Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, 27 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Official Report 469KB pdf

---

Assessor

I want to make it clear that the committee is being asked whether it wishes to direct the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to appoint an assessor. I also point out that such an appointment is subject to the bill proceeding to consideration stage—we will report to the Parliament after the summer recess and the Parliament will then vote on whether to proceed. I invite members to indicate whether they wish to direct the SPCB to appoint an assessor to consider and report to the committee at consideration stage. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. I do not want to pre-empt the committee's preliminary stage report, or the verdict of the Parliament on whether the bill should proceed to consideration stage. That said, the next decision that the committee must take is on the capacity in which the assessor will report to the committee.

The committee will note that two options are provided for in the standing orders. Option 1 provides for the assessor to report to the committee with recommendations on groupings and on the objectors the committee could invite to provide written and/or oral evidence. Option 1 also provides for the assessor to consider the evidence and report to the committee with recommendations that are based on that evidence. Option 2 is limited to the assessor considering the evidence and reporting recommendations on the basis of that evidence.

Members will note that option 1 has the potential to prolong proceedings. The committee would need to agree to the assessor's recommendations on groupings and the invitations to give evidence prior to the assessor taking that evidence. In addition, the assessor cannot begin work until the Parliament has agreed—should it so choose—that the general principles of the bill be agreed to and that the bill should proceed to consideration stage. That decision is some months away. Does any member have a view on which of the two options we should follow?

Option 2 is more straightforward.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Option 2 is the better option as it will allow the committee to indicate its views on groupings and written evidence now. That will enable the promoter and objectors to begin their preparations over the summer. As we said at our meeting on 23 May, we are keen to ensure that the uncertainty that the bill creates for objectors in relation to their property is not unduly prolonged. My view is that option 2 will achieve that.

Now that we have decided that the committee will undertake the role of grouping objections and inviting written evidence, it would be prudent for us to consider the groupings and written evidence deadlines proposed in annexes A and B to paper EARL/S2/06/6/3.

Members will note that the groupings are based on objections from a similar geographical location that raise the same or similar issues. For those objections that have not been able to be grouped, or rather, which are in a group on their own, it is proposed that similar groups be taken at the same time to enable continuity of evidence taking. Issues that affect one group may also affect other, similar groups. Therefore, some duplication of evidence can be avoided by taking those groups at the same time.

I will invite the committee to indicate whether it agrees with the proposed groupings, but it is only fair that the objectors that are grouped together are given an opportunity to disagree. It is proposed that a right of reply will exist until 21 July. Is that agreed?

The only slight issue that I have with the proposal—I know that it is only about people objecting to the groupings—is that there is the Edinburgh trades holiday for two weeks in July. That is still a traditional time to go on holiday. Has that been taken into account?

The twenty-first of July is four weeks from today. It is unlikely that someone would be away for that whole period. I would have thought that the deadline would give people sufficient time to respond.

The only comment that I make is that many people still adhere to the traditional two-week trades holiday period in Edinburgh. I am happy to go along with the proposal provided that it is on the record that people have four weeks to respond and that you and the rest of the committee feel that that is satisfactory.

Are we agreed that we stick with 21 July?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings me to the written evidence deadlines. I seek members' views and their agreement to the deadlines proposed in annex B to paper EARL/S2/06/6/3.

Members indicated agreement.

Finally, given the experience of other private bill committees, it is likely that over the coming months a number of issues will arise that will require the committee to make a decision. Such issues could include the confirmation of final groupings, late changes of witnesses and so on. My view is that many such issues will not merit a committee meeting. In addition, it would be impractical for the clerks to seek the views of members every time such an issue arises.

I therefore seek members' agreement to delegate such decisions to me with the proviso that I will convene a committee meeting when an issue may merit the whole committee's consideration and require its agreement. Is that agreed?

I am all in favour of giving powers to conveners.

Even Christine Grahame agrees with that.

I think that you are very democratic.

Thank you. Our witnesses have not all arrived yet. I suggest that we suspend until 10 past 11 and see whether they are on their way.

Some have just arrived.

We will suspend for a couple of minutes to let them take their seats.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—