Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, 14 Mar 2007

14 Mar 2007 · S2 · Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee

Item of business

Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill: Consideration Stage

Gallie, Phil Con South of Scotland Watch on SPTV

Welcome to the third and final meeting in 2007 of the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee. The meeting is quorate; we have a full house once again. I ask everyone in the room to ensure that all phones and pagers are switched off. I extend a special welcome to Professor Begg and Mrs Begg who have come along today. Professor Begg has done a considerable amount of work on our behalf, for which the committee is grateful.Item 1 is phase 2 of consideration stage of the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill. At phase 2, the committee must consider and dispose of all admissible amendments. The procedures that we will follow today will be similar to those followed for a public bill at stage 2, except that only members of the committee can lodge amendments and participate in the meeting.Fifty-four admissible amendments have been lodged, and they fall into four broad categories: amendments that have arisen from issues highlighted in the committee's consideration stage report; amendments to reflect agreements reached between the promoter and former objectors; minor or technical amendments that have been provided by the promoter and lodged on the promoter's behalf by a member of the committee; and amendments that have arisen from discussions held on the committee's behalf between our clerks, our legal adviser and the promoter on certain aspects of the bill.I make it clear that, given that only members of the committee can lodge amendments, no particular inference should be drawn from which member speaks to and moves an amendment. Amendments have been lodged by individual members for procedural reasons only.Before we commence with proceedings on the amendments, I will read into the public record the letter of 9 March 2007 from Ron McAulay, Scotland director of Network Rail—the bill promoter—to our clerk on the promoter's delivery on commitments and undertakings:"Network Rail is committed to the delivery of the project in accordance with the undertakings given and as contemplated by the Report. Accordingly, I can confirm on behalf of Network Rail, as Promoter of the Bill, that if the Bill is passed in terms of the Bill as proposed to be amended by the amendments in the enclosed paper, Network Rail and any successor authorised undertaker will implement the powers of the Act—(a) in accordance with the Committee's views regarding specific objectors; and(b) using all reasonably practicable means to meet the Committee's other expectations and requirements;all as described in the 2nd Report.A significant part of item (b) above involves changes in the Code of Construction Practice and the Noise and Vibration Policy. In the days since the publication of the 2nd Report appropriate amendments have been made and, as required by the Committee, revised documents will be lodged on Monday 12 March together with an explanatory note."We have received those documents. I am sure that members agree that that should give comfort to objectors on the delivery of specific mitigation measures as identified in our consideration stage report.However, on a related note, the committee will recall from paragraph 64 of its consideration stage report that the promoter was to produce a step-by-step guide to explain the actions that will be open to an individual should they be concerned that a trigger level identified in the code of construction practice for noise, vibration, dust or loss of vegetation has been exceed in so far as it relates to their home.Despite that, the committee will note from the draft code of construction practice, dated 12 March, that what the promoter has submitted is a printout from its website explaining Network Rail's general complaints mechanism. That does not reflect what we said in our report or what the assessor said in his report. Accordingly, we require sight of a draft guide by noon on Monday 19 March. We expect the guide to be specific to this railway project and to reflect the specifics of this project's COCP—for example at section 2.6, which sets out the arrangements for a project-specific telephone complaints hotline; section 2.3, regarding the provision of information centres; and section 2.5, regarding the role of community fora.I have accepted a manuscript amendment, in the name of Alasdair Morgan, to amendment 52. In doing so, I have taken into account the disadvantages of lack of proper notice, as required under rule 9A.12.6 of the standing orders.We now proceed to the consideration of amendments.