Official Report 118KB pdf
Item 2 is consideration of late objections. Committee members have been provided with a paper that details the late objections. Before we consider the paper, I remind members of their role at this stage. The committee is required to consider the eight late objections to the bill and to decide whether each objector has shown good reason for not lodging the objection within the specified period. I propose to consider the objections one at a time.
I am happy with that. It would be helpful to clarify whether arrangements to address the problem will be made for future private bills.
Yes, that would be helpful. We should avoid future repetition of this.
The next objection is from Judith Pearson. The text of the objection was received on 29 March, but the fee was not received until 7 April—because of pressure of work and the objector's being on holiday. Is that acceptable?
The next objection is from Eric Innes. The objection was received on 13 April. In this case, there was a delay in the landlord of a property receiving notification because he was not living at the address. Is that an acceptable reason?
The next objection is from CHAG—I do not know what the acronym stands for and no one could enlighten me. The objection was received on 18 August. The reason for the lateness of the objection was that the objectors were unaware that a private bill had been introduced, because they were not contacted by Transport Initiatives Edinburgh. In addition, the objectors had believed that, in reaching the current proposed route, TIE had undertaken all the necessary modelling. However, they are not now convinced that that modelling took place.
We are talking about a local community group. People have come together to raise what they consider to be important issues. I acknowledge that it is not setting a good precedent to accept objections as late as this one but, under the circumstances, I see no disadvantage in accepting it. In fact, I see every advantage in accepting it, as doing so will further communication with the local people.
It is worth noting that the submission is very late—it was submitted almost four months after the closing date—although I take on board the reasons that have been given by the group. The group claims that TIE did not contact it. Who did TIE contact? Under what criteria was it operating in contacting interested parties?
Under standing orders, the Presiding Officer has determined that certain classes of people should be contacted directly, for example people who have a heritable interest.
In addition, concerns would be raised by a number of people, particularly the individuals, community organisations and others who managed to object within the specified period prior to 29 March. Clearly, this objection was submitted much later than those objections.
What is the process for people who are not contacted directly under the procedure that the clerk outlined? How did communities find out about this matter?
Under standing orders there is a requirement to provide notification in newspapers. Two adverts were run in each of the Edinburgh Evening News and The Scotsman. TIE used a range of other mechanisms, which are detailed in the promoter's memorandum, such as roadshows, public meetings and a consultation leaflet that went out to a wide range of people.
Are community councils automatically told?
No, I understand that they are not automatically told.
It might be useful if key community groups were informed.
We can take that point on board.
Given that, under the normal local authority planning process, community councils are statutory consultees—I am coming at this from a position of ignorance—I find it odd that in this case they are not. Why is that?
At the moment, the guidance does not dictate that they must be consulted, therefore they are not.
The guidance is silent on that. Nevertheless, substantial attempts were made to notify other groups through newspaper adverts, public meetings and leaflets. This is a subjective view, but I do not think that there can be many people in Edinburgh on the route of the tramline who could have missed the proposal. That said, Phil Gallie has suggested that we allow the objection to proceed. Do other members have a view?
I have some sympathy if the information has not gone through a community council route. I can see why there must be cut-off points, but I have become more and more aware through our work that people often do not find out about things until quite a late date.
I accept the point, but in mitigation the group is not a community council. Other community groups have been able to object in the allotted time, which suggests that there is a degree of awareness along the route of the tramline. It is a matter for members, and at the end of the day I am open to suggestions. Phil Gallie made his point. I gather that you have some sympathy with it, Sylvia.
I do, because community councils have not been told. They are key organisations, and should be involved in the process.
Do I take it that members want the objection to proceed?
I go along with that, but somewhere we should minute the fact that the objection is four months late, and that our allowing it to proceed does not set a precedent for anyone who wants to object non-timeously. We should put a star on this objection and say, "Okay, we're into new territory, but don't think that this is going to be the shape of things to come for other bills." Otherwise, we will be giving a hostage to fortune.
As we scrutinise the bill, we will identify all kinds of issues, particularly at the preliminary stage. It seems to me that there is every chance that people might recognise points of value to which they feel that they should object or to which they should draw the committee's attention. Is there any means by which they can do that or is that it, now that we have received all the objections?
I understand that once we commence preliminary consideration, that is it. All those who have objected and whose objections are deemed to be admissible will be considered. However, I do not think that there is scope for more objections once we reach the end of the preliminary stage. The cut-off point will be when we move into the detail of the bill.
On that point, and given what Jamie Stone said, it seems to me that we are not really in a position to enforce the 29 March deadline. On that basis, objections that come in late should be considered on their merits at this point. Is that right?
No. My clear understanding is that we have to apply a test of reasonableness as to whether it is legitimate that objections are late. Certainly, in relation to this objection, members felt that there might have been an opportunity for a wider audience to be notified, which was not done, so they were happy to allow the objection on balance, with Jamie Stone's caveat that the objection's admission must not be seen as a precedent to allow people to make late objections without adequate reason. That is how I interpret the situation; the clerk is not handing me a note, so that must be right.
I am sorry to persist, but it is important that we clear this up right now.
Absolutely.
Does that mean that if one of the objections that we are looking at was deemed to have been submitted late and therefore to be unacceptable, that objection could be relodged and would have to be considered by the committee before the end of our preliminary consideration?
We are not considering the substance of the objections at the moment. We are simply considering whether the late objections can be admitted. Once we have decided whether they can be admitted and we come to the stage at which we consider the substance of the objections, they will also be considered.
Even if they are inadmissible?
No. If the objections are inadmissible, they are ruled out. We are considering whether they can be included in the admissible objections by determining whether there is a good reason for their being late. So far, we have said that they all have good reasons.
On the objection that we are considering just now, and in the light of the information that you have given to us, there are two reasons given as to why it was late. The first is that the objectors were not aware that there was a bill and the second was that TIE had not contacted them. We have established that under standing orders the group was not entitled to be contacted by TIE, so the committee is stating that—given that further objections can be lodged during the preliminary stage—not being aware that a bill was coming before Parliament is a good ground for lodging an objection at such a late stage. If so, that has considerable implications for the committee.
That appears to be what the committee is minded to do. However, I am happy to put the matter to the vote if members want that. I am told that we can decide on each objection's merits in respect of the reasons for its lateness and the committee can change its mind later on, although I would welcome consistency in the committee's operation. If members are minded to push the matter to a vote, I am happy to do that. Michael Matheson's interpretation of the situation is one that I share. I am in members' hands.
If we can take each objection on its merits, I will be reassured and let the situation stand.
CHAG's objection is in. If anybody could find out what that acronym stands for, I would be most obliged.
I am not sure whether the objection is strictly relevant, as it concerns a council decision to develop a piece of ground. It is additional. For that reason, I am not sure whether the objection is competent.
It is difficult to evaluate the objection, given that we are considering lateness and the contents of the objection as presented to us. Does the land development relate to the tramline project?
I understand that the development does not relate directly to the bill and that issues of planning, rather than the private bills process, are involved.
Even if the development is a planning issue, is it associated with line 1?
The development does not relate to land that falls under the bill's scope, so it is a matter not for us, but for the local authority and its due planning process. Irrespective of the content, we are here to determine whether the lateness is reasonable. I agree with Jamie Stone that the objection is inappropriate for the committee.
I tend to agree with you, but I see what Phil Gallie is getting at, so I ask what the development is about.
While we find out, I will call Michael Matheson.
The development may be taking place on the back of the tramline's construction in that area. However, the residents association could pursue the matter through the local authority's planning process, which would give the objection more detailed consideration than we could, because the development is not linked directly to the bill, although it may be associated with the bill. We might not be able to do the objection justice.
That assumption is reasonable. We do not know the precise nature of the development, which the submission in our papers suggests has recently been brought into the public domain. However, it is clear that the subject does not relate directly to the bill.
If we apply reductio ad absurdum, objections might be made because somebody decides to open a fast-food outlet beside a halt or station when the tram is established. Such objections are often made, but they are not pertinent to us. If we do not draw a line, we will be all over the shop.
I see no problem with the objection, because we will ultimately consider the merits of all the objections. The project is major and involves huge expenditure. It will affect every citizen who lives around the line especially and every other citizen of Edinburgh. When we have an opportunity to listen to what people are saying about an aspect of the tramline's impact, we should give their views a chance to be aired. At the end of the day, we will decide whether the objection and the bill are related, and we can knock the objection out. However, the objection makes points that must interest the committee and relate to the tramline's long-term impact. It is antidemocratic not to give the objectors at least a chance to have their voices heard later on in the process.
As the convener has said, the objection does not relate directly to the bill. It may be associated with the bill, but it is not directly related to it. It is incumbent on us not to mislead an organisation that we can give due consideration to its objection when the matter has to go through the local authority planning process. It is more antidemocratic to kid on to someone that we can do justice to an objection when we cannot. When we reject objections, we must tell the objectors our grounds for rejection and must guide them to where their objections can be given due consideration in a proper democratic fashion.
I do not want to cut off the debate, but—although members are expressing a degree of sympathy with the residents association—when we are unable to deal with an issue because a planning authority should rightly deal with it, we should not take on things over which we have no power. That said, part of the objection relates to the impact of the tram on local amenities. However, I do not think that any of the reasons given for lateness are acceptable. It is the reasons for lateness that we are being asked to consider. No indication is given about new or emerging information on the impact of the tram on local amenities or property values. As convener, I therefore suggest that we should reject the inclusion of the objection, because I do not think that the reasons for lateness are adequate. I acknowledge members' considerable sympathy for the substance of the issue raised in the objection, but we are being asked to consider merely the reason for lateness, not the substance. We could go to a division, but I suggest that we do not include the objection.
I will not press the issue to a division, but I am pleased that you have answered Michael Matheson's point by saying that the objection relates very much to the tramline and that it is only the reason for the lateness of the submission that is irrelevant to it. Given the rules on late submissions, I do not quite understand how other people can come along with late objections that we can consider. However, I will accept the majority view of the committee.
Okay—we will move swiftly on. The next late objection is from a Mr Werninck. His objection was received in time, on 29 March, but the objection fee was not received until 5 April because Mr Werninck was originally unaware of the requirement to include it. Any comments?
I think the reason is perfectly adequate so we can accept the late objection.
The clerks will write to each late objector with the committee's decision. If the reason for lateness has been accepted, the objector will be made aware of the next steps in the parliamentary process.
Previous
Item in PrivateNext
Site Visit