth pro indiviso share of the maintenance cost disponed to us. There was no mention of our having to pay for upgrade work.

Enclosure 1 is a copy of a mortgage valuation report. It is a general report; everybody got one. It states clearly:"Although the roads are made up to adoption standard it is understood that these are not maintained by the Local Authority at present."Our impression was that the roads were up to adoptable standard at that time.

I approached the local council on the point that Sandra White made—why should residents be paying council tax when their roads were not maintained? I was advised by our roads department that the roads were not at adoptable standard and that it would take about £275,000 to bring them up to that standard.

The council will not adopt them until they are brought up to standard.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present the case for the organisation Training Adults in the Community, of which I am a volunteer. Training Adults in the Community is an award-winning project that has built a reputation as a quality provider of services for people with physical difficulties, mental ill health and learning difficulties. Our petition includes further evidence of the depth of support for the project from the community and from across the political arena.In the past, we received funding from the Scottish Office through urban aid; the remainder of our funding came from West Lothian Council. We successfully applied for money through the European social fund—that money represented 45 per cent of our funding. However, the council funding remained at the same level—25 per cent—and we were forced to use our cash reserves to make up the shortfall. This year, the council has decided not to fund us. As no other matched funding is available and our cash reserves are almost spent, we would like the committee's help and support in influencing the council to continue to fund us. That would allow us to seek other sources of funding. We believe that this option could be fruitful in the long term. It would allow us to keep our existing resources intact and enable us to avoid the expense of starting from scratch. I am a project user who has benefited from the project. I am dyslexic. There are no comparable projects to TAIC in West Lothian; it is unique in many ways. The service is user led, with a strong commitment to social inclusion. Its closure would not only be a travesty of justice. It would leave a huge gap in the daily lives of disabled citizens in West Lothian and would be an affront to our civil rights. With others, I have been fighting a long, hard battle since 1998 to save this valuable resource for the benefit of generations to come. Struggling with a disability on a day-to-day basis is hard enough without West Lothian Council closing down a lifeline for one of the most marginal groups in society. Convener, we issue a heartfelt plea to the committee to use the powers vested in it to help us to survive.