Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill Committee, 24 Feb 2003
Meeting date: Monday, February 24, 2003
Official Report
420KB pdf
Scottish Parliament Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill Committee Monday 24 February 2003
[The Convener opened the meeting at 10:34]
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this meeting of the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill Committee. This is the second time that we have visited the area. At our previous meeting, which was in Dumfries, we agreed to come to Kirkcudbright for the consideration stage. I offer a special welcome to the members of the public and press who have come along—I hope that they find the proceedings interesting and worth while. I also welcome David Mundell, who is a regional member of the Scottish Parliament for the area. I thank him for coming along.
There are two reasons for this morning's meeting. The main reason is to take evidence at the consideration stage of the bill—we will hear detailed evidence from the objectors from whom we agreed to take evidence at the previous meeting. The other reason for the meeting was to allow members to have a look at the site. Members felt that it was important to visit the site to get a better perspective and to see how the operation of a wind farm might impact on the area. We have done that this morning, which will assist us in our deliberations as we conclude our final report later in the proceedings.
The evidence taking at the consideration stage of a private bill is slightly different from evidence taking on other bills, in that the objectors and the promoters may cross-examine each other. That will be done on their behalf by counsel whom they have appointed. Counsel for the promoters is Mr Marcus Trinick and counsel for the Royal Yachting Association and the Solway Yacht Club is Mr Euan Mackenzie.
In accordance with the committee's wishes, each witness will be required to take an oath or make a solemn affirmation, whichever they choose. The reason for that is that the proceedings in the committee are somewhat different from those in other committees. We operate in a quasi-judicial capacity and the outcome of the proceedings could be subject to legal challenge. We have therefore decided that each witness should give evidence on oath. I remind the witnesses that they should contain their remarks to the evidence that they submitted in their precognition statements. I think that that point was explained to them previously.
Unless members of the committee wish to clarify anything, I will move on.