Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, 23 Nov 2005
Meeting date: Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Official Report
173KB pdf
Correspondence
As members will recall, we met jointly with the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Committee to hear evidence on the objection from Norwich Union Linked Life Assurance Ltd on Tuesday 1 November. At that meeting, the promoter expressed concern that, as NULLA had transferred its assets, including Rosebery House at Haymarket, to Norwich Union Life and Pensions Ltd, it was no longer adversely affected. The promoter also argued that, as NULAP could have objected late but did not do so, it should not give evidence on behalf of NULLA.
After hearing oral statements from the promoter and NULAP, the committees agreed that it was unclear whether NULLA would continue to be adversely affected. The committees agreed to seek written evidence from the promoter and NULAP on whether NULAP could maintain the objections in NULLA's name. The written evidence that we received is contained in the annexes that are before us.
Before we consider the evidence, it would be worth our while to reflect on the events of 1 November. In doing so, I state my complete agreement with the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Committee, which considered the matter yesterday. The Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Committee 1 said that the promoter should have raised the matter long before the actual day of the meeting, but pointed out that NULAP could have formally notified the committee of the transfer rather than simply adopting NULLA's objection, as it did. I agree and am certain that the promoter, the objector and both committees could have been spared unnecessary expense and effort if the matter had been handled differently.
I return to the written evidence that is before us, which I summarise as follows. As a result of company restructuring, NULAP has received all the assets, rights and liabilities of the original objector—NULLA—including the rights that are connected with NULLA's objection. On that basis, I am content for NULAP to adopt and lead evidence on the objection that was lodged in NULLA's name. I note that the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Committee made a similar decision yesterday. Does the committee agree?
Members indicated agreement.
The committee must now decide when it wishes to take, from the promoter and NULAP, oral evidence on the objection. Given our tight timetable, we cannot now do that jointly with the Edinburgh (Line One) Committee. Instead, I propose that we take oral evidence at our meeting of 28 November. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes agenda item 2 and the public part of the meeting. I thank the witnesses who attended.
We now move into private session to consider item 3.
Meeting continued in private until 11:50.