Transport and the Environment Committee, 02 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 2, 2000

Official Report 108KB pdf

---

New Petitions

There are five new petitions. The first, PE51, is from Friends of the Earth Scotland, calling for the Scottish Parliament to

"exercise its powers not to permit the release of GM crops into the environment by way of trials or commercial planting"

and to

"establish a mechanism in Scotland which will address the concerns regarding the impact of such releases on the environment and human health".

We have also received a petition, PE60, from the Scottish Green party, calling for the Scottish Parliament to hold a debate on genetically modified food and crops.

I suggest that we consider those two petitions jointly.

The Public Petitions Committee has advised that, in dealing with those petitions, we should take account of the views of both the Health and Community Care Committee and the Rural Affairs Committee. The clerk will make the necessary arrangements for that. As members will see from the papers that have been distributed, the Scottish Parliament information centre has produced a research briefing on the topic, which discusses trials of GM crops, their commercial release and the role of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.

We may want to defer full consideration of those petitions until we have had an opportunity to consider the SPICe briefing note and the views of the other two committees, but that is simply a suggestion. The petitions have just arrived with us, so I expect that members have not had the chance to read up on them.

I would be happy to go with the suggested options, to get more information and to get the views of the Rural Affairs Committee and the Health and Community Care Committee. Before we can arrive at any conclusions, we must ensure that we are well informed.

I agree with Helen. I would also like a time scale for when we will get information back from those committees, so that we can set our agenda.

I have no problem with seeking the advice or views of other committees, but I do not want people to think that that is some sort of fudge, or some way of putting off a decision. I have had a number of representations on GM food and crops from my constituents. At some stage, there will have to be a debate on the issue in Parliament. I support the idea of getting more information, but with the caveat that that should not be a way of losing the petition.

Absolutely. The Rural Affairs Committee will consider the matter on 29 February.

The two petitions have been sent also to the Health and Community Care Committee. Has that committee timetabled its consideration of them yet?

Not that we are aware of. However, we can request that committee to consider the petitions within a time frame similar to our own.

Can we ask the Health and Community Care Committee to consider the petitions as a matter of relative urgency? We should not put off to the end of June our consideration of them.

How will the food standards agency fit into this? Its work will be important, as will our timetable, as Cathy Jamieson rightly pointed out. I understand that the agency will have a role to play in this matter, so when the clerks are drawing together their work on the petitions, consideration should be given to that role. If we are to take evidence, we should hear from the agency.

There is no suggestion that we should defer our consideration of this matter indefinitely. We want a fairly sharp interface with other relevant committees, after which we should discuss the matter and produce recommendations. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE59, which was submitted by Frank Harvey. The petition calls on the Parliament to take certain steps to improve passenger safety on public transport. In particular, it is concerned about the number of passengers and the presence of potentially dangerous dogs on public transport. In referring this petition to us, the Public Petitions Committee suggested that the Transport and the Environment Committee note the petition—there is no request for us to consider it further. Members know that the matter of passenger safety is reserved to Westminster.

The more I read of Mr Harvey, the more I like him. His name has come up quite often at the Public Petitions Committee.

The issue of overcrowding, which Mr Harvey raises, is close to my heart. ScotRail is investigating an incident that took place a fortnight ago when, because of overcrowding, one of my constituents had her head caught in the train doors as they closed.

Overcrowding is a matter of absolute concern to my constituents—all the letters that I receive are about either overcrowding or the appalling level of service, with trains being delayed or cancelled altogether. If we can, we should ensure that people receive the quality of service that they rightly deserve. After all, it is already policy that no more than five people may stand on buses and moves are being made towards the installation of seat belts on moving vehicles. It has always amazed me that that policy does not apply to trains and that the number of people who travel on trains is not limited.

I would like to follow the options suggested to us and obtain the rail industry's policy on overcrowding. However, I understand that we should bring the petition to the attention to the relevant Whitehall department, as it is not competent for the Scottish Parliament to progress the petition. None the less, I hope that we can put across our very strong views to the Whitehall department. We should also seek further information from the Scottish Executive.

I do not disagree with Helen's comments about overcrowding and her proposal to limit the number of passengers travelling on public transport in Scotland. However, the petitioner's proposal to ban passengers from taking dogs on public transport, with the exception of guide dogs, would cause practical difficulties. He refers to the tube in Glasgow—I am not aware of problems there, although others will be—but banning dogs from public transport in certain parts of Scotland would create practical difficulties. For example, sheepdogs would have to stay in the back of the Land Rover during ferry crossings, such as the crossing that I make every weekend. I am not in favour of a blanket ban, but we should consider particular problems that arise in particular areas.

Those issues would be addressed during our investigation of the petition.

To answer Tavish's concern, perhaps the petition covers only dangerous sheep.

Incidentally, a "tube" has an entirely different meaning in Glasgow from that which it has in more sophisticated metropolitan environments, with which Tavish is obviously familiar. [Laughter.] Sorry about that.

Legislation exists for dealing with dangerous dogs—perhaps we should investigate the circumstances that are covered by that legislation. I am not sure whether one is entitled to have a dangerous dog in a public place—if one is not so entitled, that part of the petition may be redundant.

We should also consult rail users on the question of limiting passenger numbers. I am not advocating circumstances in which passengers get their heads caught in doors, but if I were going for a certain train and someone handed down a fiat that only a certain number of people could board that train, I would not be too thrilled to have to wait an hour for the next one. We must consider the matter from a consumer's point of view. Nobody has to board an overcrowded train; the people who choose to do so have decided that they would rather do that than wait for the next train. Personal preferences come into play to some degree. We should consider what consumer groups have to say on the matter.

Having travelled on the Glasgow underground this morning, I am qualified to comment. As far as I am aware, there are no limits on the number of people who can stand. At rush hour, the underground resembles the Tokyo train system—people are literally packed in and body parts often get caught in doors and so on.

The service runs every seven minutes and, as Murray Tosh said, people do not have to board an overcrowded train as another will be along soon. However, people choose to get on and there do not seem to be many staff available to supervise the situation. I would not like to be the staff member who tried to ensure that people were not squeezing on to the train. We can take advice on the rules.

I have sympathy for Mr Harvey; this is a serious issue. However, we should remember that we are a national Parliament and that such issues should be dealt with by the appropriate authority, such as the transport authority or the local authority. It is not for us to deal with the details about the number of people who can get on a train. We should be setting down the legislative framework to allow the people at the coalface to decide what limitation, if any, should be imposed.

It is a sign of the Parliament's success that Mr Harvey chose to write to us, but we should try to be the conduit to allow those who are responsible to address such issues. If there were no legislative framework, we would deal with the matter, but it is not for us to decide the minutiae.

There are a variety of views on further action. I tend to agree with Kenny regarding the appropriateness of the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Scottish Parliament dealing with the matter. Helen Eadie made the point about seeking further information on rail policy and I am tempted to say that that would be an appropriate course of action. I suggest that we leave the other areas in abeyance. Do we agree on that?

Members indicated agreement.

The National Farmers Union of Scotland submitted both PE65 and PE68. PE65 calls on the Parliament to take action on several measures relating to vehicle excise duty. The petition was also referred to the Rural Affairs Committee, whose views we are asked to take into account. The Rural Affairs Committee has undertaken initial consideration of the issue and has agreed to obtain briefing from the information centre on the legal powers of the Scottish Parliament in relation to the matter.

The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has begun an inquiry on differential petrol pricing in rural Scotland. It took evidence on Monday and the meeting was widely reported in the press. Some members of this committee attended that meeting.

We might want to defer consideration of the petition until we have heard from the Rural Affairs Committee and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. At that point, we may want to contact the relevant bodies.

It is not just the level of fuel duty that causes concern to the haulage industry: there is a problem in the variable rate of the excise duty on vehicles. That has led to people re-registering vehicles in other countries to take advantage of lower rates of taxation. We should consider the implications of that, either alone or jointly with the Rural Affairs Committee. We should not restrict ourselves to the issue of petrol—our hauliers are operating under a further, substantial disadvantage.

Point taken.

I sympathise with what Murray Tosh is saying and accept that other committees are considering this matter. However, I would not like discussion of it to be postponed until an unspecified date. Much depends on what happens in the budget, over which we have no control. Perhaps we should indicate to the National Farmers Union that we would like to defer discussion of this petition until our last meeting in March or our first meeting in April. By that time we will know what is proposed in the budget—which may or may not have an effect—and have some indication of the position of the Rural Affairs Committee and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. That period is long enough to allow information to be gathered from the three sources that I have mentioned, and short enough for the NFU not to feel that we are simply passing the buck and keeping this off our agenda. The NFU should have no cause for complaint if we are delaying consideration for two months so that we can take cognisance of three critical factors.

We never pass the buck on petitions—we will shortly provide updates on petitions that we have received. I suggest that we do as Kenny MacAskill suggests. I will take advice from Lynn Tullis, but I understand that the Rural Affairs Committee and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee will have reached a conclusion on this matter by late March or early April, which will allow us to discuss it fully. Are we happy to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE68 is also from the NFU Scotland. It calls

"for the agriculture sector to be exempted from the proposed Climate Change Levy".

The Rural Affairs Committee considered this petition yesterday, and the clerks will provide us with an update in due course. It may be better for us to await that update before considering the petition fully. As members are aware, the implementation of the climate change levy is a reserved matter and consequently the options for the committee are fairly limited. After we have heard from the Rural Affairs Committee, we should write to the Scottish Executive setting out our concerns and seeking consideration of the options. That means that, after we have taken cognisance of the views of the other committees, we should return to the petition and discuss it more fully.

Substantial changes to the climate change levy were announced in the chancellor's November budget statement. Although it is impossible for us to know about this in detail, we were given the clear impression that the Scottish Executive had exerted a great deal of pressure to bring about those changes. It would, therefore, be appropriate for us to discuss this issue. We need to analyse the peculiar impact of the levy on agriculture in Scotland and to convey our views to the Scottish Executive, so that it can feed those in to the Westminster Government. This issue is not directly within our remit, but given that the Executive appears to see itself as the champion of Scottish industry, it would be sensible for us to encourage it to assume the same role on behalf of Scottish agriculture.

That is a fair comment.

Rather than asking for a blanket exemption for Scotland that might upset English farmers, many of whom also have to cope with severe climatic conditions in highland areas, we might ask for the levy to be modified by a rebate based on regional climate variations. That would ensure that farmers across the UK are treated fairly.

We will proceed on that basis.