Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee, 13 Sep 2005

13 Sep 2005 · S2 · Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee

Item of business

Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill: Consideration Stage

Baillie, Jackie Lab Dumbarton Watch on SPTV

There are no questions from committee members. Thank you, Mr Turner. If I start taking evidence on the next group, we will not have time to complete it, and in all fairness I do not want to break the flow. Time is ticking on and we have not finished taking all the evidence before us, which is entirely regrettable. However, I am sure that everyone would agree that it is important that we allow sufficient time to enable oral evidence to be presented and not to be interrupted. Due to physical constraints, largely down to broadcasting, which would then impact on the official report, we cannot meet beyond 7 pm this evening. I therefore propose to stop oral evidence taking at this stage and move to agenda item 2. I propose that the clerk liaise with the promoter and with the lead objectors of the various groups that have yet to give evidence to arrange another date for that evidence to be heard. It is likely that such a date will not be until next week at the very earliest. In addition, should no agreeable date be identified, it would be for the committee to schedule a date at which all parties would be invited to attend. I thank all those who have patiently waited for their turn to give evidence, as well as those who have given evidence. I want to continue with the meeting. People who want to stay to hear agenda item 2 may do so, but I ask the rest of you to leave quietly and to continue your conversations outside so that we can make some progress.We turn to the timetable and approach to evidence in relation to the Roseburn corridor groups. Members will recall that, at our meeting on 17 May, we agreed to set aside a number of meeting dates to take oral evidence from groups objecting to the use of the Roseburn corridor. Those groups are 33 to 36, 43 and 45. In addition, we agreed that some elements of groups 12 and 47, which also relate to the Roseburn corridor, would be considered at that time. Following that meeting, the clerks met the lead objectors for those groups and sought their views on the approach to oral evidence gathering.The two options are detailed in the paper that is before the committee. Unfortunately, as there was no consensus between the groups on which approach to take, I had to take the final decision. I chose the option of grouped groups, as it is my view that that offers each group the chance to prepare for specific issues each week, rather than for every single issue. It also means that objectors will have the support of other groups when cross-examining the promoter's witnesses. That decision, together with an indication of committee meeting dates for each witness, was then sent to each of the relevant lead objectors. Now that witness statements and rebuttal witness statements have been considered, a suggested final timetable has been proposed in annex A.Before I invite members' comments, I shall add a few more of my own. First, because of the amount of written evidence that we have received, it has become necessary to add a further full day of oral evidence taking. That will be on 14 November.Secondly, I want to explain the different types of cross-examination that are listed at the start of annex A. By way of background, the clerks have had a number of meetings with objectors. At the start of consideration stage, meetings were held for all objectors to outline the procedures for phase 1 of the consideration stage, including guidance on witness statements and rebuttal witness statements. Further to that, timetabling meetings have been held for lead objectors, as well as a briefing session on oral evidence taking for all witnesses and lead objectors for groups 33 to 35, 43 and 45. The procedures for providing evidence have been reiterated at all the meetings, and at each meeting a question-and-answer opportunity has been provided.As members will recall, we agreed to the provision of written evidence, through witness statements and rebuttal witness statements, to enable the committee to identify the issues that are in agreement and in dispute between the groups and the promoter. We agreed that oral evidence would be taken on the basis of the remaining issues in dispute. As a result, should a group choose to provide no rebuttal witness statement for a witness, that group cannot cross-examine that witness. It is only right and proper that, if no issues in dispute have been indicated, the opportunity to cross-examine should not be afforded to that side. If, however, the same witness has provided a rebuttal witness statement on the same issue, the opposing side may cross-examine that witness, but only on the basis of the issues in dispute that are contained in that witness rebuttal statement.I appreciate that that sounds incredibly complex, but I hope that the guidance at the start of annex A will make it much clearer. The appropriate type of cross-examination is indicated throughout the timetable to assist the groups and the promoter. Do members have views on the timetable in annex A? Are they content with the timetable and dates proposed?

Search Hansard contributions

Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee, 13 Sep 2005

In the same item of business