Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill. Members should have in front of them the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP bill 66A; the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that have been selected for debate; and the groupings, which I have agreed.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period for voting on the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a one-minute voting period for the first division after a debate. All other divisions will be 30 seconds.
Section 1—Orders as to transport systems and inland waterways
Group 1 is on the application of the bill to airport runways, and environmental statements. Amendment 1, in the name of Maureen Watt, is grouped with amendments 2 and 3.
Events that have occurred since stage 2 proceedings on the bill have precipitated the need for amendments 1 to 3. Recently, Aberdeen City Council was asked to consider an application from the British Airports Authority to extend the runway at Aberdeen airport so that it can accommodate long-haul flights. When some councillors raised environmental and climatic change concerns, council officials advised them that those were not material considerations when a decision was being made and that even under the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, which was passed recently by the Parliament, they still would not be considered as such.
This is a case of legislation not reflecting the concerns that have been expressed on all sides of the chamber regarding the environment. If my amendments are agreed to, we will have the chance to allow environmental factors to be taken into account, along with other factors, when major projects are considered under the bill. It seems odd that projects of national significance do not include airport developments, especially since so much is said here about climate change, global warming and the effects of carbon emissions.
I am not saying that there should not be a runway extension at Aberdeen airport. On the contrary, if long-haul planes can be filled in areas other than London, that is all the better because many carbon emissions result from planes being stacked for landing at the hugely overcrowded London airports. I do not suggest that environmental change factors should be the overriding ones, but surely they should be considered and taken into account in the planning of major infrastructure projects.
I move amendment 1.
We should remember that the purpose of the bill is to replace the existing private bill process; it seeks to dispense with the arcane special parliamentary procedure and to bring a degree of conformity to transport developments that are subject to ministerial orders. The bill therefore deals with roads, harbours, rail, trams and inland waterways.
Airport developments are not included on the list, because they are bound by an appropriate regime between planning and airport legislation. There is no requirement for airport developments to be subject to the private bill procedure. We have made changes to the process for rail, trams and canals because Parliament requested improvements to that process. I am surprised that Maureen Watt lodged her amendments at this stage. It is not particularly sensible to propose a fundamental principle of legislation based on one airport in one part of Scotland, when the existing processes include mechanisms for dealing with the issue that the member raises.
Amendments 2 and 3 are well intended but unnecessary. The bill was drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the environmental impact assessment directive, and promoters will be required to produce an environmental statement in accordance with that directive; I refer Maureen Watt to section 12(7) of the bill. As the member knows, our proposed secondary legislation was made available to Parliament last year; indeed, she has seen it in committee. The draft secondary legislation sets out the specific requirements in respect of environmental information. Our proposals confirm the need to supply such information, including on the impact of proposals on climate. For that reason, the amendments are inappropriate and unnecessary.
It is important not to forget the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, which makes all public plans and programmes subject to strategic environmental assessment. That means that all development plans, regional transport strategies, the national transport strategy and the national planning framework will be subject to strategic environmental assessment, including requirements concerning the consideration of climatic factors.
Does not the minister agree that existing environmental assessments do not take into account the effects on our environment of factors such as climate change and global warming? If we are serious about dealing with climatic matters, we have the opportunity today to put our money where our mouth is and to put in place legislation to address them.
After this morning's debate, Maureen Watt should be careful about pushing an environmental line. Let us be clear: existing legislation covers the issues to which the member refers. As I indicated, they are covered by strategic environmental assessment, which was introduced under the 2005 act. If the member has concerns, she should consider that legislation carefully.
Is the minister saying that applications to extend airport runways will be part of the national planning framework?
Applications to extend runways are dealt with by the planning process, under the legislation to which I have referred. It is important to look at the issue in that context and, as I am sure Mr Ballance would wish, in the context of the environmental checks and assessment that will take place. That is the point that Maureen Watt is making, but the checks that she seeks are already in place.
Is it not the case that, if an airport seeks to extend a runway on land that is already designated as airport property, the proposal can go ahead without consultation, whereas if it seeks an extension beyond the airport perimeter, others may come into the argument?
I understand that the planning process covers all eventualities and that there would, therefore, be formal consultation and the opportunity for formal expression of opposition. I will check the point that Mr Gallie makes about airport boundaries and respond to him on it.
As part of future reviews of the national transport strategy, the Government is developing a carbon balance sheet that will present the impact of all Scottish transport policies and projects that are expected to have a significant impact on carbon emissions, whether positive or negative. I agree with Maureen Watt about the importance of addressing climate change. The bill and the associated subordinate legislation will deliver what she seeks to achieve. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw or not to move her amendments.
If, as he says, the minister will use subordinate legislation to ensure that climate change factors are taken into account in environmental assessments, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 1.
Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 3—Crown land
Group 2 comprises minor amendments. Amendment 4, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 9 and 13.
Amendment 4 is a technical drafting amendment to improve references. The term "Crown interest" is used twice in section 3. Amendment 4 ensures that where the term is used, it attracts on each occasion the definition as set out in subsection (3).
Amendment 9, too, is technical. We realised that we had inadvertently omitted a cross-reference. The amendment rectifies that and ensures for the avoidance of doubt that all pertinent information about orders must be placed in the annual report, which will be published and laid before the Parliament. I hope that Ms Watt will accept that assurance.
Amendment 13 is a technical and consequential amendment that is required because of changes that we made at stage 2 to make harbour authorities a statutory objector.
I move amendment 4.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Section 4—Applications
Amendment 2 not moved.
After section 7
Group 3 is on developments of national significance. Amendment 16, in the name of Maureen Watt, is the only amendment in the group.
Although there was general agreement that the existing system of dealing with major projects by means of a private act of the Scottish Parliament is not a satisfactory way of doing things, there is concern among those who have followed the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill that so little involvement of the Parliament is expected as a result of the bill.
With amendment 16, I am not trying to reintroduce the arguments that were advanced by Donald Gorrie at stage 2. If all the front-loading of the process of major projects takes place and all interested parties are involved from the start, that will be welcome. However, there is concern that although local members might be able to have a say, Parliament as a body will not have a say on major strategic developments. That is remiss. Shortly after the announcement of a project, time should be given for elected members to give their views so that ministers know at the outset the views of members and their constituents.
I offer an example that looks back to what happened earlier today. If proposals were developed for a new Forth crossing, from whichever party, surely the Government of the day should lead an early debate on the subject—for example, on whether the crossing should be a bridge or a tunnel. That debate should not be left to an individual member to introduce; the Government should lead the debate so that members may have a say on the project.
I move amendment 16.
I have a great deal of sympathy with Maureen Watt's amendment 16. Section 13 deals with developments of national significance and provides that formal approval of any ministerial order relating to such a significant development will be required from the Parliament as a final stage in the process. Amendment 16 would provide for preliminary as well as final consideration by Parliament of such a significant development.
I have some sympathy with the amendment because of a point that was raised in evidence by those who participated under the present private bill procedure, who said that by the time the draft private bill came to Parliament, the principle of the project had in effect been approved by the Scottish Executive since such projects invariably depend on a high level of public funding before they can even get to first base. As the objectors saw it, parliamentary consideration was confined to the details and not the principle and the result was a foregone conclusion. That is an unfortunate, if realistic, perception. For that reason, there is merit in the principle behind amendment 16.
Whether a statutory requirement for preliminary consideration by Parliament needs to be incorporated in the bill depends in part on how the Executive intends Parliament to debate the national planning framework and developments of national significance that are within that framework, some of which are projects that fall within the scope of the bill. If we can be satisfied that there is adequate scope for such a preliminary debate in Parliament, initiated by the Executive in its own time, amendment 16 is probably unnecessary. However, if that is not the case—we await the minister's response with interest—the amendment has considerable merit and is worthy of our support.
I, too, have a great deal of sympathy with amendment 16. It is important that we have some form of parliamentary scrutiny and debate on the general principles of such proposals before all the work of inquiries and everything else gets under way.
At the moment, we risk creating a procedure that involves much less parliamentary scrutiny than currently exists. We risk creating a procedure whereby the only parliamentary scrutiny will be a final motion at the end of the process, when there will be one three-minute speech for and one three-minute speech against.
Amendment 16 is worth while. Unlike David McLetchie, I think that it is important to include the provision in the bill, because regardless of the current minister's good will and good intentions, we must have something that is binding on his successors.
In adding my support for Maureen Watt's amendment 16, I declare an interest as I was previously the convener of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee.
Far be it from me to say that the Parliament needs more involvement than the bill provides, given the complaints of all the committee members in light of the fact that the process took almost three years and required us to go through a pile of evidence that was almost 3ft high. However, there is an important stage missing from the procedure that is outlined in the bill and I urge the minister to listen carefully to the comments that have been made by members throughout the chamber.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that Parliament gets to consider a proposal at a preliminary stage to decide in principle whether we support it before it proceeds further. The process that is outlined in the bill is lacking in parliamentary scrutiny. I am not arguing for one minute that we should go back to the old system—heaven forfend—but I think that there is something missing. I urge the minister to listen carefully, reflect on what has been said and respond positively to Maureen Watt's amendment.
I take the issue seriously. It reflects a legitimate point of interest that has been raised, in different forms but in the same manner, at committee proceedings and elsewhere.
First, on the point on which David McLetchie and Tricia Marwick have just reflected, I bow to the superior knowledge of my colleague Johann Lamont, who was responsible for the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. Not only will we have a full parliamentary debate on these matters before the parliamentary process begins, but the committees will be heavily involved in taking them forward and scrutinising them to the utmost extreme. It is important to reflect on Parliament's engagement in the process.
Will the minister give way?
In a minute.
I assure Chris Ballance that it is not the case that there would be a three-minute speech for and a three-minute speech against. Ministers would be held accountable for every part of the proposal and ministers would be questioned on every part of it in detailed evidence sessions. I hope that that provides the assurance that he seeks.
Does not the minister accept that the debate on the planning strategy will be a debate on a large number—perhaps 50 or 60—of planning issues? What is required is detailed examination of a specific transport issue, but that will not happen in a general debate on the overall planning strategy for Scotland.
That is why I made the point on the role of committees. The kind of scrutiny that the member describes is not provided by general parliamentary debates; the Parliament's bread-and-butter work is done in the committees. I strongly advocate and will always support the committees' right properly to scrutinise all such issues. I am sure that they will do so in the context of the national planning framework and will look into the detail behind it in relation to an individual committee's responsibilities.
I hope that Mr Ballance accepts that assurance. I do not accept that only the debate in Parliament would cover the wide range of projects; detailed scrutiny would take place in the committees.
As Maureen Watt knows, I stated in evidence to the Local Government and Transport Committee:
"If the bill is enacted, transport proposals will continue to be subject to scrutiny, from the strategy documents, beginning with the strategic projects review, through to the infrastructure investment plan and culminating, for nationally significant projects, in the national planning framework."
Will the minister give way?
I want to finish making this point.
I also said:
"Given the front-loading exercise and the significant top-line parliamentary scrutiny in the context of the national transport strategy"—
and other aspects,
"it will simply not be necessary to have yet another process."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 3 October 2006; c 4048 and 4053.]
I wholly concur with Alasdair Morgan, who said in his submission on the bill to the Procedures Committee:
"the SNP is anxious that whatever procedure is introduced in the above bill is one which considerably reduces the delays"—
I think that that is Tricia Marwick's point—
"currently accompanying public transport projects, particularly in relation to rail.
In that respect I am not convinced that we do need two bites at the cherry in Parliament in respect of approving Executive action and I feel that approval of the final draft order is probably sufficient."
That just shows that the previous business manager and chief whip sometimes disagreed with the current business manager and chief whip on the issue—I will probably get a hard slap for it, too.
Will the minister confirm that the national planning framework will be either wholly approved or wholly rejected by members after the parliamentary debate and that we will have no opportunity to lodge an amendment that would delete part of the document? If that is the case, the detailed scrutiny that we want will not take place, because members will not be able to reject a particular aspect of the framework without rejecting the whole thing.
That argument would be fair if the debate represented the Parliament's only scrutiny of the Government of the day's national planning framework. However, as we have discussed ad nauseam in committee, it absolutely will not be the only scrutiny. I hope that Tricia Marwick reads the evidence on the matter, because we went over the issue a number of times. As I said to Chris Ballance, the debate is not the only process; a number of steps will be gone through. The front-loading exercise—I know that is dreadful jargon—will involve consultation and projects will be considered by communities and, I am sure, by many regional and constituency members. In addition, there will be a political process, which will provide much opportunity for debate and full, active scrutiny before the Parliament debates the NPF.
I want to talk about fairness. The practical proposal in amendment 16 is that the Parliament should by motion debate an individual project within three months of an application being made, which means that the Parliament could conduct a formal debate during an objection period. I hope that Maureen Watt will reflect on the significant problems that such an approach would give the Government. The Parliament might debate a project's merits before it had been subject to independent examination by a reporter or while an inquiry or hearing was going on—I am sure that that is not what Maureen Watt wants to achieve. What message would that send to the parties concerned? People would ask what was the point of pursuing the process if the Parliament was going to arrive at a decision without hearing the evidence or arguments. Amendment 16 is not consistent with the formal processes in relation to people's right to object.
On the basis of that point and wider points about the inevitable and proper parliamentary scrutiny of national transport plans and other plans, I ask Maureen Watt to withdraw amendment 16.
I do not recall it being suggested to the Local Government and Transport Committee that scrutiny of projects under the bill would be as strong as the minister's comments today suggest that it will be. If such scrutiny is to take place, and given what my colleagues have said to other committees, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 16.
Does any member object to Maureen Watt withdrawing amendment 16?
Yes.
In that case, I must put the question. The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division. I suspend the meeting for five minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will proceed with the division.
For
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
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, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (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)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
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)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
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)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 97, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 16 disagreed to.
Section 8—Objections
Group 4 is on notifications. Amendment 5, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 6 and 8.
Amendment 5 seeks to improve targeting of information. We have decided that it is inappropriate that a newspaper advertisement must be placed each and every time we decide to dispense with rules or require compliance with additional rules. We believe that we have to ensure that we most appropriately inform people who may be materially affected; where only a few people will be affected, they could receive individual notices rather than be informed via a newspaper.
Amendment 6 has been lodged for technical drafting reasons. It seeks to make more precise the cross-reference to provisions within section 9 and, in so doing, to confirm that Scottish ministers are to send notice of their determination to make or not to make an order to every statutory objector that makes an objection. Amendment 8 is consequential on it, to maintain consistency in the drafting.
I move amendment 5.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Section 12—Publicity for making or refusal of order
Amendment 6 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
Amendment 3 not moved.
Group 5 is on the implementation of a directive. Amendment 7, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15.
The amendments follow through on the commitment that I gave to the Local Government and Transport Committee to return at stage 3 with amendments that will implement European Council directive 2003/35/EC as it relates to the Harbours Act 1964. The directive—otherwise known as the public participation directive—extends the amount of information that is to be made available when a development that requires an environmental impact assessment is being proposed, and the ways in which that information is published. It seeks to ensure that members of the public, as well as bodies that have environmental interests, have the opportunity to participate in the environmental decision-making process. It also provides for a legal right to challenge the decision. Similar changes were made recently by regulation in respect of roads, and changes for projects to deliver rail and other guided transport systems have been reflected in the drafting of part 1, with details to be laid out in secondary legislation.
Amendment 14 will ensure that we implement the provisions of the public participation directive before June; if we did so any later, we would leave ourselves open to possible infraction proceedings. Amendment 15 will ensure that in implementing the provisions of the public participation directive we do not breach the legitimate expectation of developers that have current applications. The transitional arrangements confirm that we will not be changing the rules or procedures for existing projects. That is a standard approach.
I move amendment 7.
I direct my remarks at amendment 11, which is in the name of the minister. The legislative process in Parliament is sometimes of such mind-numbing tedium that it almost sends members to sleep. That is no better exemplified than in amendment 11, which starts with a series of subsections designated "zz". Who is responsible for that? We need look no further than the introduction to amendment 11, where we find our old friend, Council directive 2003/35/EC.
Where is Phil Gallie?
He is right beside me. I am sure that he will have something to say about it.
Once again, it seems that pages are being added to legislation of Parliament at the behest of our friends and partners in the European Union. At a recent meeting of the Local Government and Transport Committee, it was of considerable interest to my colleagues and me to study the report that had been prepared by Jim Wallace on implementation of EU directives in the Scottish Parliament, elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in other member states.
I would like an assurance from the minister that the pages and sections of legislation that we now propose to enact are not an example of the gold plating to which Mr Wallace drew attention in his report. It is remarkable that, whereas we require pages to implement a European directive, our friends in the Republic of Ireland seem to require only a few lines.
Although we will support amendment 11—as is incumbent upon us under the terms of our legal obligations as members of the European Union—I ask the minister to comment on whether the pages and pages of prose are truly necessary to give the law effect.
It is important to look closely at amendment 11, and I am sure that David McLetchie has had that opportunity, even in his darkest moments. I can assure him that the new "pages" of law are in fact paragraphs. New paragraph (zza) of proposed new section 54A of the Harbours Act 1964—I know that David McLetchie is familiar with that one—provides for definitions. Paragraphs (zzb) and (zzc) seek to improve the provision of access to information and the making of representations and paragraph (zzd) will introduce new paragraph 10A into part I of schedule 3 to the 1964 act. As regards the remaining new paragraphs (zze) to (zzg), which are, of course, consequential, I hope that David McLetchie will recognise that they are paragraphs, not pages. He will therefore appreciate that the Scottish Executive is doing its best not to have gold, silver, bronze or any other kind of plating.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendment 8 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
Section 20—Annual report
Amendment 9 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
Section 24—Amendment of Harbours Act 1964
Amendments 10 to 13 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
Section 29—Short title and commencement
Amendments 14 and 15 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.