Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, 14 Dec 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Official Report 88KB pdf

---

Objections (Preliminary Consideration)

Agenda item 2 is preliminary consideration of objections. We have to consider how best to deal at preliminary stage with the late objections from Nigel Miller and Rosie Wild.

First, we will consider the whole-bill element to the objections from Nigel Miller of Stagehall Farm, Stow and Ms Rosie Wild of St Boswells, which are covered in paragraphs 8 to 14 of paper WAV/S2/04/8/2. I invite members' views on whether they consider that the objectors' interests are clearly adversely affected by the bill, in relation to the whole-bill element of the objections.

In each case we are in a similar position to that which pertained when we considered similar objections at other meetings of the committee. I do not agree that the two individuals can show that there would be a particular adverse affect on them. The matters that are raised are of such importance that we will deal with them in the generality of our considerations. I do not think that the objections should be admitted as specific objections to the whole bill.

I agree that we should follow the pattern that we followed previously with people who have objected to the whole bill. No special provision should be made for these two objectors.

I agree. Although the committee rejects the whole-bill elements of the objections, we consider that many of the issues that are raised in the objections appear to be relevant to the committee's consideration of the general principles of the bill at the preliminary stage and will, doubtless, be covered in oral evidence. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

I invite members' views on the elements of the objection from Nigel Miller that relate in whole or in part to specified provisions, as covered in paragraphs 15 to 17 of paper WAV/S2/04/8/2. Do members agree that the objection from Nigel Miller should be allowed to proceed to substantive scrutiny at consideration stage?

I have no objection to that. The objection should be allowed to proceed as it relates to a specified provision.

I agree.

The committee will invite evidence from all the objectors whose objections were considered today on the adequacy of the accompanying documents and the business case.

I invite members' views on a deadline of 21 January 2005 being set for the receipt of the written evidence. That is the same deadline that was set for the objections that we considered at our meeting on 23 November. That would allow the committee to meet shortly thereafter to consider its timetable and witnesses for oral evidence meetings and possibly to commence hearing oral evidence shortly after the February recess. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank members and close the meeting.

Meeting closed at 09:38.