Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, 01 Jun 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 1, 2005

Official Report 290KB pdf

---

Late Objections (Consideration)

I welcome everyone to our seventh meeting in 2005—our 15th meeting overall. I note that there are many people in the public gallery. If you all squash in together a wee bit, that will make things nice and cosy for everyone.

Agenda item 1 is consideration of five late objections to the bill. The committee is required to consider the objections and to decide whether each objector has shown good reason for not lodging their objection within the specified objection period. If they have shown good reason, the objection will be allowed to proceed to the preliminary consideration stage.

I invite comments from members on each of the five objections that are annexed to the paper. As the paper makes clear, for data protection purposes, we should avoid referring to any personal or sensitive data, such as an individual's contact details, that might lead to the identification of an objector.

Do members agree that the objection in annex A should be allowed to proceed to the preliminary consideration stage?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree that the objection in annex B should be allowed to proceed to the preliminary consideration stage?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree that the objection in annex C should be allowed to proceed to the preliminary consideration stage?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree that the objection in annex D should be allowed to proceed to the preliminary consideration stage?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree that the objection in annex E should be allowed to proceed to the preliminary consideration stage?

I have some problems with the objection in annex E. From its terms, it appears that the objector was well aware of the proposals, and I cannot see why their objection could not—and should not—have been submitted earlier. I would like to hear other members' views, but I am reluctant to accept this objection.

I take a different view. In point 2 of annex E, the objector claims that they have not been kept informed of developments. As we have no way of knowing whether that claim is accurate, and given the basis on which we have allowed the other objections to stand, I think that we should allow the objection in annex E to stand.

My view is similar to that of Ted Brocklebank. We cannot know whether the objector's claim is accurate. They say that they have written to the council, asking to be kept informed, and have complained previously to the director about not being kept informed. Given all the other non-notification issues that we have encountered, I am prepared to give this person the benefit of the doubt.

We already have a cast of thousands—I do not suppose that another one will make much difference. I do not mean that facetiously. It could leave a bad taste in someone's mouth if we do not allow their objection to stand and, given that we already have a cast of thousands, it really does not inconvenience us.

I am happy to defer to my colleagues and allow the objection to go through.

Do members agree that the objection in annex E should be allowed to proceed to the preliminary consideration stage?

Members indicated agreement.

The committee considers that all the objectors in question have shown good reason for lodging their objections late and that those objections should go forward to the preliminary consideration stage.