Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, 20 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Official Report 270KB pdf

---

Late Objections

Next we are asked to consider the reasons for late submission of three objections. Rule 9A.6.7A of the Parliament's standing orders provides for objectors to submit an objection after the objection period has closed but before the first meeting at consideration stage. Any objection that is submitted late must include a reason for its late submission. The objection period for the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill closed on Monday 15 May. Since then, three late objections have been received. At today's meeting, the committee is charged with considering in each case whether it is satisfied with the reason for lateness.

According to standing orders, there are three parts to the decision, which I will now outline. The committee must be satisfied, first, that the objector had good reason for lodging the objection after the close of the objection period; secondly, that the objector lodged the objection as soon as was reasonably practicable after the expiry of the objection period; and thirdly, that consideration of the objection would not be unreasonable, having regard to the rights and interests of the objectors and the promoter. Although that enables the committee to take a general view on the substance of the objections, I ask that members refrain from commenting on the detail of each objection and that they focus primarily on the reason for lateness.

If the committee is satisfied with the objector's statement explaining the reason for delay, the objection will go forward for preliminary consideration at next week's meeting. If the committee rejects the statement explaining the delay in lodging, the objection will not be considered further and the objector will be informed accordingly.

We will deal with each objection in turn. Cable & Wireless UK submitted its objection on 17 May. It asserts that it failed to understand that the 60-day objection period would finish on 15 May. It assumed that there was a two-month objection period that would finish on 17 May. Do members wish to comment on that statement?

I have a general question. Is there a precedent from other committees that have received late objections? Although we are not bound by the decisions of other committees, there should be some conformity. Some cases can be dealt with easily, as they are de minimis, but others may be different. Has there been any discussion among conveners on the issue?

I understand that some late objections have been accepted, because the reasons for lateness have been reasonable, and that others have been rejected, because the committee has felt that the reasons were not reasonable. There is a precedent for both.

I am seeking more specific guidance on what is reasonable and unreasonable. The objection that we are currently discussing could be regarded as de minimis, as it is only two days late. However, another objector says that it just lost the stuff. Are there precedents from elsewhere?

There are generally three reasons for late objections: "We didnae ken", "We forgot or were too busy," and "We were telt something different." We have one example in each category.

We must simply decide whether we accept the reasons that are given. We will take the objections in turn. Cable & Wireless UK thought that there was a two-month objection period, but it was a 60-day period. The objection was submitted on 17 May, which would have qualified if the objection period had been what the company thought it was. Do members see that as reasonable?

To be frank, I do not. Cable & Wireless UK is a big company with huge resources. It did not take the trouble, first, to check that it had got the date right, and secondly, to submit its objection well in advance. The date is not a target, but a limit. There is no reason why the company could not have submitted its objection well before 15 May. I am not sure why a big company that is playing the "We didnae ken" card should get away with that. That is not a comment on the merit of the objection. I just do not think that it is acceptable for a large company to say that it thought that the objection period was different from what it is. It should have checked.

I tend to go along with that. The objector is admitting its own incompetence.

I am inclined not to take that view. It seems fairly logical for the company to have thought that the objection period would finish on that date in the month.

I am attracted to the views of Iain Smith and Charlie Gordon on my right. My only caveat is that I do not believe that we should apply the same principles to large commercial organisations and to punters, given that individuals do not have legal teams working for them in the way that large companies have. I tend to support Iain Smith. Large companies with legal teams should know what they are doing.

I could split the committee, as I would err on the side of accepting the objection. However, as I have heard three members say no, even if I were to split the committee, I think that we would divide on that basis. Therefore, we will not accept the late objection from Cable & Wireless UK.

The second late objection to consider is from NTL Group Ltd.

I have similar concerns about accepting the second late objection. The fact that the company was being taken over or merging is not a relevant ground for us. Basically, the ground that is being given for submitting the objection late is, "We were too busy." If the matter was important to the organisation, the objection should have been submitted irrespective of what was happening elsewhere in the organisation.

The objection from NTL was submitted even later than the one from Cable & Wireless.

When we heard evidence from BAA's representatives, BAA was being taken over, but it still managed to give evidence to the committee.

The shop does not close just because the company is being taken over. The business needs to keep running during that time. I agree with Iain Smith and Charlie Gordon.

I will go along with what has been said on this one.

Okay, we will not accept the late objection from NTL Group Ltd.

The final late objection is from Mr and Mrs Chambers. Basically, although they attended the public meeting, they misunderstood what the closing date would be. What are members' views on that?

I have more sympathy with these objectors on the grounds that they are just ordinary members of the public who do not have a big legal team. It is clear that they genuinely misunderstood what they were told at the public meeting. As we were not party to that meeting, I do not know how that misunderstanding could have arisen, given that other objectors did not suffer the same misunderstanding, but I am generally of the view that we should try to assist members of the public who may have difficulty following what are complex proceedings. I have less sympathy for big organisations that have lawyers to do that for them.

I support that. We need to make a distinction between large commercial operations and punters. I hope that Mr and Mrs Chambers will forgive me for using that expression, as I am sure that they are not punters. I am always quite surprised that ordinary people manage to follow any of these complex processes. I believe that we should use our discretion to let the objection from Mr and Mrs Chambers be heard.

I agree that we should let the objection be heard. Frankly, I still think that we are being rather niggly about the objection from Cable & Wireless.

I will go along with what has been said.

Basically, we will allow the objection under the rule that the objector has lodged the objection as soon as reasonably practicable after the expiry of the objection period. The objection from Mr and Mrs Chambers will be considered at the meeting on 27 June.