Forth Crossing Bill Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Official Report 438KB pdf

---

Forth Crossing Bill

Good morning everybody and welcome to the 13th meeting of the Forth Crossing Bill Committee in 2010. As ever, I invite everyone to ensure that their mobile phones and pagers are off so that they do not interfere with the sound equipment.

This morning’s business is to dispose of the stage 2 amendments following the publication of the stage 2 report. However, our first item of business is consideration of an inadmissible amendment. I welcome Mrs Mary Mulligan to the committee. She has indicated that she wishes to lodge an amendment to the bill. The proposed amendment has been ruled inadmissible under the rules set out in the Parliament’s standing orders, specifically rule 9C.14.6(e). I will ask Mrs Mulligan to contribute to the detail in just a moment. However, the proposed amendment is inadmissible because the construction and operation of the route arising from it would impact on the interests of people connected with the route, and those people have not, of course, had an opportunity to comment on that possible impact.

This, in effect, is the same situation that the promoter faced when introducing the bill, in that the promoter was required to identify and notify all those people whose interests would be affected by the works proposed in the bill. Those people were then given quite an extensive period of time in which to study the bill and the accompanying documents to determine what impact the proposal might have on them, and thereafter to lodge objections setting out the nature of the objection and specifying how the objector would be adversely affected by the bill’s provisions.

This is not the first time during the passage of a bill that something has occurred that has brought in a new set of prospective objectors. However, I believe that on every previous occasion it was the promoter that was the prime mover of the alteration. I cite the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill in that regard.

The guidance on hybrid bills states that it is for this committee to decide what material would be needed to inform prospective objectors of what the proposed amendment would involve. The committee is familiar with the detail of what Mrs Mulligan is proposing; it was included in her objection and that of others. We considered the route options at stage 1 of the bill process in some detail, and again at the first part of stage 2 in the context of some of the objections. However, we are not looking at the substance of the proposed amendment here today; our task is to determine what material would have to accompany the proposed amendment to inform affected persons of the impact that it would have on them, and to determine what period would be required to allow them an opportunity to lodge objections.

By way of illustration, when the bill was introduced the promoter was required to produce the following to support it: a policy memorandum; explanatory notes; a financial memorandum; maps, plans and sectional plans; a book of reference; an environmental statement, which was, as the committee will be aware, a very considerable part of the presented information; and a heritable interests statement.

Before we decide on the matter as a committee, I am delighted to ask Mary Mulligan whether she would like to speak about the material that should accompany the proposed amendment. After that, we might have some questions for you, Mrs Mulligan. Over to you.

Thank you very much, convener, and thank you to the committee for allowing me to make a few comments on this process. I will keep my comments short, because I know that you have already looked at the substance of the proposed amendment. However, I point out that, in fact, my proposed amendment does not seek option 2 south; it seeks a route that is more similar to the one in the “Setting Forth” document. That is material, because of the impact that it would have on people who might be affected and the issue that you just raised, convener, about ensuring that all those who would be affected have the right to comment on it.

Clearly, my immediate concern in raising this objection is about the village of Newton and the surrounding environment. However, this is also a national issue. Because of the importance of the route for commercial and business traffic, it has always seemed ridiculous to me that we could build a 21st century crossing of the Forth that leads people on to a road that is not even a trunk road. I will come back later to the strategic importance of the route.

The convener has raised points about the process and about the difficulties that my community and I have faced. It has been difficult to get the promoter to engage with our objection and to develop a coherent analysis of our proposal. Only at the assessor hearing did the promoter finally produce a plan with some outline costings—costings that we had never had an opportunity to discuss. There has never been professional support either for the representative—in this case, the MSP—or for the local people to help them to prepare necessary information such as environmental impact assessments, ground searches, present market costs and details of the possible impact of the alternative route on people.

I compare that experience with my experience of the Airdrie to Bathgate line. For that project, my objections in relation to the positioning of stations were supported by West Lothian Council, as were the objections of colleagues. As a result, there was professional input to those objections, which sustained me and the community. That has not been possible on this occasion, because the promoter is the Government and Transport Scotland, which seem to hold all the cards. Often, the case that we have argued has seemed to be the nimby case of, “We don’t want the traffic through our village.” However the issue is much wider and relates to the national picture and to people from beyond the boundaries of Newton.

Had I known that my amendment would be inadmissible and that I would not be able to lodge it at stage 2, I might have behaved differently. I might have stayed out of the earlier discussions and reserved my position until stage 2. MSPs always expect to have the opportunity to lodge amendments at stage 2. Although the amendment is inadmissible, I still have the opportunity to lodge it at stage 3, and to await the view of the Presiding Officer. However, I am very conscious that that will not happen until the end of the bill process, which is not necessarily the time to discuss details. I am also conscious that, should the bill be delayed at that stage, we would risk losing it altogether, partly because of the timing of the upcoming elections. I do not want that to happen. Like many others around the table, I support the creation of a new Forth crossing. However, I also have a duty to protect my constituents. Therein lies the dilemma for an MSP.

I totally accept that my tactics may have been wrong, and that I did not understand the process as I should have done. However, I hope that members will accept that I am a fairly diligent MSP and was trying to do the best for my constituents—working alongside them, and presenting their objections as early as possible. That seemed to be the right thing to do, but I am left now wondering whether it was.

I welcome the fact that the committee’s agenda today contains an opportunity to consider the whole process, but members will understand my concern that the review will come too late for me and my constituents. My constituents and others will be using what I consider to be an inappropriate route between the bridge and the M9.

I am disappointed that my amendment is inadmissible. I understand why it is inadmissible, but I would of course have liked the opportunity to pursue it further.

10:45

The committee has always been entirely satisfied with Mrs Mulligan’s engagement. The concerns of her constituents always informed her contributions to our discussions at stage 1, and have done so again at stage 2.

Before we make a decision, would any other members of the committee like to contribute?

In order to understand the proposed amendment, have you an idea of what materials would be required? Is there any reason to produce less material for your proposed amendment than was required from the promoter in the first instance? Do you have a view on that? At this stage, can you provide or would you wish to provide such documents as you feel necessary?

I referred to, for example, the environmental impact assessment and a consultation with those who would be affected, which would be needed to support the proposed amendment. However, I am not in a position to provide all of those; some of what would be required is fairly technical. That is why I said earlier that we need professional help. The fact that the promoter has avoided any discussion of that has left us with nothing to argue against. The promoter finally produced figures for how much it would cost at the assessor hearings stage. That figure came out of the blue to me, so we needed to go away and try to analyse it. However, how could we—an MSP and a community—challenge figures that came from the professionals, particularly when they could change fairly frequently, even during the bill process? It is difficult for us to do the necessary work to support an objection of this size without having additional support to do so.

Who would be affected by your proposal? Have they been involved at all in formulating it?

Those involved would be any residential or business premises adjacent to the proposed new route. They have clearly had the opportunity to comment on the general principles of the bill and the fact that there would be a new Forth crossing within a few miles of their properties. However, I accept totally that they should have an opportunity to comment in more detail on the more direct impact of the alternative route. I therefore accept that there are people who would need time. I just wonder whether, given that my proposed option was always known about and was always going to be put forward by me and the community at an early stage, it should have been part of the overall consideration. I remember attending meetings with Transport Scotland at which the alternative route was still under discussion, because it had been in “Setting Forth” and had been a consideration—sorry, a slightly different route south was considered at the early stages—so it was not as if it came out of the blue. However, because the promoter decided that it was not the preferred option, it was never considered in the necessary detail.

The question for the committee in the first instance is whether we feel that there is any reason why less material ought to be available to prospective objectors arising out of this proposal than was the case for the original scheme. Has anybody heard anything that suggests that there should be less information?

Personally, given the scale of the proposal, I cannot see any justification for there being less documentation, because that would disadvantage anyone who might object to the alternative proposal. That poses a problem for me.

Is that the view of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

In your remarks, Mrs Mulligan, and in the questions, I think that we alighted on the extent of the information that would require to be produced. For example, I referred to a policy memorandum; explanatory notes; a financial memorandum; maps, plans and sections; a book of reference; an environmental statement; and a heritable interests statement. I suppose the question is—and to some extent you have addressed it in your engagement with us this morning—whether you would wish to produce that documentation or are in a position to do so. If not, I suppose that I need to ask how you would like to take matters forward and whether you wish to proceed with producing an amendment, given that you will have recognised that item 3 of our business this morning is consideration of a paper that will review the hybrid bills process. I fully appreciate your concluding remarks, and that that will be, in a sense, an after-the-event analysis in this instance. However, we would seek to address your points.

I recognise the work that would need to be done, and I am mindful of the bill’s timescale. I suspect that, regardless of how long you were able to give us to produce the required information, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do so, so I reluctantly accept that the committee is correct that, without that information, it could not accept the proposed amendment.

Therefore, formally, you will not proceed with the proposed amendment at this stage.

No, I will not.

I am grateful to you. Thank you very much. There will be a short suspension to allow the minister to join us.

10:51 Meeting suspended.

10:52 On resuming—