I apologise for my short absence, and I thank Nora Radcliffe for taking the chair. Christine Grahame is with us to talk briefly on the petition that we have received from the Campaign for Borders Rail. With the committee's permission, I would like to move that item up the agenda and to take it now.Members indicated agreement.
Official Report · Committee
Petition
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Andy Kerr Lab 5
- Nora Radcliffe LD 2
- Christine Grahame SNP 1
- Murray Tosh Con 1
- Robin Harper Green 1
The record
10 contributionsPetition PE113 is accompanied by a covering note, TE/00/7/10. As I am sure all members will know, there is great public interest in this petition, which has been signed by more than 17,000 people. It was discussed at a well-attended meeting of the Public Petitions Committee at Galashiels on 27 March. At this stage, I suggest that we discuss the information that we require to allow us to consider the petition fully. The Public Petitions Committee has asked us to take into account and co-ordinate the views of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, the Finance Committee, the Rural Affairs Committee and the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, as appropriate. It may also be helpful to other committees if we find out whether they want additional information. We also need to get information from those committees. Before asking the members of the Transport and the Environment Committee for their comments, I invite Christine to speak to us.
Thank you, convener—both for moving the item up the agenda and for allowing me a few moments to speak. I see that two very capable proponents of the Campaign for Borders Rail are here. I am convener of the cross-party group on Borders rail, and Murray Tosh and Robin Harper are vice-conveners. I am also on the Public Petitions Committee, which saw the Transport and the Environment Committee as the lead committee. I am sure that the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, John McAllion, would not mind my saying that this issue is not simply a transport issue, which is why the petition has been referred to all the other committees that Andy Kerr mentioned. We are talking about the regeneration of the Borders.My two colleagues in the cross-party group will be able to speak in great detail about what is happening in the Borders. This is not simply a petition from the heart; it is a petition from the head. The Borders rail forum comprises MPs, MSPs, MEPs, councillors and other groups. Those people are working in a very pragmatic way. I am sure that Murray will expand on that—unfortunately, Robin has not been able to come down as often—and give members useful background information.Like, I am sure, other members of the cross-party group, I hope that we will in due course hold a debate on the Borders railway line. Because the debate would concern the regeneration of a whole area, I hope that it would give the Parliament an opportunity to prove itself. That is my pitch.
I would be all in favour of having a debate.
It has been recommended that we identify additional information or briefing requirements. I assume that the Executive will be responding to the Scott Wilson report at some stage, but it would be useful if we could ask the Executive to identify potential funding mechanisms and the range of powers that are open to it, local authorities and other agencies. We need to know what UK funding could be available to allow this project to succeed. Because the Transport Bill is still going through the House of Commons, and because the strategic rail authority is not wholly in place yet and its relationship with the Executive is not entirely clear, there is a lot of imprecision.
I know that we will be getting written information back from the other committees, but would it be an idea to take evidence directly, even if only briefly, from local interest groups? Would they appreciate the opportunity to speak directly to the committee?
The difficulty is that that would delay the report. However, Lynn Tullis and I will discuss our work programme and decide how we can usefully take evidence.
It would be useful to let people speak for themselves.
A simplified summary of the report is being produced for us to consider. When that is ready, we can bring people in for questioning.
So, we will seek the views of parliamentary committees on the petition, before further consideration, and we will have an additional briefing on funding issues. We also take on board the possibility of building into our programme at least one session of oral evidence from local interest groups. Okey dokey. Thank you.
In this meeting
Everything on 4 Apr 2000 →- Scottish Parliament Transport and the Environment Committee Tuesday 4 April 2000 (Afternoon) Committee business · 3
- National Parks (Scotland) Bill Bill debate · 72
- Petition Petitions · 10
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 21
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.