Official Report 83KB pdf
Agenda item 5 is preliminary consideration of objections. The committee is required to undertake preliminary consideration of objections to the bill that have been lodged and to consider how they might be dealt with at the preliminary stage. I refer members to paragraphs 9 to 17 of paper WAV/S2/04/3/3, which set out the committee's role in undertaking preliminary consideration of the objections, and invite comments.
In the first instance, I seek guidance on whether it is possible for the committee to consider its approach to the objections as a whole—en bloc, as it were—or are we required to consider each objection individually?
It is my understanding that we need to consider each one individually.
Thank you. I am comfortable with that.
There are a lot of objections to specified provisions in the bill, rather than to the whole bill, which I rather think we will have to consider if and when we get to the consideration stage. I find it difficult to see that those who are objecting to the whole bill have a legal standing. Their objections to the whole bill are much more to do with general principles or with speculative effects of the bill. However, it is important that people in that category understand that that does not mean that they are not going to be heard, because they raise issues that we will consider when we investigate the general principles of the bill and decide whether to recommend to the Parliament that it proceed as a private bill.
I agree with that. Although I accept that we have to respond to each case individually, there is a remarkable degree of similarity in what the objectors suggest. They are all talking about what will be, in their view, the adverse effect on the Borders generally. I am not sure that any of them has a sustainable argument on that at this stage. The objections are far too general; they would have to be much more specific before we would accept any of them.
I am happy to go along with the general drift of the committee on that, on the basis that we will have to return to all the issues that the objectors raise in our further deliberations. The points that the objectors raise will all be considered in due course.
Thank you for that.
I take it that the committee is unanimous in its view that the interests of those who object to the whole bill are not clearly adversely affected by the bill. Does the committee agree with that and does it agree that it is more than likely that the issues that are raised in some of the objections will be part of our consideration of the bill as it progresses?
I invite the committee to take a decision on each of the seven objections that relate in whole or in part to the whole bill.
Does the committee agree that the objection from J S Dun & Partners should be rejected because, in the committee's opinion, the objector's interests are not clearly adversely affected by the bill?
Does the committee agree that the objection from Mr and Mrs Rae should be rejected because, in the committee's opinion, the objectors' interests are not clearly adversely affected by the bill?
Does the committee agree that the objection from Mr and Mrs Sandie should be rejected because, in the committee's opinion, the objectors' interests are not clearly adversely affected by the bill?
Does the committee agree that the objection from Stow community council should be rejected because, in the committee's opinion, the objector's interests are not clearly adversely affected by the bill?
Does the committee agree that the objection from Stow station supporters should be rejected because, in the committee's opinion, the objectors' interests are not clearly adversely affected by the bill?
Does the committee agree that the objection from Nicholas Watson should be rejected because, in the committee's opinion, the objector's interests are not clearly adversely affected by the bill?
The committee is now agreed that all the above objections should be rejected. However, although we have rejected the objections, we consider that many of the issues that they raise appear to be relevant to the committee's consideration of the general principles of the bill at the preliminary stage. The committee will consider inviting evidence from some objectors in that context on issues such as whether the project represents value for money, the impact that it might have on other public transport services and the impact that it might have on the local environment. The committee will consider how it wishes to take forward those matters following the receipt of the business case for the project, which I have to advise members that we still have not received.
In informing the objectors of our decision, will we make it clear that their concerns will be taken into account and that they will be heard in the broadest sense, albeit not as objectors?
That is the general view of the committee. We expect that that information will be conveyed to the objectors as quickly as possible.
I realise that the response to the objectors has to be couched in the appropriate legal language, but I hope that we will use ordinary language to tell them that we will take on board their interests and concerns at a later date.
We have that clearly on the public record, through the Official Report.
We could send the objectors a copy of the Official Report.
We will send them a copy of the Official Report. You expressed the point well, Christine, but I will ensure that letters to the objectors are written in clear language that everyone can understand.
Meeting continued in private until 17:07.
Previous
Petition