Official Report 79KB pdf
Agenda item 3 concerns the preliminary stage approach and our future work programme. We must consider and comment on paper WAV/S2/04/2/2, which is on the committee's approach to the preliminary stage of the bill and whether we will be able to start taking oral evidence when the parliamentary session resumes after the summer recess. I hope that members have had an opportunity to read the paper. I invite comments, in particular on what page 2 of the paper says about the preliminary stage timetable.
I have a question on paragraph 7, on the preliminary stage timetable. Do our advisers believe that, if the timescale that has been set out in previous correspondence is adhered to, they can have papers ready for us so that we can start to take oral evidence?
The optimistic answer is yes. The paper invites the committee to consider whether the convener should write again to the promoter to say that, if there is any further slippage in our receiving a copy of the business case, the implications are, even at this point, that the preliminary stage timetable up to the summer recess and in September could be affected. However, if the business case is received in early May, as the promoter has indicated that it will be, it is hoped that what we have set out is doable.
In that case, we should work on the assumption that the timetable will be adhered to and that it will be possible for papers to be prepared for us. We should agree to start taking oral evidence as soon as possible.
I know that we will consider this matter later, but we are talking about taking evidence on the same day that we receive the analysis of the business case. How can we do anything until we have understood the business case? Does not the business case affect what we think about all the objections? Have I misunderstood what evidence taking on preliminary consideration of objections means?
That matter should be dealt with at the next agenda item.
I know, but it is still part of the timetabling.
There are two issues. Undoubtedly, the committee's provisional timetable has slipped, as our intention was to take oral evidence on the bill before the summer recess. As a result of that slippage, it is unlikely that we will be able to take oral evidence then. The clerks have suggested that we consider discrete areas that we can timetable in advance of considering the business case. We must consider that timetable later.
Yes, if it is in order for me to contribute.
One consideration that the committee may want to take into account is the need for the railway. Central to that is the economic argument, therefore it could be difficult for the committee to consider the general principles without receipt of the document that goes to the core of the need question.
Have you received a needs assessment from the promoter?
We have not received the business case yet.
My understanding is that a needs assessment is presented to the committee, and that there is an outline business case for Executive funding. The outline business case is designed to meet the criteria for Executive funding in the STAG process, and to satisfy value-for-money tests, which differ slightly from the economic needs that the committee will consider. While the Executive's criteria may be satisfied, they may be different from the committee's criteria on the general principles of the bill.
I think I understand that, although I am not sure that I am at the stage of understanding the process at all. I have a sneaking feeling that the issues are slightly more connected than that. I know what Jeremy Purvis is saying—we could consider the needs, desirability and general principles in isolation from the issue of whether the money stacks up—but in the real world those things are connected, in that everything is desirable. I could name a million things that I think are desirable, but they do not stack up financially, because they are not good enough in a financial sense to be priorities. I do not know how desirability can be separated from cost. In an ideal world everything is desirable, but can it be paid for? Does the money stack up? I find it difficult to separate those issues in my mind.
I have listened to Jeremy Purvis, but I am inclined to agree with Gordon Jackson. I suggest that we operate on the assumption that the proposed timetable is adhered to. If possible, we should take oral evidence before the summer recess, or at least be in a position to do so, but the overriding consideration must be an initial consideration of the outline business case, without which we cannot begin to consider other matters. We have an aspiration, and if it is at all possible to fulfil it we will, but I agree with Gordon Jackson that desirability and cost are inextricably linked. The timetable should be agreed to formally so that, with all other things slotting into place, we can go ahead.
The committee's previous decision was that the business case was desirable in allowing us to consider the bill fully. Our provisional timetable was predicated on us receiving that information. We do not have that information, so it is for the committee to decide how to handle the forthcoming stages. I hear what Jeremy Purvis is saying, but we need to have the business case in front of us to give us all the information that is available. That does not mean to say that we can take no action between now and July, but it must be recognised that the delay in providing the business case to the committee is not a delay of our making and that we are doing the best we can. It would be wholly wrong of us to move faster than the committee and the advisers to the committee think we can move in the absence of important information.
Does the committee agree that I should write again to the Waverley railway partnership, indicating the proposed schedule for committee meetings up to the summer recess?
Paragraph 8 of paper WAV/S2/04/2/2, on the possible approach, suggests that we may wish to
I agree that it is a good idea. Do you agree, Gordon?
Yes.
We will proceed in that way.
Meeting continued in private until 13:11.
Previous
Business Case