Current Petitions
Planning System (Appeals) (PE414)
The first current petition for consideration is PE414, from Mr S Philips, on planning decisions. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the current planning system.
Members will recall that the petitioner's interest in this matter arises from a decision by Angus Council to refuse planning permission, owing to road safety concerns. Subsequently, that decision was overturned by the Scottish Executive. The only recourse available to the council and to individuals living in the area is to take the case to the Court of Session. In the petitioner's judgment, that is discriminatory because of the high costs that such a course of action would involve.
We agreed to request details of the Executive's position in relation to third-party planning appeals and to pass a copy of the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, for information only. We have now received a response from the Executive, and it is absolutely clear that it
"has no plans to introduce a third party right of appeal."
It says that it has considered the matter periodically, but believes that such appeals would undermine the efficient and effective operation of the planning system, would create delays and
"could discourage economic and industrial investment".
In any case,
"Third party appellants might not be representative of the wider community".
The Executive acknowledges the importance of the participation of third parties in the planning process,
"both through involvement during the preparation of development plans and through commenting on planning applications."
Recently it issued a consultation document entitled "Getting Involved in Planning", which aims further to improve public involvement in the system. A summary of that document's main proposals is attached to the papers that have been circulated to members.
In response to our question about ECHR compliance, the Executive says that existing planning legislation
"is compatible with the Convention without further amendment."
However, a case relating to the ECHR and such appeals has come before the courts in Northern Ireland and is awaiting judgment. If that judgment has implications for Scotland, the Executive will take those into account. A judgment by the Court of Session noted that the right of appeal to the Court of Session against planning decisions made by Scottish ministers
"is sufficient to meet the terms of the ECHR."
We have also been given information on the number of planning appeals that have been upheld by the Scottish Executive inquiry reporters unit. Over the past three years, the unit upheld less than one third of appeals.
It is suggested that, in the light of the consultation exercise on public involvement in the planning system, we should agree that that consultation would be the most appropriate place for concerns about the issue raised by the petitioner to be voiced and taken into account by the Executive. We could suggest to the petitioner that he submit a response to that consultation. It is further suggested that we agree to take no further action, other than to copy the Executive's response to the petitioner and to the clerk of the Transport and the Environment Committee for information.
Given the large number of petitions that we receive about planning matters, we may wish to ask the Executive to inform us in due course of the outcome of the consultation exercise and of any proposals for amending the planning system that may result from it.
This may involve a huge amount of work for the clerks, but I suggest that we forward to the Executive the petitions that we have received about planning matters, so that they can be considered as part of its consultation exercise. A very large proportion of the committee's work relates to petitions about planning. It would be a good idea for us to feed those petitions into the Executive's consultation exercise, to make the Executive aware of the problems that can arise.
I am told that that would be no problem. We can suggest to the Executive that it invite the petitioners to make a submission to its consultation exercise. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Local Plan Public Inquiries (PE418)
PE418, from Mr Gordon Clyde Ford, calls for a public consultation to be held in relation to the choice of the reporter in a local public planning inquiry. Members will recall that the petitioner was concerned that the local authority has the right to nominate the reporter in any local public planning inquiry. He believes that that is wrong, because it means that the system is heavily biased towards the developer concerned and towards the council that approved the local plan.
We asked the Executive to comment on the petition. It has responded by providing us with details of the current arrangements for the choice of reporters in local plan inquiries. The Executive believes that those procedures can be improved. Indeed, in the consultation paper "Getting Involved in Planning", to which I referred when discussing the previous petition, it
"seeks views on a proposal that Reporters for Local Plan inquiries should be appointed independently by SEIRU."
The paper also
"suggests that local plans should be automatically adopted in line with the Reporter's report … unless the planning authority advises all parties that it intends not to follow the recommendations, giving an opportunity to respond. Where, following receipt of responses, the planning authority still wish to depart from the Reporter's recommendation, we propose that it should be required to seek permission from the Scottish Ministers to do so."
The consultation exercise on public involvement in the planning system is specifically addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner. Indeed, it proposes a change in the current arrangements for the appointment of reporters and the handling of inquiry reports that mirrors almost exactly the change suggested in the petition. It is therefore recommended that we agree to suggest to the petitioners that they submit a response to the consultation paper in support of the Executive's proposals. It is further recommended that we agree to pass a copy of the Executive response to the clerk to the Transport and the Environment Committee, for information only, and to take no further action.
Hear, hear.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Road Equivalent Tariff (PE421)
The final petition, PE421, from Mr Alasdair Nicholson, calls on the Parliament to promote and trial a road equivalent tariff between the Western Isles and the mainland and to pursue measures to implement a fair road equivalent tariff system to the Scottish islands at the earliest opportunity.
Members will recall that the committee considered this petition at its meeting on 4 December 2001 and agreed to write to the Scottish Executive to obtain its views on the petition. A response has now been received from the Executive, a copy of which is attached to members' papers.
The Executive's response indicates that the issue of road equivalent tariffs was the subject of an oral parliamentary question from Duncan Hamilton MSP, who spoke in support of the petition at our meeting on 4 December 2001. In reply to Duncan Hamilton's question, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning said that the Executive would set out its preferred option for future fares policy on the Clyde and Western Isles ferry services when it consults on the draft specification for those routes early this year. The minister also noted that a move to a road equivalent tariff would require substantial alteration to the fares structure for those services at a time when stability and security of service should be the key priorities.
The Executive's response also indicates that consultants commissioned by Caledonian MacBrayne have concluded that the
"introduction of RET would have a major downward impact on the Company's revenue, necessitating a significant increase in Scottish Executive deficit funding. It could also generate a demand for travel that could only be satisfied by increasing the fleet size (which again would require substantial additional government support)."
It is suggested that it would be appropriate for the issue of road equivalent tariff to be raised in the context of the consultation on the draft service specification for the Clyde and Western Isles ferry services. It is therefore recommended that we agree to suggest that approach to the petitioner and take no further action. Alternatively, we could agree to refer the petition and the Executive's response to the Transport and the Environment Committee for its consideration.
No study has ever been conducted into the feasibility of the petitioner's proposal. It is known that Norway has road equivalent tariff. The extra cost is picked up by the Norwegian Government. It is also known that some of the Greek islands are introducing RET. I do not have other examples, but RET makes a difference to remote areas. If they have it, they can survive on equal terms. Cost almost rules out family visits to people who live on islands, including Shetland or the Western Isles. The cost of transport means that people who live on islands become isolated.
I do not want to make a political point, but there have been times when RET was Tory and Labour party policy. RET was in their manifestos, but when it came to the bit, it never happened. I have looked at the Norwegian example with great envy. We are dependent on CalMac in many ways and it is bound to make the remarks that it has made. In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "He would say that, wouldn't he?" We are talking about 90 inhabited islands, yet a real study has not been conducted. Surely someone should conduct a proper study?
Through the convener, I ask Winifred a question. I accept her point about the study, but many people who live on the islands, or who go to live on the islands, do so because they want a degree of solitude.
Dr Ewing indicated disagreement.
I am asking a question, Winifred. If we were to go down the line that is being suggested, it would open up the islands to mass invasion. An awful lot of people might start to take advantage of the islands. Is that point worthy of note?
Why is the Sgitheanach not laughing heartily?
I am asking a question.
The odd person might go for solitude, but most people on the islands are island born. They love their island and their community and want to stay in it. Why should they be cut off from contact? In the end, that is what drives away young people. Most island communities want to retain their young people, but not against their will. They want them to have the option to stay in Skye or wherever. The cost of transport means that that option is not open to people.
It is a tragedy. Depopulation is massively aggravated by the cost of transport. Even in countries that do not have RET, some arrangement is in place to help remote areas. In Ireland, arrangements are made for certain categories of people, including pensioners, the disabled and prisoners' wives, to have rail fares paid and, in the case of people with disabilities who have to travel to remote islands, air fares paid. Phil Gallie will enjoy this. One of the islands off the west coast of Ireland to which free air fares are provided is called Tory island.
It has not got an airport.
It has an airstrip, possibly on a beach.
I suggest that we pass PE421 to the Transport and the Environment Committee. That committee is examining consultation with CalMac and would want to see the petition. As Winnie said, the Transport and the Environment Committee might want to examine the feasibility of RET. I am always concerned that places such as Shetland, which are long road miles away from the rest of the country, might not benefit from such a scheme. However, we need to examine the proposals contained in PE421.
I wish to be clear. Is the Transport and the Environment Committee examining the draft service specification for the Clyde and Western Isles service?
Yes. I could be wrong, but I think that that is the case.
Yes, it is. As members have heard, the issue of road equivalent tariff has been on the discussion table for many years. Back in the time of Hamish Gray, RET was to be implemented in the lifetime of the next Parliament of the day, but it never happened. As everybody knows, the subject was debated recently in the Scottish Parliament. At that time, I suggested that, although RET has not been implemented, an experiment could be set up on a couple of routes to test the pros and cons of RET and whether it is effective and beneficial. Phil was trying to twist our tail a little. I am sure that he was not serious.
Are the islanders worried by a lot of visitors coming to the islands?
No, it would not worry islanders at all.
That clarifies the question. If the Transport and the Environment Committee is examining the draft service specification, we can refer PE421 to that committee and ask it to consider the petition in the context of its consideration.
Consider road equivalent tariff?
Yes. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Multiple Sclerosis (PE431)
PE431 is not on the agenda, but members will remember that the subject of the petition was beta interferon. Members will also know that, under a new deal agreed between the Government and the drug companies, beta interferon is to be made available to all Scots patients who need it. We can claim PE431 as another success.
Can we claim it as our success?
Yes.
We can and we will.
All patients who are found to be suitable for treatment with beta interferon will get it. Are we certain that there is not a catch?
I have not seen the detail of the deal. There may well be a catch, but at least it is a step in the right direction. The move was welcomed warmly by the petitioners.
Who says which patient is suitable?
Some have deteriorated—
The Multiple Sclerosis Society in Scotland will agree with the medics on the patients who are suitable for treatment. I have not been made aware that that was an issue.
If this news is right, it is wonderful.