Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill: Final Stage
The next item of business is final stage proceedings on the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill. I make the usual announcement about the procedures that will be followed.
We will deal first with amendments to the bill and then move to the debate on the motion to pass the bill. For the first part, members should have the bill as amended at consideration stage—SP bill 17A—the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that have been selected for debate, and the groupings of amendments, which I have agreed. The period of voting for the first division on an amendment will be two minutes. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate and all other divisions will be 30 seconds. We will have a suspension of five minutes before the first vote to ensure that all members are present.
Section 31—Set-off against betterment
Group 1 is on set-off against betterment and construction. Amendment 1, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendment 2.
In speaking to amendment 1, I record that it is approximately 50 years since trams were last seen on the streets of Edinburgh. After today, I hope that they will be seen again.
Under Section 31, if land is acquired under the bill and the landowner has other contiguous or adjacent land that increases in value because of the tram, the compensation for the lost land will be reduced by any increase in the value of the other land. The principle is known as betterment. Just as the effect of betterment will be taken into account in respect of compensation that is payable in relation to land that is acquired under the bill, section 31 also provides for the effect of betterment to be taken into account in respect of compensation that is payable as a result of reduction in property values during the construction works.
Amendments 1 and 2 will clarify the drafting of section 31 to make its purpose clearer, but will not change its meaning or effect.
I move amendment 1.
Conversations, even whispered, that would be perfectly acceptable in the chamber simply do not work here in committee room 2. The noise makes it difficult to hear members from the platform. I ask members please to have any conversations outside.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.
Section 36—Correction of errors in Parliamentary plans and book of reference
Amendment 3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 4 to 6.
The Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee expressed serious concerns at consideration stage about the width of the powers that will be conferred by section 36 and so subsequently amended the section. However, after further discussions with the clerks to the committee and our legal adviser, I am convinced of the need for further amendments to section 36 to improve even further the rights of affected parties. The promoter has agreed to such amendments' being lodged.
As drafted, section 36 would allow the authorised undertaker to apply to the sheriff for the correction of any inaccuracy in the parliamentary plans or the book of reference, relative to their description of any land, or of the ownership or occupation of any land. The authorised undertaker can do that only if it gives at least 10 days' notice to the owner or occupier of the land that is the subject of the error. If the sheriff agrees that the inaccuracy arose from a mistake, the sheriff must certify the fact accordingly. The sheriff would have no discretion in the matter. It would then be lawful for the authorised undertaker to take the land or, as the case may be, to take a right over the land in question and to execute the works in accordance with the certificate.
The proposed new subsections make it clear that where a person has been given notice under section 36(1), they can give to the sheriff and the authorised undertaker a written counter-notice to the effect that they dispute that there is an inaccuracy that may be amended under section 36. That must be done within 10 days of the original notice. Where such a counter-notice is given, the sheriff must ensure that a hearing is held before making a decision on the application. Although we all expect it to be unlikely that there will be such errors in the documents, particularly in such a serious situation in which the promoter requires compulsorily to acquire land, it is important that the section strike a fair balance in enabling the sheriff to act in the light of all relevant facts.
Amendments 3 to 6 will build in better safeguards for people who may be affected by section 36 and will better ensure that their human rights will not be breached. Amendment 6 is a minor amendment to section 36, to provide a definition of the term "Partner Libraries".
I move amendment 3.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Amendments 4, 5 and 6 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.
After section 56
Amendment 7 not moved.
Amendment 8, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, is in a group on its own.
In the interests of public safety and the environment, no driver of a vehicle in Edinburgh is entitled to drive in excess of 40mph. Even then, the speed limit is 40mph on a limited number of strategic roads. By the same criteria, it is desirable that trams endanger neither the public nor the environment. To take one example, in the corridor between Roseburn and Granton, which I have walked along recently, many men, women and children use the current walkway, often with domestic pets. Even with a fenced-off walkway, a tram that is going at 50mph could increase the risk of an inadvertent collision or have an adverse impact on the environment.
I accept that safety is the responsibility of Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, but a 40mph speed restriction would be likely to reduce noise levels, which would benefit the environment. What is most convincing in that connection, relating to speed levels, is paragraph 434 of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee's second report, which confirms that the speed limit's being reduced or restricted to 40mph would add only two seconds to the journey time.
I move amendment 8.
I call Phil Gaillie.
Thank you, Presiding Officer—I nearly called you "Speaker".
Although I am a member of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee, the views that I express are not those of the committee. During the committee's deliberation, I felt that 40mph would be a sufficient operating speed in the Roseburn corridor, given the corridor's natural heritage and leisure uses. The papers with which the committee was provided suggested that sole discretion for imposing such a limit would be based on safety and lay with HMRI. On that basis, I accepted that it would not be possible to include the 40mph limit in the bill.
However, I have changed my mind since I examined documentation on the matter. I emphasise that I regard a 40mph limit to be of benefit to the environment of the Roseburn corridor and not necessarily related to the safety aspects that HMRI addresses.
I am not surprised that Phil Gallie was tempted to call you "Speaker", Presiding Officer—he knows that that area of policy is reserved, but perhaps he thought that he was in another place.
Does Phil Gallie agree that the primary purpose of amendment 8 is to set a speed limit? If that is the case, the matter is reserved. I would expect somebody with his credentials to recognise that.
No. As far as I can see, HMRI sets speed limits that are based on safety considerations; I suggest that amendment 8 would introduce a speed control for environmental reasons. The 40mph limit would not only limit the tram operators within the Roseburn corridor but would be set around the system. However, I can think of no area other than Roseburn where the tram would be likely to exceed 40mph.
The impact of trams going through the Roseburn corridor will be significant. The committee decided that, for the overall good, we should go along with use of the corridor, but that anything we could do to reduce the trams' impact would be of benefit. By setting a 40mph limit, we would certainly benefit the environment, particularly with respect to slipstreaming: when a large vehicle passes cyclists or walkers in close proximity, there is bound to be an impact, which constitutes an adverse impact on the environment. On that basis, I suggest that amendment 8 be agreed to.
I believe that, in another place, David Cameron was accused of "flip-flopping"; Phil Gallie appears to have caught the same disease. I point out that the committee was unanimous on the proposed speed limit and that amendment 8 raises a matter that is clearly not within Parliament's competence.
Will Jackie Baillie give way?
No. It is important that I explain as simply as I can why amendment 8 is not within Parliament's competence. The setting of speed limits was a matter of concern upon which the committee heard a fair amount of evidence. As a consequence of that evidence, we took advice from HM railways inspectorate, which is now part of the Health and Safety Executive. HMRI confirmed that it is responsible for approving safety on tramways and helpfully set out the criteria that apply. If members require it, I can narrate the lengthy list of matters that it takes into account. I will spare the Parliament from that.
HMRI has advised us that, in practice, there is on-going dialogue between it and tramway operators as part of the approval process that is set out in the Railways and Other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment) Regulations 1994. Her Majesty's railway inspectorate and tramway operators tend to reach consensus on maximum speed limits. However, there is a final regulatory backstop under which HMRI has powers to impose maximum speed limits. Section 45(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992—which I know members have read avidly—enables the Health and Safety Executive to give to any person who carries on an undertaking that includes the provision of transport services on a tramway a direction that imposes maximum speed limits at which vehicles that are used on the system may travel.
Generally speaking, section 117 of the Railways Act 1993 brings section 45 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 within the ambit of the health and safety regime that is operable under part 1 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. In terms of section H2 of part II of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 is a reserved matter. Put simply, the setting of maximum speed limits for the operation of tramways is not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. It is a matter for Westminster.
Because of that advice, we accepted that amending the bill to set a speed limit would serve no purpose. If we did so, the measure could be struck down as being outwith Parliament's competence. Naturally, we did not let the matter lie—we discuss speed issues in paragraphs 422 to 437 of our report. I commend those paragraphs to the member, and, in particular, our conclusion at paragraph 434, which states:
"The Committee would recommend the promoter considers reducing the maximum requested speed limits operating for tram Line One along the length of the Roseburn Railway Corridor".
We note that a speed reduction from 46mph to 40mph—the level that is suggested in amendment 8—would increase run time by a mere two seconds, so we commend our conclusions to the promoter, as well. We believe that the committee has already—quite cleverly—made the required point. It captures the spirit of Lord James's amendment, but his amendment is not legislatively competent, so I ask him to seek to withdraw it.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. If Jackie Baillie's argument on the legislative competence of Lord James's amendment is correct, why was it accepted for debate? My understanding is that amendments are screened for legislative competence before they are presented to Parliament for a decision. Is that the case in relation to this bill, or is it not?
No. Legislative competence is not a criterion of admissibility. The chair will always attempt to give Parliament the fullest chance to debate a matter of some interest.
I ask Lord James to respond and to indicate whether he wishes to press his amendment.
I would like to press my amendment.
First, Phil Gallie is perfectly entitled to change his mind on the matter. If he did so, he would have the full support of President Abraham Lincoln—
Will the member give way?
I ask the member to let me finish what I am saying.
Former President Abraham Lincoln said—
Again, I must ask members to keep private conversations down so that we can hear.
President Abraham Lincoln said:
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
With regard to legislative competence—
Will the member give way?
I want to proceed. I will give way briefly, but the member has had his say.
I make the point to Lord James that I did not flip-flop on the issue. I was consistent in my argument in committee, but I was persuaded wrongly with information that was given that I should—
I thank Phil Gallie.
On Jackie Baillie's point about legislative competence, amendment 8 was cleared by the clerks, who act impartially. I merely emphasise what the amendment seeks to do: it seeks to place a responsibility on the undertaker—in this case, the City of Edinburgh Council—to restrict the speed of trams to 40mph. I accept that it might be for others to set the overall speed limit, but it is entirely competent for us to place that restriction on the undertaker, who would be obliged to observe it regardless of whether a higher limit had been set elsewhere.
I can say only that we were all elected to fight for the best interests of our constituents. I would be aggrieved if that right was to be taken away by spurious arguments about legislative competence, which do not apply within Parliament.
For clarification, are you pressing amendment 8?
Yes.
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
I suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow members to come to the voting consoles.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 17, Against 79, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 8 disagreed to.
Section 61—Insulation against noise
Group 5 is on mitigation and maximum noise levels during operation—that also goes for noise levels in the chamber. Amendment 10, in the name of Margaret Smith, is grouped with amendments 11, 12, 13, 15, 15A and 16.
There are no statutory requirements for mitigation of noise from rail systems in Scotland, so we are left to judge for ourselves what is reasonable. The Minister for Transport and Telecommunications might like to give some thought to that matter in due course, given the tremendous progress that the Executive is making in bringing forward rail and tram projects.
My purpose in lodging the amendments in my name and in supporting those in the name of Donald Gorrie is to alleviate the worst impacts of noise from the tramline without imposing limits that would threaten the operation of the line. We each experience noise differently, as it is subjective, but excessive noise levels impact on communication, on work, on concentration and on rest and relaxation.
It is undoubtedly the case that the operation of the tramline will adversely affect many people's enjoyment of their homes and the amenity of their surroundings. Amendments 10 and 11 would change the noise insulation scheme from being optional to being a statutory requirement. That is a reasonable amendment that would give greater comfort to residents who might be affected.
Presiding Officer, could you clarify which other amendments in the group I can speak to?
You can speak to all the amendments in the group.
Thank you.
Amendment 12, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, and amendment 15, in the name of Donald Gorrie, deal with permissible noise levels. I have a degree of sympathy with those amendments and with their approach; I have a greater degree of sympathy for residents whose homes and gardens will be affected by tram noise. Unfortunately, I am unable to support amendment 12. I have spoken to an acoustic consultant about the issue and believe that the amendment would put the scheme in jeopardy.
Amendment 15 directly addresses the Roseburn wildlife corridor and walkway, which is a well-used local amenity that stretches from Drylaw to Craigleith, in my constituency, and beyond to Roseburn and Murrayfield. Until now, the corridor has enjoyed low levels of noise, in the region of 35dB. As members know, noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, so it is quite complicated for laypeople like us to understand. However, we know that the LAmax 60dB that is mentioned in amendment 15 is the level at which the World Health Organisation and countless studies state that people can be expected to experience sleep disturbance.
If the figure is taken to 70dB max for intermittent noise, we have a doubling; if it is taken to 80dB, we have a doubling again. Time and again, in noise studies from around the world, I have seen the levels that are proposed by the promoter associated with sleep disturbance and resident annoyance. That is why I am supporting amendments 15 and 15A. I believe that the noise levels that are covered in those amendments are reasonable and reflect British standards and WHO guidance.
The promoter has been using planning advice note 56 as a basis for its figure of 82dB. Having spoken to an acoustic consultant about the matter, I have great concerns about that approach, given that PAN 56 covers new housing that is being built next to an existing noise source, not the situation that we have here of a new noise source that is being built next to existing homes. We must also bear in mind the fact that new homes are better insulated. The promoter's noise level of 82dB was also chosen partly because that figure was chosen for the Merseyside tram, but the Merseyside scheme has now been scrapped.
Amendment 15 proposes what is probably the ideal noise level, but amendment 13 represents an attempt to increase the number of householders who will be entitled to noise insulation mitigation measures. Amendment 13 concentrates on night time, when disturbance will be worst.
Can the member explain why she uses the definition of LAmax slow rather than LAmax fast?
No, I cannot. I made my request to the parliamentary draftspeople and that is what they came back to me with. I think that it is linked to what was used by the promoter in the noise and vibration policy.
Amendment 13 tries to increase the number of householders who will be entitled to noise insulation mitigation measures. I appreciate that many objectors would see that as second best to reducing noise levels in the first place. I agree with that, but I think that it is reasonable to try to improve the last line of protection.
What amendment 13 asks for is different from what is asked for by the amendments in the names of Donald Gorrie and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. I am asking the Parliament to reduce the night-time trigger from LAeq 63dB to LAeq 60dB and the night-time figure for noise peaks from 82dB to 70dB. It is likely that decreasing the trigger levels will add no more than 200 homes to the scheme, at a cost of around £1,500 to £2,000 each, but that will make a significant difference to the quality of life in those homes.
Amendment 14 changes the definition of "night time" to the hours between 10 pm and 7 am. The man on the Clapham omnibus or, if it comes to pass, the man on the Edinburgh tram would see those times as being perfectly reasonable—10 pm is the time when many elderly people, especially, take to their beds. I hope that members will support amendment 14 and the other amendments in my name, as well as amendments 15 and 15A.
I move amendment 10.
Amendment 12 and amendment 16, which is consequential to it, seek to amend the noise and vibration policy that the promoter will rely on in dealing with the problem of operational noise. The amendments have been lodged on behalf of all citizens who live near the tramway, the operation of which has the potential—if we do not take great care—to keep children and possibly others awake at night.
Amendment 12 is the assertion of the principle that sleep disturbance should not be inflicted unnecessarily on any citizen, young or old, regardless of where they live.
Will the member give way?
I have quite a lot to say, but I will give way briefly.
Thank you. Does the member agree that expert advice suggests that LAeq is a good indicator of noise, given that it measures fluctuating railway noise over time as a logarithmic average? Why has the member not used that?
I can answer very easily. It is because the World Health Organisation strongly recommends the standards that are contained in amendment 12. I am disappointed that the member does not accept the recommendations of the World Health Organisation, which she might well do in relation to other countries.
The purpose of amendment 12 is twofold: first, to prevent an outburst of extreme noise that would have a substantial and adverse effect, leading to disturbance of the sleep of persons living near the line; and, secondly, if that cannot be reasonably achieved, to provide for persons so affected an appropriate and proportionate level of compensation. The significance of the amendment lies in the fact that it deals with maximum rather than average noise levels—a distinction that would not be lost on the men, women and children who will be needlessly deprived of sleep. That is important because, as it stands, the noise and vibration policy makes no reference to LAmax, which is the maximum level of noise, but instead refers to LAeq, which refers to averaged-out noise levels. We need to deal with both.
Amendment 12 refers to a maximum level immediately outside the window of a property of LAmax 60dB. If that cannot be achieved reasonably, the LAmax should be 45dB inside the window. Those standards are recommended by BS 8233 and I understand that they are commonly applied daily by local authorities throughout the country, including the City of Edinburgh Council. The promoter has sought to rely on the far less robust measures that are contained in planning advice note 56. Adding weight to that, the World Health Organisation strongly recommends the noise levels that are contained in amendment 12 in the best interests of the good health of men, women and children.
I do not wish sleep disturbance to be inflicted on any family. Amendment 12 is a necessary improvement to the bill and it will create a deal of good will if it is accepted. I have lodged the amendment on behalf of the health of the nation. I will move amendments 12 and 16 at the appropriate time. I commend all the other amendments in the group on the same basis. Whether Margaret Smith votes for my amendment or not, I will support hers.
Members might be surprised by the fact that I have lodged an amendment to amendment 15. The purpose of doing that is to give members an opportunity to vote separately on daytime and night-time noise because they might have different views on one as opposed to the other. Amendment 15 is about night-time noise, which the two previous speakers have dealt with to some extent.
The area that is covered by amendment 15 is an off-road walking and cycling path that runs from Roseburn to Crewe Toll. Forty years ago, it was a municipal railway line. The railway was eventually closed down and it is now a peaceful place where people cycle, walk and walk their dogs. I therefore think that it is a separate case from other parts of the proposed tramway that are on streets where there is already a lot of noise. I will support an improvement to public transport, but we do not want improvements in public services if it means that individuals do not get any sleep.
I do not mean to be flippant, but people have been sleeping the length and breadth of Leith Walk for generations. What do we mean by the British standards members have mentioned? Do the same standards apply in Brussels or Oslo? If they do not, it would seem that no one in Oslo sleeps.
The figures that I propose to use are accepted by the World Health Organisation, which I think covers Oslo and the other places mentioned. The people who live in Leith Walk do not have a single very noisy tram running straight past their doors every now and then. The argument that we should go for an average level of noise seems to me to be foolish. People are not woken up by an average level of noise; they are woken by a noise. If a tram makes a very loud noise, people will wake up and no amount of averaging affects that at all.
The peaceful existence that has hitherto been enjoyed by people living along the Roseburn corridor is going to be invaded by noise day and night from a large number of trams. Unless they are controlled, those trams will make a lot of noise. I propose that we limit the noise to LAmax 60dB. That figure is accepted by the World Health Organisation and by British standards. As the committee's report agrees, it is now
"more common for local authorities to rely on BS8233/WHO rather than PAN 56".
It is widely accepted that that is the right sort of figure to go for. PAN 56 relates to brand new houses with high-tech glazing. It does not refer to old houses with sash-and-case windows.
Moreover, I am advised that if people were to build new houses beside such a source of noise, the City of Edinburgh Council would in effect opt for the figure of LAmax 60dB, in that the maximum noise level inside such houses would not be allowed to exceed 45dB, which is the equivalent of 60dB on the edge of a house. Thus, there is widespread support for setting the maximum noise level at 60dB.
I pay tribute to the committee for its hard work and industry, but I have been led to believe by a considerable number of people who were involved in the bill that the information, arguments and opinions that were provided by the promoter and its allies left a great deal to be desired and should not be relied on. It is possible that the committee erred in taking too much notice of what such people said.
Does the member acknowledge that the committee took a range of advice from people other than the promoter? We felt that it was important that we had independent advice on which to frame our questioning.
I accept that, but we have a difference of opinion. I argue that the worldwide and British weight of opinion is for a maximum noise level of 60dB rather than 82dB.
I also argue that it is better to be on the safe side. The committee's consideration stage report stated that the aim was for a disturbance level of 25 per cent. Instead, we should aim for a zero disturbance level. That would not adversely affect the tramway, as the additional cost of the extra mitigation measures would be quite small and such measures are quite feasible.
Amendment 15 is not a wrecking amendment. The proposed change is quite sensible and would protect the sleep of thousands of people who live along that section of the line. We owe it to them to look after their interests. I urge members to consider the issues seriously, as the amendment is not about whether people are for or against the tramway. In considering the arguments, we should err on the side of the individuals who might need help if they are to get any peace if the promoter cuts corners during the construction of its tramline.
Amendment 15A would require that the maximum daytime noise level should not exceed 70dB. I hope that members will also consider that issue, but the night-time noise level is obviously the main issue. I urge members to take the issue seriously.
I rise to support amendments 10 and 11, in the name of Margaret Smith, but I will preface my remarks by highlighting how the present discussion illustrates not only the hard decisions that the bill presents us with but the difficulties that are thrown up by our current procedure for dealing with private bills.
I do not believe that it is appropriate for us to have such debates in a meeting of the full Parliament. The committee has spent two years considering this and many other issues in great detail. I am not prepared to overturn the series of reports that the committee prepared, the discussions and negotiations that it held and the representations from constituents and others that it weighed up. Alternative suggestions have been put in front of us today, but I am not prepared to overturn all that work on the basis of the short speeches that we have heard today.
That is not to say that I do not acknowledge that those views are held by various individuals, some of whom are probably my constituents who will let me know about their views afterwards. However, there is an issue about the process that we use to handle such bills. I am not prepared to take a chance by taking the word of people who have made a few short speeches in the chamber. I have read the committee's report. Like Margaret Smith, I have ploughed through some of the evidence sessions and I have attended many debates and meetings on the issue in my constituency.
However, I am prepared to support amendments 10 and 11. Having read many bills, I know that a change from "may" to "shall" is not a huge change in legislative terms, but it is a symbolic change. It says to our constituents and people who are potentially affected by the trams that the authorised undertaker shall,
"after consulting the Council, make a scheme providing for the making of grants towards the cost of insulating buildings, or such classes of buildings",
as are appropriate. It is important that we put that level of comfort in the bill, given the range of concerns that have been expressed and the work that the committee has done on the issue. I understand that the committee is not unhappy with the amendments.
It is important that we reassure people, but we must get the issue in perspective. There is a limit to what we can do in plenary session when debating a bill such as this. I very much look forward to a new transport and works act, which will allow us to debate issues in a different kind of framework, with different kinds of expertise at the top table. We do not have that today. My judgment is to rely on the work that the committee has done over the past two years, with the amendments that Margaret Smith has lodged.
I understand that the amendments in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton would mean that we would never build railways except in tunnels. There is a debate about what the appropriate noise levels are. I am not prepared, on the basis of a brief discussion in the chamber this afternoon, to overturn the consideration and work of the committee.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, Lord James. The member is down.
I want to place this debate about noise and its control in a broader context and to relate my experience and, I suspect, that of Brian Adam in that connection. Our constituents are heavily affected by aircraft noise. In Clydebank, 800 persons are within the 63dB contour that was mentioned and 4,350 persons are within the 60dB contour. Significantly greater numbers of people are affected by aircraft noise than will be affected by the trams. In Aberdeen, the relevant figure for the 63dB contour is 900 persons and there are 3,300 persons within the 60dB contour.
My constituents and I are very interested in issues of insulation, noise protection and so on, but the question with which we are dealing is much bigger than the tram scheme. It would be welcome if Sarah Boyack and the minister could give us some reassurance that both the Environment and Rural Development Committee and the minister will examine issues of transport noise and the rights of people who are affected by it. In my constituency and, I suspect, Brian Adam's, the number of planes flying over both at night and during the day has increased considerably in recent years. That is a big nuisance for people in the affected areas. The Parliament should pay close attention to the issue.
I call Brian Adam. Please speak to the amendments.
The amendments that we are debating specify a maximum noise level. The current arrangements are for average noise levels. Des McNulty is correct to say that, in similar circumstances, many people are affected by noise, although an average figure is not breached. People are disturbed by events, not by averages. If we set a maximum noise level, that will be more helpful to those who will be affected by noise. I echo Des McNulty's comments on that point.
Members will already be aware that if they take an intervention from Jackie Baillie on the subject of noise this afternoon, they do so at their peril.
I will make two points on this complex issue. First, I am with Sarah Boyack on the theme of her remarks. That in no way belittles the amendments that Margaret Smith, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Donald Gorrie have lodged. However, the committee that the Parliament set up to consider these matters has done so in considerable detail, as Donald Gorrie accepted. Parliament will wish to recognise and take cognisance of the fact that the committee took independent advice on the issues.
Secondly, I note that the cost of the amendments has not been made clear. As the Parliament would expect, we have been concerned that it might be prohibitive and have implications for the scheme. Therefore, we do not support amendments 12, 13, 15, 15A and 16. However, we are content to support amendments 10 and 11. We agree with the promoter and the committee that what amendments 10 and 11 seek to do is already implicit in the bill as a result of the enforceability of the noise and vibration policy. Amendments 10 and 11 reinforce that position.
I take the points that members have made about noise, but they relate to various areas in the transport portfolio.
The committee took many hours of evidence on noise before reaching its conclusions. Given that we acknowledge that the topic is extremely complex, I hope that members will afford me some leeway in trying to condense the committee's consideration in a few minutes for members in the chamber today. I was not deliberately trying to trip members up by asking technical questions about noise, although I was perhaps using it as a device to illustrate that we have taken considerable time to understand the complexities of the subject. I am grateful to Sarah Boyack and Tavish Scott for recognising that.
I will provide the chamber with a little lesson on noise—although members have probably already had that lesson from the Presiding Officer. The terms "sound" and "noise" tend to be used interchangeably, but noise can be defined as an unwanted sound. Sound is a normal and desirable part of life, but when noise, for example from industry, construction, transportation or—dare I say it—unwanted comment in the chamber, is imposed on people, it can lead to disturbance, annoyance and other undesirable effects.
It is relatively straightforward to measure sound physically with a sound level meter. However, it is much more difficult to measure perceived loudness and the effects that that might cause. Noise levels do not add up according to simple linear arithmetic. For example, adding two equal noise sources results in a combined noise level that is only 3dB higher than individual levels.
I will illustrate that to members with an example that I hope they will all remember. They will remember the wonderful bagpipe players we all used to enjoy in our other home when we were trying to work. One bagpipe player would create a certain level of noise, but if there were two, the level would increase by only 3dB. If there were four bagpipe players, only 6dB extra would register. If there were eight players, perhaps 9dB more would register, which is less than double the noise created by one bagpipe player and less than one would expect. A relatively large change in sound energy is needed before it is perceived by our ear to be louder or quieter. It is generally accepted that an increase of 10dB is perceived to be a doubling of noise and a decrease of 10dB is perceived to be a halving of noise.
I will now explain how noise is measured and explained—[Interruption.] I ask members to please listen.
I am following Jackie Baillie closely, but I am curious to know how many bagpipes it takes to make a noise, as distinct from a sound.
If Christine Grahame was listening earlier to my little lesson on noise, she would know that noise is an unwanted sound. However, for some people, one bagpipe player might make a pleasurable sound. I hope that that answers the member's question.
Noise metrics are used to measure the variation of noise over time. Two commonly used measures about which we have heard are LAeq and LAmax. LAeq is called the continuous equivalent sound level. It represents a varying noise level by calculating the constant noise level that would have the same sound energy content over the measurement period. As LAeq is a logarithmic average and not an arithmetic one, it has been found to be a good indicator of the effects of a noise that comprises a series of varying signals over a period, exactly as one would expect from railway noise.
LAmax is a measure of the maximum noise level. For railway noise, it is the highest level experienced when the vehicle passes, usually occurring directly in front of the receptor location. LAmax is a useful metric when considering sleep disturbance, so it is used in conjunction with LAeq to assess the impact from railway noise.
Three sets of guidance are commonly utilised to determine acceptable noise levels to protect against sleep disturbance, but none of them applies specifically to railway noise. There is no statutory requirement to mitigate noise from railways in Scotland, but the promoter produced a noise and vibration policy, dated March 2005, to set out its approach to mitigating noise. The policy was amended to address the committee's concerns and it was subsequently incorporated in the bill at section 63C, which ensures that the policy must be complied with.
Among other purposes, the policy seeks to ensure that, through the design of the track and track bed, and the procurement of modern tram systems, all reasonable, practical measures are taken to avoid significant noise impacts. Where significant noise still arises, the policy proposes a tiered approach to mitigation, with noise barriers to be provided to attenuate noise in the first instance. Once that mitigation is in place, should noise levels still exceed the thresholds, noise insulation will be made available.
Let me turn now to the content and effect of the amendments in group 5. I will say a little bit about the process because the subject of noise and vibration is highly technical and the committee was conscious of the need to get it right, which was why we took months over it. As I said earlier, we commissioned a report from independent experts because of the complexity of the matter and the conflicting written evidence that we received. We wanted our own, independent report from experts in the field to inform our approach to oral evidence on noise and vibration. The report proved particularly helpful in our testing of the oral evidence, particularly that from the promoter's experts, which has come in for criticism today. It enabled us to ensure that we fully understood the issues when we wrote our report. With respect, I say that the members who are moving amendments today have not had the benefit of that knowledge.
I have considerably more to say, Presiding Officer, but you are indicating that I should wind up. I will home in on one matter. Sarah Boyack rightly focused on the 45dB limit that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton proposes. She said that that limit was so low that if it were applied to new railways, it would mean that in future railways could be built only in tunnels. If the suggested noise limits were adopted, we would never be able to build a road again either, unless it was in a tunnel. I urge members therefore to support amendments 10 and 11 but to reject all others in group 5.
The current amendment is amendment 10, with Margaret Smith to wind up.
Presiding Officer, could you clarify whether it is just amendment 10 or whether it is all the amendments in the group?
As I just said, it is amendment 10.
Oh, right. Well, I am happy to accept members' support for amendment 10 and, indeed, for amendment 11.
You can wind up on the whole group, of course, but you should say whether you are pressing amendment 10 and taking it to a vote. Are you content to do that?
I am pressing amendment 10. I have a few comments on other amendments in the group. I will not attempt to add to the committee convener's helpful lesson on noise, but I would say in passing that, having been a member of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee for several years, I have had to listen to evidence on noise and vibration on several occasions. My colleague Ted Brocklebank indicates that he agrees.
I am pleased that the Executive will accept amendments 10 and 11, which will give greater comfort to some local residents. I do not disagree with Sarah Boyack's comments on the work that the committee put in and about the amendments not being the right way to go about matters. However, when we deal with the proposed transport and works bill, we will have to consider seriously the role of MSPs outside the committee and how they can influence the procedure. The current system has given those of us who represent the affected areas no other place, over a period of years, in which to bring forward our concerns, other than a three or four-minute speech in the preliminary stage debate.
Of course, like all other members, the member was free to attend the committee's meetings and make her points there.
At meetings over many months, I have been asked—as has Sarah Boyack—whether we would lodge amendments. However, we could not say what we would be amending because the committee was still deliberating. We gave the committee a chance to deliberate and it has done a very good job in the main. However, some concerns remain, and there has been no time in the process, other than here today, for us to address those concerns. The Parliament will have to consider an alternative procedure for the future.
I will support amendments 15 and 15A, in the name of Donald Gorrie, which are clearly different from amendment 12, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. Margo MacDonald, Sarah Boyack and Jackie Baillie have said that amendment 12 would make the scheme unworkable, and their points were well made. However, amendments 15 and 15A are particular to the Roseburn corridor, where the ambient noise is very low at the moment. The WHO and British standards figures are reasonable in that context.
Edinburgh airport is in my constituency, so I have a great deal of sympathy with Des McNulty's comments. The Environment and Rural Development Committee, under Sarah Boyack's convenership, might want to consider the whole issue of noise. Whether caused by trams or bagpipes, 82dB is a lot of noise. Amendment 13, on mitigation, seeks to give some peace to the few hundred people who will be affected badly by the trams.
In the report of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee, and in the evidence taken by the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, we find that noise experts will tell us all kinds of different things. In the past week or so, I have spent more time than I would like to admit in trying to read my way through the various views of various noise experts. It is more of a black art than a science. I ask members to support amendments 10, 11 and 13, in my name, and amendments 15 and 15A, in the name of Donald Gorrie.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment 11 moved—[Margaret Smith]—and agreed to.
Section 63A—Compliance with Code of Construction Practice and Noise and Vibration Policy
Amendment 12 moved—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton].
The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 82, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 12 disagreed to.
Amendment 13 moved—[Margaret Smith].
The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
The result of the division is: For 17, Against 80, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 13 disagreed to.
Group 6 is on the definition of night time for noise levels. There will be a change of Presiding Officer shortly, but I will get matters under way. Amendment 14, in the name of Margaret Smith, is grouped with amendments 17 and 18.
My remarks will be brief, because I have already mentioned the issue. In her epistle on noise, Jackie Baillie gave us an understanding of the different levels and measurements that apply. Another factor that alters is the definition of the hours between which night time is taken to fall: sometimes night time is taken to start at midnight and sometimes it is taken to start at 11 o'clock. My understanding is that both those times figure in the promoter's noise and vibration policy, and in some schemes 10 o'clock has been taken as the beginning of night time. It would be common sense and reasonable to adopt a definition of night time as falling between 10 o'clock at night and 7 o'clock in the morning.
In passing, I acknowledge that the committee took the issue into account in some of its work, for example on construction times.
I move amendment 14.
On this occasion, I thought that I would regale Parliament with a little poetry.
I am not sure that the poet Alvarez would agree with the sentiment that the night be extended, and I am afraid that the promoter does not agree, either. Let me share with members what Alvarez thought about the night:
"There is something … not quite right about night life, something shadowy in every sense. However efficiently artificial light annihilates the difference between night and day, it never wholly eliminates the primitive suspicion that night people are up to no good."
Margaret Smith, however, wants to extend the night time.
It might assist members if I provide a little background on the genesis of the times in the current policy. Around the early 1990s, a consensus emerged on the period that should be treated as night when noise is being assessed. In the United Kingdom, it was agreed to use 23:00 to 07:00 hours, because that is the core rest period. PAN 56 and BS6472 for vibration use that convention. The Mitchell committee—which I had hoped to tell Parliament about earlier, but did not have time to—recommended that the hours of 23:00 to 07:00 be used.
The noise insulation regulations for road traffic noise predate the adoption of that definition. Conventionally, the day period for road traffic noise was 06:00 to midnight and there was no night-time period. It is important that members are clear that different time limits for the significant noise impact and noise insulation triggers are set out in the noise and vibration policy, which I will now summarise. For significant noise impact, night time is taken to fall between 23:00 and 07:00; for noise insulation, it is taken to fall between 00:00 and 06:00; and for vibration impacts, it is taken to fall between 23:00 and 07:00.
When the Government made the Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/428), which apply in England and Wales, it wanted to ensure consistency with the regulations for road traffic, so the midnight to 06:00 definition of night was used. The regulations also cover the remaining day period, but with higher limits.
As I have shown, the definition of night time for significant noise impact for noise and vibration to which the committee has agreed is as recommended in the Mitchell committee report, PAN 56 and BS6472. In addition, for noise insulation the noise and vibration policy mirrors the regulations that apply in England and Wales. In my view, there appears to be no sensible reason to depart from the guidance that I have outlined. I therefore recommend that Margaret Smith withdraws amendment 14.
I am not sure whether Jackie Baillie is suggesting that there is something of the night about me.
Not at all.
Worse has been said about me.
In the spirit in which the debate is being conducted, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 14.
Amendment 14, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 15 moved—[Donald Gorrie].
Amendment 15A moved—[Donald Gorrie].
The question is, that amendment 15A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 80, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 15A disagreed to.
The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 15, Against 81, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 15 disagreed to.
We move to group 7: clarification of planning role in the landscape and habitat management plan. Amendment 19, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 20 to 33.
At consideration stage, we undertook to amend the bill as detailed in our second report, in the sections entitled "Roseburn Railway Corridor—Flora and Fauna" and "Roseburn Railway Corridor—Health and Safety". Section 63C was added to the bill as a result of our amendment 87.
Given that the Roseburn railway corridor is a designated urban wildlife site, we were determined that the environmental impacts be mitigated as far as possible. Although we accepted that the exact effects cannot be identified until the detailed final designs are prepared, we agreed with the objectors that mitigation is paramount. The promoter's landscape and habitat management plan is a helpful starting point in considering mitigation.
Section 63C sets the minimum requirements in that regard. It not only establishes the minimum standards of mitigation to be achieved, but details who should be consulted. It also establishes the minimum standards that must be met in any subsequent version of the landscape and habitat management plan and ensures that the standards are enforceable.
Section 63C requires the promoter to consult Scottish Natural Heritage and the emergency services on the evolution of the landscape and habitat management plan. Once final designs are available, we expect that it will be necessary to revise it further. A multi-agency approach, together with the required involvement of residents, will ensure that landscape and habitat issues are treated sympathetically.
Section 63C also ensures that other aspects of construction and operation along the Roseburn railway corridor, such as emergency access, security and drainage, will be incorporated in decisions on changes to the landscape and habitat management plan. That means that such matters will be considered along with any changes to the Roseburn corridor landscape and habitat and it ensures that, as a witness at consideration stage wrote:
"An appropriate urban fit will be achieved by addressing the existing volume of space in a holistic way".
However, the committee did not just sit back after consideration stage. On reflection, we decided that we could do even better, and exchanges between the promoter and our eagle-eyed legal advisers and clerks led to the amendments that we are considering today.
Amendments 19 to 33 are largely technical. They will tighten the drafting and give the planning authority specific authority to approve and enforce. I will spare members the experience of being taken through the amendments in the group one by one, and content myself with commenting briefly on amendments 31, 19 and 20. Amendment 31 will give the planning authority power to enforce the requirements of the landscape and habitat management plan when enforcing planning conditions. Amendments 19 and 20 follow from amendment 32 and achieve the same purpose, by which I mean that they will ensure that the documents that identify the minimum standard to be met by the code of construction practice and the noise and vibration policy are clearly defined.
I move amendment 19.
I welcome the amendments. Many people have grave concerns about these issues. Indeed, as a result of the tram proposal local groups have been established that are committed to enhancing and improving the quality of habitat management in the Roseburn area. The amendments will ensure that the bill provides a proper framework for the council to take forward habitat management. I warmly welcome the approach and look forward to the wildlife corridor's enhancement, as well as to its establishment as a transport corridor in future.
Do you want to respond, Ms Baillie?
No.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
Amendments 16 to 18 not moved.
Amendment 20 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.
Section 63C—Landscape and habitat management plan
Amendments 21 to 33 moved——[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.
That concludes consideration of amendments. I will pause to allow members who wish to leave the room to do so before the formal debate on the bill begins.