Parliamentary Bureau Motions
Before I call the minister, I ask members that, if they must have conversations, they do so in whispered tones rather than just chat among themselves. I call the minister to respond to Patrick Harvie. Mr Stevenson, you have up to three minutes, too.
16:57
The Aberdeen western peripheral route is of course somewhat more than simply a strategic road for the north-east of Scotland: it is important for the whole of Scotland and substantial economic benefits will accrue from it. I will turn my attention to a number of points that Patrick Harvie raised.
On the Aarhus convention and the habitats directive, those matters are of course under active consideration elsewhere, and I am inhibited in what I can say specifically about them, apart from making the obvious point that this Government would take no action in such matters if we believed that they were not legal. On matters of cost, I shall meet, as part of a regular programme of meetings, with the chief executives of Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council and the leader of the latter council in about nine days, and the issue of costs will be included in our discussions. They have been content with our approach thus far.
One of Patrick Harvie’s key suggestions is that every project that has a carbon impact should simply not be proceeded with. Well, of course, were that to be the argument, it would mean that we would not spend on costs to insulate houses to improve their energy efficiency, because there is a carbon cost. We have always said that, across our programme as a whole, we will seek to deliver on the targets that we as a Government and Parliament committed to when we passed the Climate Change (Scotland) Act last June.
It is appropriate to draw members’ attention to another motion on which we will shortly vote that relates to the carbon reduction commitment energy efficiency scheme. That scheme, which was debated in committee in the form on which we will decide on it at decision time today, will lead at United Kingdom level to the reduction of 4 million tonnes of CO2 per annum. The Scottish share of that is around a third of a million tonnes. I concede that the effect of the Aberdeen western peripheral route will be an addition of 10,000 tonnes. The decisions that we make at five o’clock today will therefore have the effect of reducing the carbon emissions that we in totality are responsible for by some 320,000 tonnes. The totality of the programme is the important point. The Aberdeen western peripheral route is a vital link for the north-east of Scotland that is, I think, broadly supported—we shall see at decision time—by members from across the chamber. I am happy to endorse the motions that my colleague has moved, which I commend to the Parliament.
I have often remarked how amazing it is that the language of sustainable development has been taken up by political parties right across the chamber. Only one thing amazes me more: how quickly that language is dropped whenever a road order comes up for discussion.
Every political party in the Parliament is committed—at least on paper—to concepts such as sustainable transport and climate change targets, but I honestly cannot remember a single example of a major road scheme that has been ditched because of its environmental impact.
Each time I raise the challenge, I am told “We must strike a balance, you see, between the environment and the economy,” as though the latter could possibly exist without depending on the former. In reality, the balance is always shifted decisively in favour of short-term and shortsighted economic considerations.
Stewart Stevenson answered my objections on carbon emissions from the scheme in committee last week by telling me that he did not recognise the figure of a 9 per cent increase in emissions from this project alone. Well, he should recognise it, because it is from the environmental statement that was published in 2007, with which I am sure he is familiar, and is in paragraph 58.3.9, if he wants the reference.
Nobody will be surprised that the Greens remain opposed to this nonsense of a road project, and I will not be surprised if we are the only ones opposed to it. However, I ask other members to consider why we are being asked to nod through the road orders when three key questions remain outstanding. First, does the scheme meet the requirements of the Aarhus convention, which this Government claims to support, as did the previous Administration? A complaint under the convention is currently under investigation by the Compliance Committee, with local campaigners expected to give evidence in the coming weeks. Secondly, does the scheme breach the habitats directive? Again, a complaint has been deemed admissible and accepted, and in this case the European Commission is investigating. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, how much will the scheme cost? Its final price tag—either the burden on council tax payers or on the Scottish budget—is unknown and uncapped.
On any one of those three grounds, the decision to go ahead with the scheme is premature. That is quite apart from the wider question of a sustainable transport policy and whether any Scottish Administration will ever have one. The decision to go ahead has been taken before we consider the prospect of a judicial review, which I know the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change feels unable to comment on.
The Green view is clear: the road is a bad idea and should not be built. I know that most members will disagree. However, why should any member be relaxed about signing a blank cheque for a project whose compliance with legally binding obligations is in so much doubt?
The questions on those motions will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of six Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Bruce Crawford to move en bloc motions S3M-5859 to S3M-5864, on the approval of Scottish statutory instruments on the Aberdeen western peripheral route.
Motions moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010 be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010 be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) (Craibstone Junction) Special Road Scheme 2010 be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the A96 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010 be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010 be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010 be approved.—[Bruce Crawford.]
16:54