Consideration Stage Timetable
Good afternoon. I welcome committee members and members of the public to the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee's second meeting of 2004. I ask members and the public to ensure that mobile phones are turned off. As four committee members are present, we have a quorum. No apologies have been received.
The committee is invited to consider its approach to the bill's consideration stage and a timetable for its evidence-gathering meetings and to decide whether to carry out a site visit on 1 March. Committee members will be aware that the committee's clerks, lawyer and adviser met representatives of the grouped objectors and the bill's promoter in Alloa on 4 February. A note of that meeting is attached at annex B to paper SAK/S2/04/2/1. That meeting's purpose was to allow the grouped objectors and the promoter to comment on the proposed timetable and running order for the committee's evidence-gathering meetings. A copy of the timetable and running order is attached at annex A to the paper.
Members will have noticed that the promoter said at that meeting that, although 8 March was a suitable date to deal with the objections from group 15, which comprises Diageo plc, and group 4, which involves Messrs Adam, Walker and Milligan, 15 March would not be suitable as its counsel will be unavailable. Its preferred second dates are 29 March for group 15 and 22 March for group 4.
I invite members' views on reordering the timetable for groups 15 and 4 to accommodate the promoter and on the timetable and running order generally. Do members accede to the promoter's request or will we continue with the timetable as proposed?
The promoter has sufficient notice to organise itself to the timetable.
Do members agree to stick to the proposed timetable?
Quite a lot of work has gone into the timetable, which is balanced. It is important to maintain the balance and work through matters logically.
Are we agreed?
I agree with the proposal.
It is obvious that the committee is not minded to accede to the promoter's request and that the timetable and running order for hearing evidence at consideration stage will be as set out in annex A to the paper. I suggest that the promoter and objectors should be made aware of the committee's decision—the clerks will deal with that.
I invite members' views on undertaking site visits on 1 March and in particular on the issues that were raised at the meeting with grouped objectors on 4 February. Do members agree that carrying out site visits on 1 March is a reasonable way of proceeding?
It is sensible to make visits and to refresh our memories. When we can visualise what people are talking about, it is easier to put their remarks in context.
Are all members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
We agree to undertake site visits.
What are members' views on the timings? Our paper suggests short focused visits on 1 March. Do members agree to that?
Members indicated agreement.
We agree that short specific visits should be conducted along the proposed railway route. They will support objectors' written evidence and assist committee members with visualising the areas to which objections refer, as Nora Radcliffe said.
Members will be aware that some grouped objectors said at the meeting on 4 February that the committee should make a site visit to their area. Should the clerks liaise with objectors to arrange such visits? I should point out that the promoter said at the meeting that some visits may require permissions from Network Rail, if the committee wishes to access private land along the railway route. Do we instruct the clerks to liaise with objectors?
Members indicated agreement.
We agree that the clerks should make the necessary arrangements for site visits on 1 March on the basis that we will not enter any private land along the proposed route.
Are we also in agreement with the suggestion that the promoter be invited to have one person in attendance at such visits to act as an observer only? That would seem only fair and proper.
That is reasonable.
I agree, although guidance will clearly have to be given to the objectors as to how the events will be conducted, because they will clearly not be full-scale debates of the issues. Everybody must be clear about what is happening.
That is a fair point, Mr Mundell, and it will be transmitted to those who will attend the site visits. Considered and rational argument is for later on in the timetable.
The committee will be aware of the request that was made at the meeting with grouped objectors on 4 February for members to view, in operation, the type of train that it is proposed would operate on the railway, should the bill be passed and the scheme proceed. Members will notice from the note of the meeting, which is attached at annex B to the paper, that such a train was in operation at Hunterston. However, I understand that it now may be possible to view the type of train at Newcraighall, near Edinburgh. What are the committee's views on the clerks arranging such a visit with the promoter? Are we agreed that the visit should happen on 1 March, if that is possible?
Members indicated agreement.
We are agreed that the clerks should liaise with the promoter and that the necessary arrangements should be made for 1 March.