Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee, 13 Dec 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Official Report 85KB pdf

---

Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill: Consideration Stage

Good morning, everybody. I welcome the massed ranks to the 25th meeting of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee in 2005. This will probably be struck from the Official Report, but I wish Trudi Craggs a merry Christmas—it is nice to see her.

Item 1 on the agenda is consideration of additional written evidence that the promoter has provided in response to requests from the committee at various meetings. Members will recall that, throughout the oral evidence taking, the promoter's witnesses have given commitments to provide additional written information on a range of issues in response to requests from the committee. Some of those responses have already been provided to members and relevant objectors, when it was thought that that might be helpful to objector witnesses. As the committee is yet to report its final views on objections, at this stage we will simply note the promoter's responses and consider whether further written information is required. We will consider the merit or otherwise of the content of the responses when we consider our draft report on all outstanding objections. Given the volume of information that is contained in paper ED1/S2/05/25/1, I propose only to seek members' agreement to note the information and consider it part of the evidence on objections. We will then consider each section of the paper and agree whether we wish further written evidence to be provided. Do members agree to note the information and consider it part of the evidence on objections?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members also agree to consider all the additional written information in the annexes to paper ED1/S2/05/25/1 as part of the evidence on objections?

Members indicated agreement.

Response 2C from the promoter, which relates to the committee meetings on 21 and 27 June, provides evidence on single track versus double track; responses to questions from the Edinburgh and Lothians badger group; and information on the enforceability of the code of construction practice. Do members agree that the evidence is sufficient to allow us to reach a decision on those issues?

Members indicated agreement.

Do we need to go through all the responses for the record? My view is that the evidence is sufficient all the way through.

It would be helpful to consider each part on the record, but it should not take long, if you bear with me. It is helpful to know in advance that I have your absolute agreement on everything, Mr Gallie. [Laughter.] There was laughter.

In relation to the meeting on 13 September, the promoter has provided additional evidence on the maintenance and operating costs that are associated with the promoter's route and with the alternative route that group 30 proposes. Do members agree that the evidence will be helpful to our consideration of the merits of group 30's alternative route and that we do not need to seek further evidence on the issue?

Members indicated agreement.

I now move to the meeting on 27 September. The promoter has responded on the issue of the stop at Roseburn, on which the committee heard evidence at last week's meeting, and has provided an update on planning paper 6. Do members agree that those are full responses and that we now have sufficient evidence to reach a decision?

Members indicated agreement.

At the meeting on 28 September, we sought further evidence on the modelling that was used to predict run times at Starbank and along the Trinity railway corridor. Do members agree that the information that has been provided will be helpful to our consideration of group 30's proposed alternative route?

Members indicated agreement.

At the meeting on 25 October, the committee requested further information on the provisions of the bill in relation to the book of reference. We also requested further information on bankruptcy, following oral evidence on damage to properties. We have subsequently been informed by the promoter that it will consider publishing information only on accidents and incidents that occur during construction, not on those that occur during operation. However, the committee can take a view on whether information on incidents that occur during operation should be published. On that basis, are members content with the evidence that has been provided?

Members indicated agreement.

I just comment that the freedom of information regime might oblige the promoter to publish such information, if it was requested.

Indeed. We will consider that issue later.

At the meetings on 7 and 8 November, the committee sought a range of evidence. The promoter has provided detail on how it foresees the interpretation of the bill's provisions on trespass and obstruction. It has also provided a detailed explanation of how compensation will apply in practice and a picture of a soil nail. I forget who requested that—I think that it was Phil Gallie. We have also received further explanation of the vibration dose value standards that are applicable in the noise and vibration policy. Do members agree that we have sufficient evidence to enable us to reach a decision?

Members indicated agreement.

At the meeting on 14 November, the committee asked for explanation of the management and monitoring of the landscape and habitat management plan and of how the council will operate as both promoter and enforcement agency. The promoter's response is detailed in one of the annexes. Do members agree that we require no further information on that at this stage?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes item 1. We will now move into private to consider an issues paper for our consideration stage report. As members will recall, we agreed on 5 December to consider such issues papers in private, as they will greatly assist the committee's discussions but may not reflect our final views.

Meeting continued in private until 10:25.