Parliamentary Bureau Motions
The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motions.
I ask Joe FitzPatrick to move motion S4M-07877, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Rosyth International Container Terminal (Harbour Revision) Order 2013 [draft] be approved.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]
I call Alex Johnstone to speak against the motion.
17:12
Last Wednesday morning, the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee took evidence and subsequently voted on the Rosyth International Container Terminal (Harbour Revision) Order 2013.
At that meeting, we had the opportunity to question the Minister for Transport and Veterans and officials. A number of questions were asked, including on issues relating to the multimodal provision for access to such a terminal and whether ultimately only roads would be used for that purpose. There were also questions about the capacity and whether projections that were made on the decisions surrounding the national planning framework 2 paper some years before were accurate and appropriate.
The Government initially included mitigation measures in article 17(6), but I am puzzled and disconcerted that they have been removed with only a promise from the minister. However good he is, he could be replaced tomorrow and those assurances could be dispensed with. I hope that the member agrees that those mitigation measures should be included in the order.
My other concern is that the process has been salami sliced with the marine licensing process considering major parts of the environmental impact, including dredging of the Forth in a special protection area. Does the member consider those as important factors and that the order should therefore be rejected?
I consider those factors to be important, and they should have been appropriately taken into account. It has to be said that the mitigation of the environmental impacts as well as other noise and other concerns—
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes.
I remind the member that he has only three minutes.
The member raised the issue of roads being the only way to access the proposed facility. RSPB Scotland said that, if the order is approved by the affirmative procedure, that approval could be in breach of European Union law. RSPB Scotland believes that the order should not be made until an environmental impact assessment has been completed and the results taken into account. Does the member share that view?
Mr Johnstone, you have under a minute.
I certainly acknowledge the member’s concern.
Members around the chamber have expressed significant concerns about the clarity of the answers given on some of the issues. Although only a minority of us will be prepared to vote against the motion, I believe that the concerns are well founded. At the committee meeting last Wednesday, the result of the vote was four to three. The vote will not be so close on this occasion, but I think that we have a duty to ensure that we take the appropriate action at this time.
I call on Keith Brown to respond.
17:15
I thank you, Presiding Officer, for the chance to speak on the order, which I believe offers benefits for Scotland and the local area by providing for the development of modern port facilities, providing jobs both in construction—an estimated 500 jobs—and in operation, and contributing to our economy.
I seek assurances from the minister today that, if the order is passed, the range of community and environmental concerns, as well as the concern that the EIA has not yet been completed, will be monitored and acted on if necessary.
There are two further processes that should give the assurances that the member seeks. The first is the construction environmental management plan—the CEMP—and the second involves the marine licence being approved, which is still to be done. No work can take place either on the river or onshore until the marine licence is approved.
The project was included in the second national planning framework—NPF2—and I remain of the view that the proposal meets the criteria outlined at that time. The site has rail infrastructure, which can be brought into use if the demand is forthcoming. I also recognise that there has been on-going local objection to the proposal. However, that objection and many others were considered at a lengthy public local inquiry.
In proposing to make the order, I have taken into account the majority of the recommendations from the inquiry and some additional changes following the further period of consultation. The changes include mitigation measures and safeguards, including a requirement that the works cannot commence until the CEMP, which I have mentioned, is refined and approved by the Scottish ministers following further consultation with local communities and environmental bodies. I can assure the Parliament that that will not be deleted from the draft considered by the reporters.
I acknowledge that further assessment of the impacts of the proposed dredging is required. I consider that, in line with the reporters’ recommendations and in keeping with habitats regulations, that can best be carried out using the expertise of Marine Scotland in considering an application for a marine licence, without which the project cannot proceed, as I have said.
I believe that the project will strengthen our commitment to a diverse and market-led ports industry and provide our manufacturers and importers with choice in moving their goods to markets. I commend the order to members.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of a further Parliamentary Bureau motion. I ask Joe FitzPatrick to move motion S4M-07878, on stage 2 of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees, under Rule 9.7.4, to consider the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill at stage 2 in the following order: sections 26 and 27 (by the Health and Sport Committee) and sections 1 to 25 and sections 28 to 31 (by the Justice Committee).—[Joe Fitzpatrick.]
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.