Official Report 385KB pdf
We move on to agenda item 4, which is perhaps more controversial. It concerns the appointment of an assessor to consider the objections. The committee's consideration of the matter in no way pre-empts the recommendations that we will make in our preliminary stage report or the Parliament's decision about whether the bill should proceed to the next stage. We are working to a tight timetable and, in the interests of good planning and with the interests of the objectors and the promoter in mind, we simply seek to indicate how the bill might be handled at the next stage, should it get that far. That will allow the objectors and the promoter to plan accordingly.
Is that the norm with private bills? I am thinking about the number of objections that have been made to the bill that we are discussing.
It is a new norm. In the past, members undertook long and detailed assessments of objections to private bills and dealt with nearly all of them. Somebody will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that an assessor can now carry out an overall assessment of the objections and report back to the committee; we would then decide whether we were satisfied with his assessment of them. We could then clear the objections or invite the objectors back. I did not think that any committee had used the new procedure, but I have been told that the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee has used it and that the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee will use it.
What is the timescale for identifying an assessor?
It is hoped that an assessor would be approved once—and if—the Parliament agrees to the bill at preliminary stage, but we must first produce a report on the bill to submit to the Parliament.
What timescale is involved? Will the assessor have enough time to do what he or she must do before the bill is brought back to us?
Yes.
That is fine.
Do members therefore agree to direct the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to appoint an assessor to report to the committee at consideration stage?
Members indicated agreement.
Do members agree that the assessor should undertake the role at consideration stage that is set out in option 2 in paper AB/S2/06/5/4?
I have a question that may be easily answered. Option 1 is to ask the assessor to deal with the groupings and the invitations to objectors to give evidence—much of that work has already been done by the clerks. If we agreed to option 1 and the assessor reported back to us, we could amend any proposals that they came back with. I prefer option 1, but would opt for the speediest method of dealing with the objectors' concerns because they want the process to have as much momentum as possible.
The clerks have advised me that option 2 would be quicker.
I accept their view.
Option 1 would mean that we would have to meet once or twice to agree other matters.
Members are content that the assessor should undertake the role that is set out in option 2.
Members indicated agreement.
I turn to the timescale for consideration stage. Do members agree to the provisional timetable that is set out in annex B to the paper?
Members indicated agreement.
Next
Item in Private