Forth Crossing Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Forth Crossing Bill. Members should have with them the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings, which I, as Presiding Officer, have agreed. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. There will be a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate, and 30 seconds for all other divisions.
Section 70—Control of noise: Control of Pollution Act 1974
Group 1 is on notices and orders in relation to noise from the carrying out of the Forth crossing works. Amendment 2, in the name of Margaret Smith, is grouped with amendment 3.
My amendments 2 and 3 are on local authorities’ rights relating to noise and vibration during the construction period.
It is clear that the scale and nature of the scheme and its proximity to homes mean that my constituents, particularly in Queensferry and Kirkliston, will be affected by construction noise for many years. More than 95 per cent of the affected homes are in my constituency area. The issue does not affect other councils to the same extent and scale as it affects the City of Edinburgh Council. For those constituents, concerns about the impact of construction noise have not lessened during the parliamentary process.
In advance of publication of the bill, at least some comfort was afforded by the fact that legislation was already in place that could be used to challenge construction and practices if noise disturbance was too great. The relevant acts are the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under the 1974 act, a local authority can serve a notice on a contractor should noise be deemed to be excessive. Such complaints usually come to light through a member of the public contacting their council. The council first decides if the complaint is justified and, if it is, officers can take action. The role is that of an independent arbiter, who is as likely to advise a member of the public who makes a complaint that the activity is reasonable and necessary as they are to do anything else. Those safeguards are currently provided in law across Scotland.
However, the bill as introduced would have removed those safeguards completely, so that local authorities would have had none of the powers under the acts to which I referred. I objected to that, as did many local authorities, the local community council and others. I did not see why my constituents—residents who will be affected by bridge and road construction for five or six years—should not have the same recourse to safeguards that are provided in law as have been available in relation to all previous transport projects that the Parliament has dealt with.
Following the stage 2 process and negotiations, Transport Scotland shifted its position and decided that local authorities’ powers under the 1974 and 1990 acts would not be repealed, but would be limited under sections 70 and 71. The limitation is that compliance with ministers’ duties in relation to noise in the code of construction practice is a special defence against any notice that is served. The essence of that is that, although local authorities will have their powers in theory, Transport Scotland is trying to limit some of the protections in practice. The introduction of that special defence limits the way in which authorities can take action should there be any problems.
That breaks the status quo of legislation that has been passed by the Parliament to date. At the assessor hearings, Transport Scotland said that the proposals in the bill are an improvement on the 1974 act, but that is not the City of Edinburgh Council’s view. The bill as it stands will provide a defence that acting in accordance with the code of construction practice prevents action from being taken. There are weaknesses in the code of construction practice that might inhibit attempts to protect the public. The code can exist outwith the 1974 act and provide a management tool for the promoter that would complement that act, rather than substitute for it.
For such a large project with such a lengthy construction process, it is essential that my constituents have full recourse to an independent professional should they have cause to complain about noise. During the assessor hearings, Stephen Williamson, the head of the noise section at the City of Edinburgh Council and for whom our shorthand is “the noise man from Edinburgh”, was asked whether, if the bill was enacted and the code of construction practice enforced, the public in the vicinity of the project would be protected adequately against noise and vibration. He said:
“We do not believe so, because the bill does not give the local authority sufficient room to take action and there is a broad envelope for what the code of construction practice permits. Fundamentally, the employer’s representative decides whether works should go ahead. There is a requirement for said person to take on board the local authority’s views, but the code says only that they must ‘take appropriate consideration’ or ‘take account’ of those views; nowhere does it say that they must follow the local authority’s advice.”
He continued:
“The management plan and the code of construction practice that have been brought together are good documents for any contractor to use. They contain the kind of measures that we would advise contractors to take, but do not replace the local authority’s power to intervene and take action on the public’s behalf.”
As things stand, the best practical means defence in the bill and the code is the only protection that is afforded to the public. However, built into that term are requirements to consider excessive costs, for example. I understand that decisions will be taken at the extremes. For some incidents at some times, it will not be appropriate to stop work. I do not believe that a local authority professional would think it appropriate to stop concrete being put into piles in the middle of the river, for example. We should not worry about that, because local authorities are used to working with contractors on large civil engineering projects and to exercising those powers.
The City of Edinburgh Council has signed up to the Government’s enforcement concordat, so its first step is not to go wielding the notice book about, but to meet and discuss the issue informally with the contractors to find a way forward. The Parliament building was subject to public complaint; the council headquarters at Waverley court were built not far from here and were also subject to complaint; and the A720 city bypass was built entirely at night and again was the subject of public complaint. Those were large projects, but not once did the council feel it necessary to serve a notice. It worked informally with the contractors to find a way forward and to reduce disturbance to the public.
To put the issue in context, in the past financial year, the City of Edinburgh Council served four notices against construction sites but received 371 complaints. Deciding whether disturbance is acceptable comes down to a judgment call. My fear, which is shared by the City of Edinburgh Council, is that without any independent arbitration, decisions to go ahead will be taken by the representatives of the contractors and Transport Scotland. If a decision cannot be reached by working together, I would rather that the final decision on whether action needs to be taken rested with an independent officer in the local authority, rather than the employer’s representative.
Ultimately, I do not see why this biggest of all projects should be treated differently and why my constituents should not have recourse to the statutory powers that are available to other communities in the very unlikely event that resolution cannot be found informally. I would like local authorities’ powers to remain, without anything in the bill reducing authorities’ ability to use them properly. I want my constituents to be treated exactly the same as every other set of constituents who have been affected by the public infrastructure projects that have come before and been voted through the Scottish Parliament in the past.
I move amendment 2.
15:45
These amendments reopen matters that were previously determined at stage 2. However, they are critically important and I want to be stark in saying that, if passed, the amendments will generate significant risk and uncertainty—risk and uncertainty for the contractor and a likely increase in the contract price; a resulting significant financial risk to a future Government, the Parliament and the taxpayers of Scotland; and uncertainty in the process for local authorities and the public.
As members will be aware, noise and vibration matters have been subject to detailed scrutiny ever since the bill’s introduction in November last year. We have worked closely with the City of Edinburgh Council, West Lothian Council and Fife Council to develop an appropriate noise control regime. The aim is to have in place a regime that will meet the national objectives of having the project built on time and on budget; will allow independent oversight of construction by the local authorities; and, perhaps most significantly, will provide safeguards for members of the public. That regime is now incorporated within the code of construction practice.
Members who have followed the bill’s progress will note that the issue of noise was subjected to detailed scrutiny at stage 2. The assessor, Professor Begg, sat for 11 days during which noise management was discussed extensively. The evidence included a full, comprehensive and detailed exposition by all concerned parties of the issues that Margaret Smith now wishes to be reconsidered. In his report, the assessor noted the merits of our proposals and recommended our approach to the committee, which gives full effect to the noise management process now defined; fully involves the local authorities as integral members of the noise liaison group, scrutinising the contractor’s proposed construction methods before they are approved; and—this relates specifically to Margaret Smith’s amendment 2—retains the ability of the local authorities and the public to have a statutory mechanism by which to challenge independently the contractor’s undertaking of construction works. Also, under our proposal, the local authorities will gain an additional statutory mechanism to ensure the implementation of the noise management processes. Let us not forget that, at stage 2, as Jackson Carlaw can attest, the committee endorsed that approach. Accordingly, the assessor and the committee—the two parties most intimately involved in consideration of the bill—supported the comprehensive proposals that we have put in place.
Our approach provides consistency across the project, which lies within three local authority areas, and provides certainty for the public. It also provides a significant benefit to the management of risk and the price of the contract, as it will provide the contractor with the knowledge that his or her operations will be disrupted only if he or she operates outwith the framework of the code of construction practice. That code has been amended to reflect local authority concerns. I confirm that we are not removing local authority powers to take independent actions afforded in the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Both the councils and the public will retain a statutory mechanism by which to challenge independently the contractor’s undertaking of construction works. The councils will also have an enhanced role through the code of construction practice.
I do not believe that the amendments have wholesale support from local authorities. I remind Margaret Smith that Fife Council did not object to any of the proposals during the parliamentary process and that West Lothian Council stated, on 13 September, at the assessor hearing:
“As the Transport Scotland team has correctly pointed out, what it is proposing in the code of construction practice is better than what exists purely under the 1974 act. That is what we as the local authority would expect on a project of this size.”
Margaret Smith seeks to overturn the process within the code of construction practice that has taken more than a year to achieve; to overturn the consistency that will apply across all three local authorities for controlling noise and vibration; to overturn the findings of the assessor; and to overturn the considered views of the committee. Having overturned those things, she wishes to introduce significant risks and uncertainties. Surely, the introduction of risk and uncertainty cannot be the considered view of the Parliament. I strongly urge Margaret Smith to withdraw her amendments. If she does not withdraw them, I urge all members to resist these amendments, the consequences of which will fall on a future Administration.
I begin with the issue of risk and uncertainty. In my opening comments, I tried to quantify the potential with information that I received from City of Edinburgh Council. It would never enter into the situation lightly. I mentioned the city bypass and the Parliament building and so on, which were major projects that managed to go ahead while councils across Scotland kept their statutory powers, working within them to come to informal arrangements that commanded public support because they were subject to independent scrutiny and arbitration and involved professionals in City of Edinburgh Council, or whichever local authority it might be. Because of the minister’s comments, I am concerned that the Parliament will see giving such environmental protection to my constituents as somehow not worth the risk and uncertainty involved, although it was perfectly okay to take such a risk in relation to all the previous transport bills that have come before and been passed by the Parliament.
On the detailed scrutiny, during the past week I have been told by the outgoing and incoming transport ministers and have seen Transport Scotland’s comments that the councils were signed up to the deal that was worked through at stage 2. I have followed up on that and it is quite clear that neither City of Edinburgh Council nor Midlothian Council is content and that they still want to have the full powers that they had under all the earlier bills.
Will the member take an intervention?
I just want to make one other point. Although it is interesting to know what Fife Council or West Lothian Council thinks about the issue, I ask members to remember that somewhere in the region of 95 per cent of the residents who will be affected by the bill and the six years of construction are in the City of Edinburgh Council area, not in Fife or West Lothian.
The assessor sat and considered the City of Edinburgh Council’s arguments and then made his decision. Is it not the case that City of Edinburgh Council accepted that decision and has not made any representations since that time?
In the conversations that we have had with City of Edinburgh Council, it has not accepted it. There was an understanding that once the process had gone through the assessor and the committee, decisions would be taken by the assessor and the committee. I questioned my colleague who was on the committee. The same understanding that the councils were content that both transport ministers have put to me, in good faith, is not the case, because the councils—including the fundamental one in this regard—are not content.
The minister talked about consistency among the three councils that are affected by the bill. I am trying to find an approach that will deliver consistency with every other transport project that the Parliament has passed and will give the same protection to my constituents in Queensferry and Kirkliston as has been given to other constituents around Scotland during the past decade of the Parliament. That is consistency that we should all support.
Are you pressing or withdrawing your amendment?
I press amendment 2.
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As it is the first division of the afternoon, there will be a five-minute suspension.
15:53
Meeting suspended.
15:58
On resuming—
We come to the division on amendment 2.
For
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 13, Against 93, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Section 71—Statutory nuisance: noise under the Environmental Protection Act 1990
Amendment 3 moved—[Margaret Smith].
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 94, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
After section 74
16:00
We come to group 2. Amendment 4, in the name of Margaret Smith, is the only amendment in the group.
I hope that amendment 4 will get a few more than 14 votes—just as long as we keep moving in the right direction.
Amendment 4 simply makes additions to the list of those who are to be kept informed of the progress of the works. In such a large-scale project, it is crucial that affected communities are kept fully informed of the progress of the works. That is essential for residents in setting expectations—[Interruption.]
I am sorry, Miss Smith, but there is far too much talking in the chamber. If it is really necessary, take it outside the chamber, please.
—on disruption, noise, what might be happening in their street and so on. It is also important that businesses and tourism interests in the area are kept informed.
As I have said previously—I will return to the point later today—concerns have been raised about previous consultations, information, exhibitions and so on. It is clear that there is widespread concern locally about the impact of the scheme on residents and businesses. Over the past months and years, I have worked with residents and businesses on this. Given that this is a £2 billion project, it is important that the economy in and around Queensferry, Fife, the Lothians—including West Lothian—and Edinburgh takes advantage of the project if it possibly can. I am thinking of everybody from local contractors, shops and so on. It is therefore essential that the Government keeps organisations such as the Queensferry Business Association and other community and business organisations informed as the project progresses.
Amendment 4 also contains a proposal to ensure that locally elected members are kept informed, so that we can properly represent the communities that we were elected to work for. It is clear that the bill will be agreed to today. For my constituents, that means years of disruption. It is essential that local and regional MSPs are kept informed so that we can continue to hold ministers to account as effectively as possible on the project.
I move amendment 4.
I thank Margaret Smith for lodging amendment 4, which seeks to place a duty on ministers to provide information to specific groups and individuals. The provision of information is critical to the success of the project. The recognition of the need for information to be provided to relevant parties at appropriate times is a matter on which there is no difference between myself and Margaret Smith.
The amendment re-articulates some but not all of the requirements that are contained in the code of construction practice. That does not mean that the many other provisions in the code in respect of information, liaison or engagement are of any less importance. Notwithstanding the amendment, I confirm categorically that ministers are still required to comply with all aspects of the code. That said, I confirm that the Government is content to accept amendment 4.
Before I call Margaret Smith, I use my power under rule 9C.12.5 to extend the time limit for the debate on this group to prevent such debate being unreasonably curtailed. Do you wish to add anything, Miss Smith?
I very much welcome the breadth of the minister’s response and I thank him for his support. I press amendment 4.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
We come to group 3. Amendment 5, in the name of Mary Mulligan, is the only amendment in the group.
Members may be aware that my preferred course of action—it was clearly the course of action that has the most support among my constituents—is for a direct road link between the new Forth crossing on the south side of the river and the M9. I still believe that that is the best option not only for my constituents in Newton and the surrounding area, but for everyone who wants to use the M9 westbound, including people who travel to and from the Falkirk and Stirling areas and to and from Lanarkshire.
Unfortunately, it appears that that course of action has been rejected. My amendment 5 is about trying to give some respite to my constituents in Newton from the increased traffic that they will experience both during the construction of the crossing and afterwards.
The minister may well tell me that the bill already provides mitigation measures. I will give just two reasons for believing that amendment 5 is necessary. Unfortunately, this demonstrates local people’s lack of confidence in Transport Scotland. The relevant discussions took place behind the scenes, and people believe that there is still a need for a decisive response from the minister.
In some discussions of mitigation measures in which I have been involved, there has been some dispute about whether the measures will be the responsibility of the local authority. I remind members that the road that will take national traffic is not an A-road but a local road, maintained by the local authority.
It was suggested in some discussions that some of the additional traffic will be from a major development in the neighbouring village of Winchburgh and should, therefore, be paid for by the developers in Winchburgh. I make clear that there would be little additional traffic from Winchburgh if the new crossing were not being built where it will be built, without a direct link to the M9.
The mitigation measures will not reduce the increase in traffic that Newton village will experience as a result of the new Forth crossing, but they may slow it down, make it safer for villagers to go about their business and help with noise and vibration. For that reason, I ask members to support amendment 5.
I move amendment 5.
I thank Mary Mulligan for her explanation and recognise her concern. That is why we have given a clear commitment to fund improvements at Newton. I am happy to state on the record that the Scottish ministers will fulfil the commitments and undertakings that have been given, as set out in the register of commitments and undertakings. Accordingly, I am happy to confirm that the proposed measures for Newton will be fully funded by Transport Scotland and delivered by West Lothian Council.
I am sure that Mary Mulligan will welcome the restatement of that commitment. Unfortunately, I cannot accept her amendment. First, it places commitments that are given to local authorities in a different class from those that are given to other parties such as householders and, therefore, provides for a distinction where none exists. Secondly, having made that distinction by virtue of referencing local authorities specifically, it could generate an unintended consequence. A future Administration might argue that, because local authorities are expressly mentioned but others are not, it was the Parliament’s intention that somehow ministers should be under an obligation to honour only commitments that have been made to local authorities. Because other parties or individuals are not mentioned, one could surmise that any commitment that has been made to them has a somewhat lesser status.
With that explanation, I trust that Mary Mulligan will appreciate why I cannot support the amendment. However, I stress again that I am committed to funding improvements at Newton.
I hope that the minister will understand that the amendment is framed as it is because the road in question is maintained by the local authority. However, I am grateful to him for his reassurances with regard to mitigation measures and seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 5, by agreement, withdrawn.
Schedule 9—Land which may be acquired
We move to group 4. Amendment 1, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 1 is a minor technical amendment. Plot 1920, which is shown on parliamentary plan L19, is required for the construction of ancillary works and will bring into the ownership of the Scottish ministers the solum of parts of the M90 that are not currently in their ownership. The plot was included in the original parliamentary plans and the book of reference. The owners of the land were notified of the introduction of the bill and the inclusion of the land in it. However, due to an oversight, the plot was not mentioned and listed in schedule 9 of the bill. The amendment corrects that error.
I move amendment 1.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.