Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, 19 Apr 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 19, 2006


Contents


Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill: Consideration Stage

The Convener:

Agenda item 2 is our approach to oral evidence on Stow station. The committee is required to consider a paper on its approach to oral evidence on the objection that has been lodged by BRB (Residuary) Ltd to the proposal for a station at Stow. The committee has previously considered written evidence and heard oral evidence from the objector and promoter on a similar objection to the bill that the objector lodged. I invite members' views.

Christine May (Central Fife) (Lab):

I find little in the objection that is appreciably different from the paper that was presented to us when we heard BRBR's previous evidence to the committee. For that reason, I suggest that we do not need to hear oral evidence from BRBR on its objection. I do not want to breach any confidence, but it is probably fair to say that our draft consideration stage report, which we have just agreed to consider in private, is likely to refer to our understanding that an agreement has been reached between the promoter and the objector on the issue. If that is the case and if our report refers to it, I hope that BRBR will have comfort that its objection has been taken into account and will therefore withdraw it.

I concur with Christine May. The matter is referred to in our draft report and, for that reason, we need not concern ourselves with it further at this stage. We should leave the objection.

Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):

I am happy to go along with colleagues. We are well aware of the arguments and we know that agreement on the issue is close at hand; our consideration stage report should refer to that. There is not much point in taking oral evidence when we have all the other evidence before us.

The Convener:

The committee is minded to amend the bill at phase 2 of consideration stage to give effect to the agreement between the promoter and the objector. Are members therefore content to rest on the written evidence that the objector and promoter have submitted and not to hear any oral evidence on the objection?

Members indicated agreement.

As agreed, we will now consider in private our draft consideration stage and appropriate assessment reports. I therefore invite any members of the public and the official report and broadcasting staff to leave the room.

Meeting continued in private until 14:14.