Mr. John Sydenham:

The issue of cost-benefit analysis has been mentioned by previous speakers. We are in the process of developing the scheme. As members may be aware, it is a broader scheme. The original scheme involved raising the railway line. There were questions around whether that would solve the problem completely. The general consensus was that it would alleviate but not completely eradicate the issue. RPS is now looking at a broader scheme which will potentially have a far better impact, keeping the railway line in that catchment area open for longer. Due to the fact that it is a larger scheme, we logically conclude that it will be more expensive. Having said that, we have not seen the final scheme. The technical viability of the scheme is one thing, the cost is something else. Those two things can be determined reasonably quickly and are quite clear. Issues arise when the benefits are considered. Mention has been made of the rail link's importance to the region, the spatial strategy and all of that. I do not wish to dictate how this is looked at, but it is important that all benefits, tangible and intangible, are looked at very carefully. The gap between the costs and the benefits will have to be taken in to consideration. That is the answer to Deputy Fitzmaurice's question. We have to look seriously at the cost and the benefits. There is an issue if the gap between the two is substantial.

As has been said, we are spending taxpayers' money and we have to look very carefully at economic viability. That said, we will look at anything with an open mind and I can give that assurance. The agencies are working very well together and it is important we look at all aspects of the costs and benefits of this and then make decisions on how it will be taken forward.