Transport and the Environment Committee, 02 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 2, 2000

Official Report 108KB pdf

---

Petitions (Progress)

The second item on our agenda is a report on the progress of the petitions that we have discussed recently. I must say that the report is not laid out in the way that I would have liked. In future, we will try to present the information in a more user-friendly way, but pressure of work dictated the present layout.

We requested further information on six of the petitions. We may wish to focus on those items and consider whether the information received corresponds to what we requested and is an adequate basis on which to take a decision.

Petition PE2, from the Ayrshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry, relates to the upgrade of the A77. We have asked the petitioners whether there are any outstanding issues in their petition that they wish to raise, but we have not received a response—given the outcome of the strategic roads review, we might expect that.

The petitioners will be pleased by the decision in the strategic roads review. A number of people who were involved in the petition have participated in subsequent press activity. I am sure that the petitioners will come back to us if progress is not made at a satisfactory rate.

Do we agree that no further action is required?

Members indicated agreement.

The next update is on the petition from the Hospitalfield area residents association. Members will recall that the petition refers to Seed Crushers (Scotland) in Arbroath and that, when we began to investigate this matter, a legal case came into play. Members will see in the report the advice of the parliamentary law officers, who say:

"It is considered that it would be inappropriate to examine the petition further at the present time and deferral of consideration to a later date would be the most appropriate course of action."

We are caught in the same legal issue as before.

The next update is on the petition from Mr R H Guild on Edinburgh's transport and traffic. After we copied the petition to the City of Edinburgh Council, the council consulted Mr Guild and sent him a copy of the local transport strategy. We are not aware that Mr Guild wishes us to examine any further matters.

That seems to be a good example of the Public Petitions Committee securing action for an individual. We should inform the Public Petitions Committee of the action that has been taken, which closes the case. That is a good result.

No further action is required.

Petition PE8, from the Scottish Homing Union, is on the effects of birds of prey on homing pigeons. As we are still waiting for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions report on raptor predation, which is expected to be published in early February, we should discuss this matter further when that report is available.

That suggestion is helpful. There will be a presentation by Scottish Natural Heritage about raptors. I think that the whole issue of birds of prey will be addressed.

Not that I am aware.

I will show you the correspondence on the matter after the meeting.

Okay.

Petition PE16, which was received from Jimmy Oswald, calls for urgent action to reverse the decline of the capercaillie in Scotland. The report gives a long explanation of the response to this petition. The Scottish Executive is carrying out further research. Although we do not want to be seen to be passing on issues without monitoring progress, it would be advisable to wait for the outcome of that research. Is that agreed by the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

The next update is on petition PE17, from Western Isles Council, on discounting options for western isles residents, and on petition 27, from Skye and Kyle Against Tolls, which calls for the introduction of toll concessions for the transport of livestock and other haulage across the Skye bridge. We have received a letter from the Scottish Executive, copies of which were circulated to members; the letter gives a fairly full explanation of the systems and schemes that are in operation. Are we content with the Executive's response or do further areas need to be investigated?

Again, we should inform the Public Petitions Committee about the response that has been made, which is acceptable.

Until we know what is happening about Caledonian MacBrayne, the western isles situation is fluid. I think that we should indicate to Western Isles Council that matters should not be viewed in isolation and that, if there are going to be proposals about how Caledonian MacBrayne is constituted, all matters should be up for grabs. We should continue simply to note matters.

The Executive's letter deals with one matter, but everything depends on the form in which the operator continues to exist—whether it is a wholly owned public body, whether there is a management buy-out, whether it is privatised, or whether it is sold off piecemeal. We should note our concern and ask the Executive whether it is proposing in the near future to make a ministerial statement on Caledonian MacBrayne.

The petition from Skye and Kyle Against Tolls is a separate matter. The passage of the subordinate legislation resulted in criticism of me and, implicitly, of this committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee. For the record, I should say that I did not oppose the legislation because, given that we were unable to amend it, it seemed better to freeze tolls than to leave open the possibility that they could be increased.

We need an opportunity to discuss the whole concept of tolls. There is a festering sore in Skye, the western Highlands and throughout Scotland about the Skye bridge and, sooner or later, the issue must be debated in this Parliament. Members from a number of parties have lodged motions on the issue. We should intimate to the Parliamentary Bureau that we want a debate, if only as part of members' business, on tolls and the operation of the Skye bridge. The fact that we passed SSI 1999/196 is neither here nor there. If we had not passed it, the Executive could have continued to increase tolls. It is better that tolls are frozen, although I would prefer to see them abolished.

Members who feel strongly about this issue can lodge a member's motion. It would be inappropriate for the committee to recommend a particular course of action for members' business.

Kenny MacAskill is right to say that members from the area have lodged motions. It is for the bureau to consider those and, I hope, to provide the time for them to be debated.

I am sure that at last week's question time Sarah Boyack was asked a question about CalMac and stated quite clearly that the Executive had no plans to privatise the organisation. After George Lyon had asked a question about Harold Mills, an SNP colleague asked the minister whether the Executive intended to privatise CalMac; she gave a very clear answer.

We can investigate that matter. However, we must decide whether the Executive's response on the petitions meets our needs.

I was disappointed, convener, that you did not attempt to pronounce Western Isles Council in Gaelic.

What is it?

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar.

When we met in the Signet Library, people from Skye raised the question of livestock transport. There is a gap in my knowledge here, but the people who spoke to me at that meeting maintained that there were livestock exemptions under the previous fare regime on the ferries. The letter from the transport division of 24 January states that the Executive's policy is to pursue a tolling regime

"based on the published fare structure formerly used by Caledonian MacBrayne on the ferry crossing."

I do not know whether there are still livestock exemptions on other routes in the Scottish isles. Whether there are or are not will affect how we respond to the Executive's answer. The conditions should be the same for everybody. If there are no livestock exemptions elsewhere, the petitioners will have to accept that that the current arrangement is fair. If there are, we will have to revisit the issue. I should know whether there are still exemptions, but I do not.

Neither do I, so it would be appropriate for us to find out. I am happy to take up Murray Tosh's question with the Executive. With that qualification, are we content with the response that we have received?

I am not content. I do not think that it is satisfactory in terms of the broader issue. It deals with one matter, not the underlying problem.

We have been asked to address the issue that is raised in the petition. Members can interrogate the Executive and lodge motions on behalf of their parties. There are plenty of opportunities to raise the issue. We are trying to deal with the petition at this point and we are trying to establish whether we are content with the response within the parameters of the question.

That is reasonable. The route that you are following should ensure that we have all the information. I am happy to go along with the summary that you have given.

The majority of the committee consider the responses to be appropriate.

Petition PE21, from Penicuik and District Community Council, calls for a concessionary bus fare scheme to be operated nationally by the Scottish Executive. We are considering further work on this matter and the petitioners have been notified that the issue is being addressed.

Petition PE22, from the Island of Cumbrae Tourist Association, outlines concerns about the fare structure of Caledonian MacBrayne for the ferry to Cumbrae island and calls for more detailed financial information to be made available. We have before us the response from the Executive. Do members want to express their views on that response?

The minister's response shows that there is a fundamental problem within CalMac. The fact that we have agreed to discuss it proves that raising the matter was worth while.

I support Linda Fabiani's view. I am pleased that we will discuss sea transport. The commercial operators' cherry-picking attitude towards the routes that they want to operate must be challenged.

I am not content with the information that we have received on the fare structures. Bearing in mind the fact that we will discuss the matter further, we should note that the response does not meet the petitioners' request to provide a breakdown of the fare structure. We should continue to pursue the matter with CalMac and the Executive.

As the Parliament is built on principles of transparency and openness, and we are—quite rightly—questioning oil companies on their pricing structures and trying to establish transparency in the fixing of retail prices for petrol, we should not be seen to be sparing the Executive from similar pressures. I accept what the minister said about the revenue receipt data and the difficulties with providing a full explanation of the fare structure, but the information must be obtainable. It would add to the knowledge of the people in the area, who, I suspect, will see the Executive's actions so far as a refusal to give an answer. We should press the minister to give that information, to make a statement about the other factors that should be taken into account and to set in train some public analysis and explanation of their impact, even though that might take some time to evaluate and might not be precisely measurable.

I see a general nodding of heads. We will ask the minister for further information, based on the correspondence that we have received, to gain a further insight into fare structures. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We are awaiting information on petition PE28, from the 999 Clear Roads Campaign, on petition PE23, regarding the clearance of litter and rubbish, and on petition PE29, from Mr Anderson, which calls for a debate on section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Before we move on, I would like it recorded that I support Kenny MacAskill's position on petitions PE17 and PE27.

Convener, you mentioned earlier that you would like this information to appear in a more user-friendly format. However, I like it in this format, as it is short, sharp and to the point. I thank the clerks for preparing it.

I just felt that the information was dense and tightly packed. If members are happy with it, far be it from me to change the format.

I ask members of the public to leave, as we are moving to a discussion of our work programme, which we will deal with in private.

Meeting continued in private until 11:06.