Hansard

The assessor and the committee heard evidence from objectors and the promoter on mitigating the environmental effects that will inevitably arise during construction. While our remit in relation to operating the railway is limited, both under the bill and as a consequence of matters devolved under the Scotland Act 1998, 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. We took a lot of evidence on environmental issues and concerns and we scrutinised the promoter's environmental statement, including taking advice on its terms from our external adviser. While we welcome the commitments made by the promoter in all those documents, we are aware of the objectors' concerns about what could happen on the ground. We therefore stated in our consideration stage report that we would amend the bill to make specific reference to those documents. The standards of mitigation set out in the code of construction practice, the noise and vibration policy, the mitigation commitment documents and the environmental statement will, as a result of these amendments, be applied to contractors, because the undertakers are bound by those standards and will therefore have to ensure that any subcontractor is similarly bound by them. Further, any subsequent revisions to the latest version of the code of construction practice, the noise and vibration policy and the mitigation commitment documents will not be permitted to reduce the standards of mitigation that are detailed within those documents. The code of construction practice is now more robust than when it was introduced as part of the environmental statement. It reflects many of the objectors' concerns about the day-to-day impact of the railway's construction. Similarly, the noise and vibration policy has been substantially enhanced, especially in relation to noise and vibration monitoring. The practical effect of the amendments is to give those documents enforceability. Failure to comply with the documents will result in the local authority being able to enforce compliance in the same way that it can enforce any planning condition. The amendments ensure that the minimum standards set must be met. It might assist the committee if I provide a little detail on how the amendments work in practice. Amendment 73 meets the requirements that we sought in our consideration stage report. Having considered the evidence, we agreed that it was imperative that the environmental impact of the railway should be no worse than the residual impact identified in the bill's environmental documents. If the impacts can be mitigated then that must happen, but amendment 73 makes it clear that the standards set out in the environmental statement are the minimum that must be achieved.The amendment does, however, allow the promoter flexibility in how those standards are met and 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 assumed in the environmental statement to the extent that specific noise mitigation measures are not required, the authorised undertaker is not obliged to institute any of the stated measures if those technological advances that are incorporated achieve the same or a better end result on the level of noise. The inclusion of that requirement in the bill ensures that the promoter must deliver on the environmental protections promised.Amendment 73 also ensures that the standards embodied in specific pledges made by the promoter to objectors or to the committee will be delivered. That means that either the proposed mitigation will be provided or the standard of protection envisaged by the pledge will be met. The approach provides the flexibility to take account of technological advances. For example, if the promoter agreed with an objector that they would provide a noise barrier to reduce noise to an acceptable level, but the same noise level can be achieved by using a quieter train, there will be no obligation on the authorised undertaker to provide the barrier.I move to amendments 74 and 78. The assessor heard extensive evidence about proposed mitigation, in particular in relation to noise and vibration. We carefully considered the promoter's approach to controlling noise and vibration, which is set out in the code of construction practice and the noise and vibration policy—the promoter submitted both documents as written evidence. Although we welcome the commitments that the promoter made, we are aware of objectors' concerns about construction noise monitoring, for example. We therefore said in our consideration stage report that we would amend the bill so that it makes specific reference to the code of construction practice and the noise and vibration policy. The approach is similar to the approach to environmental monitoring, so the practical effect of amendments 74 and 78 will be to make enforceable the code of construction practice, the noise and vibration policy and any mitigation commitment document. The local planning authority will be able to enforce compliance with those documents in the way that it enforces any planning condition.Amendment 75 ensures that the standards that we have agreed in the code of construction practice, noise and vibration policy and mitigation commitment documents are the minimum that must be met and that all the obligations of the authorised undertaker in relation to such matters and environmental impacts must be enforced by the local planning authority.Amendment 77 is a drafting amendment and reiterates that the bill's aim—to build a new railway, including all associated works—is as far as the Parliament can go under the Scotland Act 1998. Although the promotion and construction of railways that start and end in Scotland are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the provision and regulation of railway services are—with very limited exceptions—reserved. The amendments in the group clarify that enduring commitments that are associated with the environmental effects of the railway's construction, such as commitments to provide planted areas or animal habitats, are protected. At the same time, however, the bill will make it clear that such obligations do not interfere with activity associated with reserved operational railway services, which are regulated under the Railways Act 1993.The 1993 act provides that a railway network operator must hold a licence and that licence holders are governed by the regulatory regime. The licence includes provisions that are designed to protect the environment. Network Rail's environmental policies not only comply with the licence but are based on ISO 14001, which is the international standard for environmental management. Railway operators have a statutory obligation to comply with the conditions of their licence and the rail regulator ensures that they do so.The promoter made it clear that amendment 77 does not reduce the environmental commitments in the bill or other commitments that it has given, all of which are made enforceable by local authorities as a result of amendments to the bill. Amendment 77 avoids any prospect of conflict arising between the reserved 1993 act's provisions and our environmental mitigation provisions.Amendment 90 is a technical amendment and defines "code of construction practice".Amendment 91 is also a technical amendment and provides a definition of "the Committee" in relation to references in the bill to undertakings given to us or to the assessor, who heard evidence on our behalf and reported to us. For example, there is such a reference in the provision inserted by amendment 73. Amendment 91 provides that"‘the Committee' means the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee … and includes any assessor appointed in respect of that Bill".Amendment 93 provides a definition of "local construction plan" that covers all codes of practice intended to define the authorised undertaker's policy in relation to construction works within a specified geographical area. Those must be included in the directory of documents that is mentioned in amendment 75. Local plans, therefore, are like the code of construction practice in that they allow the local authority to monitor compliance and to require consultation before they are altered.Finally, amendment 94 provides a definition of "mitigation commitment document". The definition encompasses any document that the authorised undertaker prepares in relation to specific impacts of the authorised works, including the environmental management plan. The plan brings together in one place all the environmental requirements that derive from the various mitigation documents, plans and third-party agreements that have been produced.I move amendment 73.