Hansard

Before speaking to the amendments, I will refer to a printing error. In the Business Bulletin of 23 May, the third column of the table in amendment 45 did not appear correctly. The co-ordinates should appear separately under the headings X and Y. However, the amendment appears correctly in the marshalled list, which is on the Parliament's website.Amendment 49 meets the requirements that we set out in our consideration stage report. In effect, the amendment is in two parts. Having considered the evidence, we agreed that it was imperative that the railway's environmental impact should be no worse than the residual impact that is identified in the bill's environmental documents. If the impacts can be mitigated, we expect that to happen, but amendment 49 makes it clear that, as a minimum, the design, building and operation of the scheme must reach the standards that are set out in the environmental statement, the further environmental information document that was lodged in February 2005 and the addendum to the environmental statement in relation to the Stow station proposal that was lodged in January 2006.Amendment 49 allows the promoter flexibility in how those standards are met and it should enable the benefits of good design and developing practices to be incorporated. For example, if, due to technological advances, the railway is quieter than is assumed in the environmental statement, to the extent that specific noise mitigation measures are not required, the authorised undertaker will not be obliged to institute any stated measures if the incorporated technological advances achieve the same result or a better result on the level of noise.The second part of amendment 49 ensures that the standards that are embodied in pledges that the promoter made to objectors and to the committee will be delivered. That means either that the proposed mitigation will be provided or that the standard of protection that the pledges envisage will be met. Flexibility to include technological advances is provided again. For example, if the promoter has agreed to provide a noise barrier to reduce noise to an acceptable level for a particular objector, provided that the same level of noise can be achieved by using a quieter train, there will be no obligation on the authorised undertaker also to provide the barrier. The inclusion of that requirement in the bill will give some comfort to those who have expressed a degree of cynicism about whether the promoter will deliver what it promised on the environmental protections. The promoter now has no choice but to deliver.We heard extensive evidence from objectors and the promoter on mitigation proposals, in particular regarding noise and vibration. We carefully considered the promoter's approach to controlling noise and vibration, as set out in its code of construction practice and its noise and vibration policy, both of which were submitted in written evidence. Although we broadly welcome the commitments that are made by the promoter in those documents, we are aware of the concerns that have been expressed by objectors about, for example, construction noise monitoring. We therefore stated in our consideration stage report that we would amend the bill to make specific references to those two documents. Amendment 50 fulfils that commitment. Amendments 59 and 61 provide definitions of the code of construction practice and the local construction code that are provided for in amendment 50.The standards of mitigation that are set out in those documents and in subsequent local construction plans will now have to be applied by contractors. Furthermore, any subsequent revisions to version 7 of the code of construction practice and the 28 November 2005 version of the noise and vibration policy will not be permitted to reduce the standards of mitigation that we heard about, which are detailed in those documents.We believe that the code of construction practice in particular is now a much more robust document than it was originally. It now reflects many of the concerns that were expressed to us by objectors about the daily impact on them of the railway's construction. The code also reflects the necessary changes and enhancements that were suggested by Scottish Natural Heritage and that are required by the committee with respect to our recommendations on the appropriate assessment of the River Tweed special area of conservation. Those changes were fundamental to our being able to recommend that the Parliament agrees that the construction of the railway will have no adverse impact on the integrity of that site.The practical effect of the amendments is to make the code of construction practice and the noise and vibration policy enforceable. Failure to comply with those will result in the local authority being able to enforce compliance in the same way as it can enforce any planning condition. A number of objectors were somewhat cynical about promises that were given by the promoter in relation to those codes. The amendments ensure that the minimum standards that have been set must be met.Amendments 51, 52, 44, 45 and 63 to 65 give effect to the commitments that we made in our appropriate assessment report on the River Tweed SAC to ensure that the construction of the railway will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. The report by SNH in relation to the area was clear. The construction of the railway, as set out in the bill, is likely to affect adversely the integrity of the River Tweed SAC. However, if the bill and the code of construction practice are amended to take account of further proposals that are put forward by the promoter, Parliament should be able to conclude that construction will not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC. For the bill to meet the requirements of the European habitats directive and the UK habitats regulations, that conclusion can be reached only if those further proposals and any related conditions are included in the bill and in the code of construction practice, together with a mechanism to ensure that they are legally enforceable. That is what the amendments achieve.Amendment 51 introduces a new section, subsection (1) of which lists the works that were identified by SNH and the promoter that could adversely affect the integrity of the River Tweed SAC. Subsection (2) relates to the new schedule that is introduced by amendment 45. Part 1 of that schedule sets out general descriptions of the sites that have been identified by SNH as requiring special mitigation measures to avoid adverse impacts on the SAC and it provides for specific things to be done in relation to the sites that are listed in the schedule.Subsection (3) of amendment 51 deals with the operation of regulation 60 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994. Specifically, regulation 60 requires the local planning authority to carry out its own appropriate assessment of works that are authorised under the bill. To avoid the need for a second appropriate assessment that merely duplicates the Parliament's assessment, subsection (3) provides that the local planning authority is not obliged to carry out a further appropriate assessment of its own to the extent that the works have already been appropriately assessed by the Parliament. That leaves open the possibility that the local planning authority could conduct a further appropriate assessment on particular sites should that become necessary, for example if new information becomes available about the sites in question. Amendment 52 introduces a further new section on the regulation of mitigation measures. Subsection (1) provides for the enforcement of the environmental mitigation measures to be carried out by the authorised undertaker. Subsection (3) requires planning authorities—Midlothian Council and Scottish Borders Council—to appoint an environmental clerk of works whose function is to monitor the authorised undertaker's carrying out of the environmental measures that are referred to in subsection (1). Amendments 63, 64 and 65 amend section 43 to provide definitions of the River Tweed special area of conservation, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage.Amendments 44 and 45 insert the new schedules to which amendments 50 and 51 refer.I put on record my thanks, and those of the committee, to SNH and SEPA for all their hard work and advice in allowing us to reach the point where the bill can proceed. The professional, constructive and timeous advice on the matters covered by the amendments is much appreciated.I move amendment 49.