Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, 12 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, February 12, 2004

Official Report 76KB pdf

---

Proposed Amendment

The committee is asked to consider its response to the explanatory memorandum that it considered at our last meeting, when we heard oral evidence from Alison Gorlov, the parliamentary agent for the promoter, on the Balfour Street accommodation crossing and the need for an amendment to the bill. The purpose of the amendment would be to authorise the closure of the crossing.

We need to consider some specific points, starting with the accompanying documents that are referred to in paragraphs 21 to 24 of the paper that we considered last week, SAK/S2/04/1/1—that trips off the tongue. Are we agreed that the promoter should proceed on the basis of the commitments that it has made in the paper regarding the necessary amendments to certain accompanying documents to accommodate the proposed amendment to the bill? That would seem reasonable.

Members indicated agreement.

On the arrangements that are to be made by the promoter to notify affected persons, is the committee agreed that the promoter should carry out the notification arrangements that are outlined in paragraph 28 of paper SAK/S2/04/1/1 by issuing an affected persons notice to those persons whom it has identified as enjoying rights over the Balfour Street crossing?

Members indicated agreement.

Are we also agreed that, on the basis that the amendment affects only land in Alloa, the promoter should advertise its proposal for the amendment to the bill in the Alloa and Hillfoots Wee County News and in the Parliament's partner library in Alloa?

That sounds sensible.

We must pursue transparency in the Parliament's work.

We come to the moot point of agenda item 2. I invite colleagues to consider whether the promoter should allow 21 days—as the promoter suggests in paragraph 30 of the paper—or 60 days for potentially affected persons to lodge an objection to the proposal. How are members minded?

Would I be correct in saying that 60 days is what would normally be expected in such matters?

Yes. My information is that 60 days is the usual period of time.

If we ask the promoter to make the period 60 days, will that materially affect the timetabling of the whole process?

I am advised that it will not materially affect matters or prolong them unnecessarily.

I support having a 60-day period. As we heard in evidence, the promoter could not identify all the people who might be affected by the measure, so we should adopt the most practical but cautious approach to the notice period.

That is wise.

In the interests of fairness, the notice period should be 60 days. I believe that, in future, the Procedures Committee will consider standardising it at 60 days throughout the process, so 60 days is sensible and fair.

Are we agreed on that?

Members indicated agreement.

For the record, the committee does not believe that there should be any disparity between the objection period that applied when the bill was introduced and the one that is proposed now regarding the amendment. Accordingly, we state that the instruction be given to the promoter that it provide for a 60-day objection period in relation to the amendment.

Meeting closed at 13:45.