Official Report 363KB pdf
Rosyth International Container Terminal (Harbour Revision) Order 2013 [Draft]
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 17th meeting in 2013 of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. I remind everyone in the room to switch off their mobile phones and other devices, as they affect the broadcasting system. During the meeting, some members may consult their tablets in order to access the papers for the meeting, which we provide in digital format.
There is an interest that I want to declare in relation to this agenda item. My son works for the consultant company that had in-depth involvement in the proposal that is before us. He has no knowledge of the work that was done, has had no involvement in it—nor has any member of his team—and will have no such involvement in the future. However, I thought that it would be prudent to bring that to the attention of the committee.
Thanks very much, Mary.
Thank you, convener. I also thank the committee for inviting me to discuss the draft Rosyth International Container Terminal (Harbour Revision) Order 2013.
We have questions. Local member, Angus MacDonald, would have liked to be here, but could not come because of a bereavement in his family. I understand that other members will transmit to the proceedings questions that he would have posed.
I want to get in at the beginning to ask about the need for the development and the capacity that it will deliver.
We will go through the questions, and perhaps you can bring that up at the end or as a supplementary.
Okay.
The committee has received a number of submissions—I think particularly of RSPB Scotland’s submission—that express huge concerns about the damage that might be done to the area of the Firth of Forth that is involved. The proposed site is directly next to a protected site and the concern is that not enough investigation has been done into providing alternative sites for migratory birds. There is also concern about the habitat in the area. How much investigation has been done? What is the evidence that no damage will be caused to birds’ habitats and other aspects of the environment?
I will make two points, after which Chris Wilcock can add information. As I said, such issues and objections were considered in the extensive public local inquiry. The inquiry was lengthy and involved three reporters, so we have been through a long process so far.
I do not have much to add. I stress that there is still the marine licence process to go through and that protections have been put in place to prevent any works—including the landward elements—from taking place before that process is complete.
RSPB Scotland’s submission says:
If the order were made today, the work would not start. The applicant cannot start work until the further investigations have been undertaken. Those investigations are not just surveys and examinations that will tick a box, if you like; the application must be submitted to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. The Government has shown that it takes seriously the issues that have been raised. Similar issues were raised about the construction of the Clackmannanshire bridge, where there were similar sensitivities.
Has another site been identified for the migratory birds?
No.
An identification process would be required if it were determined that the project would have an impact. However, as the minister has said and as was mentioned by the reporters, there is insufficient information on that. That is why the matter will be assessed in the marine licence process. Once that information is available, ministers will take a view as to whether the project would have an impact. If it would have an impact but ministers were minded that it should still proceed, that would be the point at which alternative sites would have to be identified. I stress that we are not yet at that stage. There is still the marine licence process to be gone through, which will require the provision of such environmental information.
I have a brief supplementary question on that. In its written submission, RSPB Scotland states:
There are other legal considerations relating to the timetabling, but that was the recommendation of the inquiry reporters. We also believe that Marine Scotland is best placed to undertake that assessment. Stuart Foubister may want to comment on the legal aspects.
Under the powers in the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994, where more than one consent is involved it is for ministers to decide which is the most appropriate authority to carry out the assessment. In this case, ministers have taken the view that that is Marine Scotland, through the marine licence application process.
Why cannot the two things be done at the same time? Why not have the impact assessment done before coming to Parliament with the order?
There is no particular need to have the two things done at the same time.
That would address the concerns of the environmental bodies and other objectors.
No works can commence until a marine licence is granted.
We have gone through the matter in substantial depth. The public local inquiry that was held considered the issue and the reporters’ recommendation was to do it this way. I agree with the process; it is the best way to do it, and Marine Scotland will provide the best people to undertake the examination. There is an assurance that no work will begin on site—in the river or on land—until that process has been gone through. I believe that that is sufficient reassurance.
Good morning. I want to make sure that I have understood the process correctly. You have said that no work will commence until a marine licence application has been properly assessed, considered and approved by Marine Scotland. What assessment was made during the public local inquiry and the application process of the potential impacts of the development?
There was an environmental impact assessment, and the issues on the landward side, which related to multimodal transport and noise, were considered in full at the public local inquiry. Having been involved in one or two such inquiries in the past, I know that there is substantial investigation and examination of the issues. That took place during the public local inquiry and in pre-consultation with the applicant.
Were any potential impacts or mitigation measures identified in that process?
Yes. A number of mitigation measures were suggested, including a screening wall for landward applications to mitigate any sound and visual impact issues. Various measures to limit noise were suggested, for example restricting working hours, but those issues will also be considered in the construction and environmental management plan. A lot of attention has been paid to concerns, not least those of the local community, about the impact of construction and subsequent operations.
That is helpful.
Yes. This comes back to my response to Mr Griffin that the two-consent system in the habitats regulations, which are the domestic implementing measures for the birds and habitats directives, provides the ability to defer the appropriate assessment to the appropriate consent procedure. In this case, ministers have taken the view that the appropriate procedure is the marine licensing process.
So are the environmental organisations being overly pessimistic?
I think that they are wrong in law.
Minister, you mentioned concerns expressed by local residents during the public local inquiry. I understand that some of those concerns had been addressed in article 17(6) of the harbour revision order but that the article has subsequently been withdrawn, much to local residents’ concern. Why was that provision dropped and how might you reassure local residents that their concerns have been fully taken on board and will be mitigated during this exercise?
I am grateful for the chance to clarify the situation with regard to what I know from approaches by local residents has been a source of concern and to reassure people that this is a straightforward technical issue. The article in question was considered to be inappropriately drafted because its terms were a bit vague for a statutory order. I have made it clear that we are committed to maintaining in the draft construction and environmental management plan the same level of protection that was set out in article 17(6), and that plan will be further consulted on before it is finally approved.
It is very likely that additional protections and clauses will be required in the construction and environmental management plan to cover the marine licence process, should ministers get to the point of granting a licence. From looking at the process to date and the process for similar projects, we think that the plan is likely to contain more requirements instead of being diluted, which is what I think people were concerned would happen.
What mitigation measures came out of the PLI process and what reassurances are being provided to residents that the development’s impact on their lives will be minimised?
I have already mentioned one or two issues that are of concern to local residents, which are mainly to do with potential noise from the construction of the site and its operation. Those issues are still live. As I say, they will now be dealt with through the CEMP, so measures to mitigate those and other issues, which I am sure Chris Wilcock can mention, will still be considered. As I said, this is not the end of the process, and nothing can happen until those issues have been seen through under the CEMP. Despite the fact that we are asking for the order to be agreed today, there is a further process of consultation with local people on issues to do with noise.
It is worth adding that the construction and environmental management plan is an integral part of the order process—it has to be approved, along with a marine licence being granted, before any works can commence. It also has plans that sit below it for many of those mitigation elements. The detail of those will become clearer once the move to the construction period has taken place. A traffic management plan, a materials management plan and a construction methodology plan are annexed to the current version, but there will be additional, more detailed documents. As the reporter has recommended and as would be standard process, bodies such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, SNH and Fife Council will obviously be very much involved in approving those documents and in dealing with any issues in relation to them.
It is worth saying that we have an unprecedented level of control and mitigation in the order and in the CEMP, which will be approved subject to consultation, so we have treated those issues and the concerns of local people very seriously.
Most modern container terminals operate on a multimodal basis with road and rail access. The NPF2 describes the facility as a multimodal container terminal facility, but I do not see any plans for rail access. When is that likely to happen? Alternatively, will the freight that arrives to be exported from Rosyth come purely on the road network?
It is worth saying that there is currently the ability to use rail, although I acknowledge that there are substantial constraints on that. I have looked into the issue and I am satisfied that Babcock will continue to work with Network Rail, which is key to the issue, to consider any improvements that might be required if the demand for movement of freight by rail from the site reaches a level to justify that kind of investment. However, the movement of goods from the terminal will be a matter for the shippers and the operators. There is rail access at present, although it is substantially constrained and it can be improved if sufficient demand exists to justify that level of investment.
Who would be liable for the costs of any infrastructure improvement?
First of all, there would be a discussion between Network Rail and the operators. If there was to be a cost to the public purse—I am not saying that there would be—the Scottish ministers would be involved as well. Such a development is not envisaged in Network Rail’s current plans, so it would be for the operator to take the initiative on that. My feeling is that that would happen as and when the level of demand justified that level of investment in rail works. I have no idea what additional improvements would have to be carried out, so it is difficult to discuss that at this stage. The discussion would be had first of all between Network Rail and the operator.
If there were any public funding to improve infrastructure, would that constitute state aid?
Again, we do not know whether that will happen at all and, if it did happen, what the implications for state aid would be. All I will say is that the Government always ensures that we are compliant with state aid regulations, and we would ensure that that was the case in relation to any such project. However, I point out that we do not have any plans for public investment in this. As I am sure the member is aware, there have been cases in the past in which private operators of sites have funded improvements to the rail network to facilitate the movement of goods, and that is a possibility in this case, too.
The basis for the project is an increase in freight movements. Babcock has submitted its projections, which resulted in the project appearing in NPF2. In those projections, has Babcock given an indication of when demand would reach a particular level to justify that rail investment?
Its submission to NPF2 must have been made in 2007, when that was agreed. I do not know whether it has been updated since that time.
So there is no indication as to when the majority of the goods will stop being moved by road and move on to rail.
It is a market-led process. Others have said that there is not the market there for this. It is a matter for the developer and the operator. At the point when they start to see the demand that they want to see, they will have to take decisions on how they are going to transport goods in and out, but it will not happen until that happens.
There is a requirement in the construction and environmental management plan for them to outline how the existing railhead could be used and how they propose to integrate it into the terminal should those facilities be required, as the minister mentioned, given market demand. Again, that is something that we will be looking for in the detailed plans as part of the CEMP process.
The committee has received written evidence that states that there is already sufficient container port capacity in Scotland and competition in the market. The Scottish logistics report that was commissioned by the Scottish Freight Transport Association and published last autumn stated:
Perhaps it is best if I outline the way in which we come at the matter and what we consider. The requirements of the Harbours Act 1964 are that I must be
My colleague Angus MacDonald has concerns about what would happen to the Grangemouth area if the development went ahead. If I picked you up correctly, you said that any development of the harbours should be done in an economic manner. His suggestion is that it is possible that business will simply transfer from Grangemouth to Rosyth and we will have the worst of both worlds in that we will lose jobs at Grangemouth, which will have a detrimental economic impact on that area, and there will be an environmental impact on the communities around Rosyth because of increased road traffic.
As I said, we foresee longer-term growth in the market, but first and foremost this is an application under the Harbours Act 1964, so I have to deal with it in those terms. The wider implications were dealt with in NPF2 and it complies with that. I have made a judgment given the remit that I have and I am satisfied that it comes within that remit.
I have a quick question on the level of economic activity that will be generated as a result of this project. There has been a suggestion that there may be as many as 500 construction jobs. The number of possible permanent jobs ranges from 47 to 200. Do you have any explanation for the variation in the number suggested, or does that simply confirm the point about the inability to predict how the market will operate?
You are right to say that there is unpredictability in the market, which has changed substantially since 2007 and, I hope, is about to change again. The number of construction jobs was estimated to be approximately 500—those are not my figures—and that figure was not disputed at the PLI. Babcock’s potential operator then estimated that there would be around 46 jobs at the start, increasing to 197 jobs when the development is fully operational. There was considerable debate over those figures at the PLI and they are contested—I would not deny that. However, the figure of 500 for construction was not disputed.
Is the NPF2 document the one to which the Government must adhere, given that it is a number of years since it was drafted?
That is the one that is on the books now, although NPF3 is in process as well. It may be possible—I can be guided by officials here—to take changes into account. That is standard, where there is a structural or local plan for example. One can take changes into account and one is not completely bound by the NPF. However, the guidance that we are using now is NPF2, which will be superseded by NPF3.
I agree with what the minister has said. For any harbour, anywhere in Scotland, the policy is market driven and proposals for developments can come forward at any time. Even if this project had not been an NPF2 project, it would have been open to Babcock to come forward. Indeed, many of the ports that are being brought forward for consideration in relation to renewables developments, which may or may not happen, are not in the NPF2 document.
A Government policy decision in NPF2 was that additional freight capacity was required. It was stated that the capacity would be exhausted by 2013, which does not appear to be the case. Is the Government still of a mind that additional freight capacity is required? When you are considering this application, do you not take into account your own public bodies’ reports, in particular those of Scottish Enterprise, which has stated that the additional capacity is not required?
As I said earlier, we believe that there are prospects for longer-term growth but we recognise that the world has changed substantially since 2007 when NPF2 was approved. Nonetheless, we have to consider these applications. We believe that there is a potential for longer-term growth. A private developer has come forward with this proposal, so we would have had to consider it anyway. However, notwithstanding the Scottish Enterprise report, we believe that there are prospects here for longer-term growth.
Mary Fee?
Mark’s last question was the one that I wanted to ask so I will not repeat it, thank you.
Alex, did you have anything further to add?
We have covered a lot of ground. I would like to go back specifically to the multimodal elements and connectivity. It seems to me, as we look at market issues, that if this project gets up and running it will rely heavily on road connectivity. The construction of the new Forth crossing means that there cannot be an area in Scotland that has been subject to higher levels of traffic modelling than the one that we are talking about. Has the traffic modelling included the impact on the local road network of using Rosyth as a container terminal?
The general traffic modelling that was done for the Forth replacement crossing was based on the idea that the existing Forth road bridge had reached capacity, as well as on the issue of the cables. The capacity issue meant that the new Forth replacement crossing was necessary. There will be substantial additional capacity, as you would expect, because the new crossing will be bigger than the existing bridge and is in addition to that crossing. That will provide additional capacity.
Modelling was undertaken as part of the development proposal and a further traffic management plan will be proposed. Transport Scotland consulted internally on whether there were transport issues around the Rosyth container terminal and there did not seem to be any.
We have heard some speculation about what might happen to the marketplace over time. The minister has speculated about growth in the market. We have also heard speculation about whether competition might concentrate container traffic in one area or otherwise. Have you taken into account the potential worst-case scenario, in which the development is a tremendous success, corners the majority of the Scottish container transport market and has to rely on road transport and nothing else?
We have taken that into account. We currently have multimodal access, which is, I admit, less than perfect in relation to rail. We are aware of the existing opportunities: there is a rail link that could be improved if demand takes off to the extent that Alex Johnstone suggests. That will be the way of things. If the terminal is successful in the way that you describe, people will want to make it more efficient. As you know, the Scottish Government makes a number of funds available for moving freight traffic from road to rail, such as the freight facilities grant and its successors. We will be able to respond to the success that you describe and make sure that access is multimodal. That will, however, require additional investment and that will follow on the success of the terminal.
I have one other issue to follow up about the total capacity that exists within Scotland. As the minister has already pointed out, when NPF2 was drafted and this proposal was included in it, projections were rather different from what they are likely to be today. We have not had from the minister an indication of what is happening to projections for container transport in Scotland. I presume that it has dropped significantly, but what is the current trend?
You have seen the recent trend, which is a worldwide slowdown in container traffic.
Is the slowdown continuing, or did we have a substantial slowdown that has now been reversed? Is there an upward trend that we will have to monitor?
I have said previously that we expect to see growth, but that it will be in the longer term. We are still at that part of the economic cycle. Is there anything more specific that you would like to mention, Chris?
I have nothing to add to what the minister said.
Are you telling us that there is no measurable upward trend in container transport?
No, I cannot say that. All that I am saying is that the general economic situation is starting to improve, and it tends to be the guide for container traffic around the world. As you know, economic activity drives the amount of container traffic. Beyond that, we do not have any specific figures. We can say what we expect growth to be and what it is currently in relation to the economic cycle. As it has done previously, container traffic tends to follow the economic cycle.
As there are no further questions and the minister has no further remarks, we move on to the next agenda item, which is formal consideration of motion S4M-07553. Minister, I invite you to speak further, if you want to, and to move the motion.
Do members have any further comments or questions for the minister?
The question is, that motion S4M-07553, in the name of Keith Brown, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
I thank the witnesses and briefly suspend the meeting to allow them to leave the room.
Home Energy Assistance Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/253)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of regulations under the negative procedure. The regulations amend the Home Energy Assistance Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2013 and also amend the eligibility for the grant to include those in receipt of a council tax reduction.
Previous
AttendanceNext
Petitions