Transport and the Environment Committee, 01 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 1, 2000

Official Report 238KB pdf

---

Petitions

I reconvene the meeting. I thank committee members for their patience and co-operation during the previous part of the meeting.

We move to agenda item 3, which is consideration of public petitions. The first petition before us is PE3 from the Hospitalfield Area Residents Committee on oilseed rape crushing. The petition is accompanied by an additional letter from the petitioners.

I refer members to the covering note on the petition, which includes information on the position received from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Angus Council. The covering note identifies those requests in the petition that are not within the committee's remit. It also contains a reminder that the committee should not take a view or recommend further action in respect of individual cases. It may therefore be helpful, as a minimum, to write to the petitioners to pass on that information.

As for the next step, we have a number of options, which are set out in the paper. Please note that option D should have been labelled option C. It is, as always, open to us to take any other competent action that we feel necessary. I open the matter up to members for discussion.

I was not going to discuss; I was just going to make suggestions on the response that we might make to the petitioner. Des McNulty may want to jump in.

I had a general point about how we handle petitions. It might be better to deal with Murray Tosh's point and I will make my general point afterwards.

I was going to suggest that we do what is recommended at the first bullet point of paragraph 25: that we write to the petitioners advising them of your comments, convener, send them the responses received, as indicated at paragraph 21, and explain to them why there has been a delay in giving them a response. We should invite the Scottish Executive to consider the related paperwork and to decide whether it wants to consult on amending the industrial use class order or the remit of SEPA to deal with such cases. We should also undertake to advise the petitioners in the fulness of time of the Scottish Executive's response.

I am not sure whether the difficulties have arisen because of the planning regime or because of the environmental conditions put on a planning application. Looking at paragraph 13, it seems that the problems were caused by the company having failed repeatedly to comply with the conditions of the authorisation and that, despite enforcement action taken by SEPA, such breaches continue to occur. I do not think that it is the system that is wrong; it is how it is applied, or the sanctions that bodies such as SEPA can take in trying to get compliance from people who do not want to comply. That is where the problem is—not in the planning regime or the existing provisions, but in the way in which they can be enforced.

Would you agree that the action that Murray Tosh has suggested would cover that point?

Yes.

I take the substantive point that you are making.

Nora Radcliffe makes a valid point. In advising the Scottish Executive of this specific case, and in inviting it to consider the used classes order and the remit of SEPA, we should also ask it to consider enforceability across a range of environmental issues.

A lot of problems around planning issues do not arise because of the planning regime or what action is open to planning or environmental authorities, but because of the business of enforcement and ensuring compliance. That is where the system breaks down.

I would like to emphasise the same point. We should urge the Executive to consider the issue of enforcement. In my experience as a councillor, enforcement was the feeblest part of the whole planning system; in fact, it was non-existent in many cases. It would be better to have a much more vigorous enforcement regime.

It is difficult to know whether a potentially antisocial activity can be stopped before it starts, as it cannot be known whether it will be antisocial. However, once it has got going, there should be a better enforcement system. What Murray Tosh has suggested is fine, but we should urge the Executive to beef up the enforcement procedures of the councils.

Are we agreed to proceed according to Murray Tosh's suggestions on how we should deal with this petition?

Members indicated agreement.

I have two points to make on the general issue of petitions. First, we had a discussion on the way in which we handle petitions. As a member of the conveners group, can you update us on the feelings of other committees on that? Can we begin to advance on our mechanism for handling petitions?

Secondly, there is a danger that the Parliament might be being used as a kind of tribunal of last resort in relation to local authority decisions and decision making. Given that there is a mechanism whereby appeals can be made against those kinds of decisions, the question arises of when it is appropriate for us to deal with such matters and when they should be referred to the local government ombudsman as a more appropriate mechanism for detailed investigation, especially in cases of alleged maladministration. That is a procedural issue, which could perhaps be referred to the Procedures Committee.

That is one of the question marks hanging over the petitions system. The convener of the Public Petitions Committee will present a paper to the conveners group in the near future. A discussion took place on the matter—although not a lengthy discussion—and it was agreed that the convener of that committee would write a paper for the conveners group.

I invite Murray Tosh, as the convener of the Procedures Committee, to say whether any additional information can be given to us.

The matter was discussed at the conveners group, and it has been referred to the Procedures Committee. As part of the continuing work load of that committee, the petitions process will be reviewed, but that will not happen immediately as everybody must have a full input. We might want to make the point that we have agreed before, and which Des McNulty has just restated, about not being snared into running the rule over local authority decisions. It might be appropriate for this committee to explain that to the Public Petitions Committee, in an attempt to have that committee exercise stricter judgment on when it is appropriate to refer a petition to a committee.

I am happy to write to the convener of the Public Petitions Committee. This is a fluid situation. Reports have been received and I am happy to take members' views. However, bearing in mind the work that is being undertaken elsewhere, I ask members to keep their points concise and appropriate.

It is already in our power to refer a petition to a local authority ombudsman if we so wish.

Indeed. I understand that to be the case.

I would not want people to feel that they could not petition the Parliament appropriately and I would defend their right to do so. However, I am concerned about the scale of the backlog of petitions that this committee will have to deal with. Is there a way of fast-tracking some of them, to clear them out of the way so that we will be able to adopt quickly any new system of dealing with petitions?

We have agreed to hold a special meeting to deal solely with petitions. If the clerks have time, we will bundle all the petitions up and bring them to the committee in a way that will make it easy to see which ones can be fast-tracked and which ones members will want to act on. Cases will come before us, which the committee will have to deal with.

At the Public Petitions Committee meeting last week, I raised the specific point that Des McNulty brought up. Aided and abetted by several members, who shall remain nameless, petitioners are using the Parliament as a court of first resort rather than as a body to consider legislative proposals. Too often, cases are brought to the Scottish Parliament that would be better addressed through the appeals procedure at a local level. We are trying to get that point over through the clerks and we need the co-operation of members, as some MSPs are also using the Parliament in that way.

Obviously, we cannot condone such abuse of the system. We always have the option of recommending that petitioners appeal through local appeals procedures, and we should bear that in mind when we consider petitions.

The petitions procedure has been one of the strengths of this Parliament, and we do not want to discourage people from submitting petitions. Joe Public has no idea of the appropriate appeals mechanisms or of the people who should be approached locally, and I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing for people to use the petitions process to get a steer in the right direction—as a gateway to other routes—as long as the Public Petitions Committee is disciplined in redirecting them.

That issue can be raised when the paper is produced and cascaded down the committee system of the Parliament. Your point is well made and has been noted.

The next petition is PE17, from the Western Isles Council, on Skye bridge discounting options for Western Isles residents. I suggest that we consider this petition in conjunction with PE27, from Skye and Kyle Against Tolls—SKAT—on the introduction of toll concessions. I refer members to the covering note on the petitions, which includes responses that we have received on them from the Scottish Executive and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

The covering note reminds us that we do not have the power to undertake the direct actions that are requested by the petitioners—for example, direct negotiation with Sky Bridge Ltd—but that we can take a view on the issues that they raise and submit a report to the Parliament or express that view in a letter to the appropriate bodies. We have various options for either concluding or proceeding with consideration of the petitions. Those options are not exhaustive. Whatever option is chosen, I think that we should write to the petitioners, informing them of the responses from Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Executive.

I invite members to air their views on these petitions.

This is a good example of petitions that have run up against our lack of powers, but on which we have been able to raise issues with the Scottish Executive to obtain a degree of clarification for the petitioners. I suggest that we conclude consideration of petition PE17, as it has been before us for a long time. In addition to sending the petitioners copies of the information that has been received from HIE and the Scottish Executive, it might be appropriate for us to give them the note that was prepared by the clerk—which is a public document anyway—which summarises our position. The only other thing that we could do at this stage would be to write to the Scottish Executive and ask it to expedite, if possible, the decision on the issue of date stamping on the discount tickets.

Do any other members want to comment? Murray Tosh has set out the choices before us. Are we happy to accept what he says?

Members indicated agreement.

That deals with that petition.

The final petition for the day is PE23 from Save the Wemyss Ancient Caves Society. It is accompanied by a covering note that includes responses from Fife Council and the Scottish Executive. One option is that we pass copies of those responses to the petitioners and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, which has also been considering the petition. As we can do anything that committee members agree on, I open up the matter for discussion.

I would be glad if it was passed to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. This is an example of an occasion when a petition to the Scottish Parliament has made a difference. The local authority, with the then Minister for Finance, have moved to assist with this case. I am pleased about that. It would be helpful if we were to get that part of the Wemyss area referred to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

What would we be asking that committee to do?

We would pass on our information for them to either note or take further action on.

So we would not be making any further recommendation as to what we wanted the committee to do with the matter?

That is correct.

I want to stress that the caves contain examples of drawings that are unique in the UK. We want the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to note that fact and come up with appropriate ways to preserve them. A range of options has been put forward by all sorts of professionals.

We must bear in mind what the petition says and what we can do. We should think about the options that exist.

This petition is useful because it has helped us to consider issues and raise matters. We have identified that all we can do is pass the matter to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. It is for that committee to decide what to do with the matter as it is outwith the remit of this committee. It is a matter for Fife Council and the Scottish Executive. If the Scottish Parliament wants to talk to the Scottish Executive about the matter, it should be through the Education, Culture and Sport Committee rather than the Transport and the Environment Committee.

I agree that it is an issue for the Executive and Fife Council. I would be inclined to pass the responses to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee for information but not to draw anything in particular to the attention of that committee. All the committees have business problems and it is important to ensure that we do not simply pass the parcel, especially as we have been told that progress has been made and that the matter is in hand.

Could we also pass the Official Report of this discussion to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee? I would like that committee to understand that, although progress has been made, certain issues still have to be addressed.

Okay.

The reason I asked my question before was that I am a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and I thought that it would be useful to know what the views of this committee were so that I could communicate them to my colleagues.

In addition to the actions that we have already discussed, we will ensure that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee receives a copy of the Official Report.

The key point is contained in paragraph 9 of the briefing paper. The council says that it has not been

"possible to show that a scheme to protect the caves would meet the required economic criteria to receive Scottish Executive approval."

The council's view is that it is up to the Executive to sort out the economic value of prehistoric remains of great significance and to better examine the question of providing funding for sea defences. Are we going to draw the matter to the attention of the Executive?

We were sent this petition because of the environmental erosion question. We have investigated that matter and I think that it is for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to decide on the other elements of the matter. We are not passing a value judgment—to use that word again—on what is in the caves. We are saying that we have investigated the matter, have received responses from the main players and that the matter is now for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. We are not adding any weight to the cultural issue as that is outwith our remit.

I strongly back that point. The rock is soft and will erode and it would be difficult to include the area in a general coastal defence scheme in an attempt to prevent erosion of that particular set of caves. The issue is to do with historical matters and should be considered by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. As paragraph 9 says, a method of valuing heritage assets would have to be established.

Fife is the only council in Scotland that has a coastal management plan. The council has identified parts of Fife where the sea simply cannot be held back. It has also identified areas where, for economic, social or employment reasons, it is important to protect the defences. East Wemyss is one such area. The point that Robin Harper makes is sound, but it must be borne in mind that Tam Dalyell and others have written articles in The Scotsman and other newspapers saying that there are sound reasons for protecting the caves. The issue is controversial: some people say that we should not protect the caves and some say that the caves must be protected for the sake of Scotland's heritage.

I agree with Helen Eadie and I find the attitude taken by the Scottish Executive surprising. I wonder what Historic Scotland is playing at. However, the point still stands that such issues are outwith the remit of this committee. The issues relate to the remit of the Transport and the Environment Committee. We have enough to do with our work load without taking on the work load of other committees.

I thank you for your support with regard to matters raised previously, Murray.

I want to clarify the point that I made. The level of protection that would be provided by the local coastal protection scheme might not prevent the erosion that will destroy the historic value of the caves.

We have agreed that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will get a copy of the Official Report of our discussion. That will allow that committee's members to take cognisance of the views that we have expressed.

As well as that action, do we agree to the actions as indicated by Murray Tosh?

Members indicated agreement.

We have agreed to take the next agenda item in private.

Meeting continued in private until 12:40.