Scottish Parliament

Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee

Thursday 20 May 2004

(Afternoon)

[THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 12:45]

Accompanying Documents (Consideration)

The Convener (Tricia Marwick): I welcome members to the meeting and remind them to switch off their mobile phones and pagers. We have received no apologies.

I invite members to consider paper WAV/S2/04/4/1 and annex A to it, which the committee's adviser has prepared, and to make general comments. The paper is the result of a verbal briefing that the adviser gave the committee last week and raises a number of points about how we might handle the accompanying documents, on which I would like comments from members.

Christine May (Central Fife) (Lab): The key question is whether there was, in the documentation that we received last week, sufficient evidence for us to scrutinise properly the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill in order to take a decision on it. It is clear from what the adviser told us that elements of the environmental statement require clarification. Therefore, it seems that it would be reasonable to give the promoter time to improve the information in the environmental statement. That will allow us thereafter to begin the proper scrutiny that we are obliged to carry out.

Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): I agree with Christine May. The adviser drew to our attention a number of matters, particularly in relation to the proposed project's impact on the environment, which are listed in annex A to paper WAV/S2/04/4/1. Appendix A of annex A refers to: "Noise and Vibration"; "Traffic and Transport"; "Ecology and Nature Conservation"; "Listed Buildings and Structures"; and the "Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment". We need much more information about those matters, so I fully support Christine May's view.

Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD): I agree with colleagues' points. It is unfortunate that there will be some delay in our getting the

information, but we will be delayed until we get the business case, anyway. There is a question about the extent to which we will have a clearer picture about the extra cost that might be involved in the mitigation measures and environmental works. Is that part of what we are asking the promoters to come back with?

The Convener: No.

Margaret Smith: Would it form part of the business case generally?

The Convener: Yes—that would have to form part of the business case. If the costs are not covered in the environmental statement, the business case will have to be updated at some point to take account of that.

Margaret Smith: The promoter will be aware that we are trying to ensure that the business case covers in its costings all the issues on which we want further information.

The Convener: Yes. As members know, the committee must satisfy itself that the accompanying documents conform to rule 9A.2.3; it is the unanimous view of the committee that we are not satisfied that we have sufficient information to allow us further to scrutinise the bill.

I invite the committee to consider the specific issues in the paper. Do we agree to request that the promoter submit a supplementary memorandum on the environmental statement in response to the issues that are raised in annex A to paper WAV/S2/04/4/1, in accordance with the deadline indicated in paragraph 4 of the paper?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener: Do we agree to notify the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland of the request that has been made of the promoter to provide a supplementary memorandum on the environmental statement and, subsequently, to give them the opportunity to submit written evidence on the environmental statement and the supplementary memorandum, in accordance with the deadline indicated in paragraph 4 of the paper?

Members indicated agreement.

Christine May: In agreeing to that, are we also agreeing that any other objectors who have a legitimate interest will be given that opportunity?

The Convener: That is a fair question. We need also to decide whether to give objectors the opportunity to submit written evidence on other accompanying documents, in particular the promoter's memorandum, the promoter's statement, the book of reference, the maps, and the plans and sections, in accordance with the

deadline indicated in paragraph 5 of the paper. Does the committee agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener: Finally, does the committee agree to invite the promoter to submit comments in relation to that written evidence in accordance with the deadline indicated in paragraph 5 of the paper?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener: Thank you. I am sure that the clerks will draft the letters that need to be sent as quickly as possible to meet the deadlines.

Meeting closed at 12:50.