Petitions
Agenda item 3 is consideration of public petitions. Our first petition is PE59 from Mr Frank Harvey, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to take certain steps to improve passenger safety on public transport in Scotland. A covering note is attached. I ask members to refer to the revised version that has been circulated by a member of staff. Various options are set out in the covering note, but we can take any other action that members feel is appropriate.
According to paragraph 10 of the covering note, the petitioner has requested
"that a limit is placed on the number of passengers travelling on public transport in Scotland".
The Executive says in its response that performance payments penalise overcrowding. However, the petitioner contends that trains are overcrowded. There seems to be a mechanism for preventing overcrowding, but do we know how overcrowding is defined?
We should seek the Executive's view on that matter, for which it is responsible. If the member would like me to take up that point with the Executive, I would be happy to do so. Do other members have views on the petition?
I would like clarification of the petitioner's suggestion that no dogs should be allowed on public transport.
We can do that as well.
The petition suggests that it should be permissible for blind persons to take dogs on public transport. However, there are other activities that might require dogs to be transported. The important thing is that the dogs should be properly under control. We could suggest that dogs might be taken on public transport as long as they are muzzled. I do not see a problem with that.
I understand that if dogs are muzzled or safely under control, it is okay to take them on public transport. That also applies to sheepdogs, which are of particular interest to many of us. Once we have received further clarification from the Executive, we can progress the petition.
I welcome Murray Tosh to the meeting. He has missed the fulsome praise that I gave him earlier.
I am sorry that I missed out on that. Such things come very rarely.
You can now see it on television as well as read about it in the Official Report.
Do members agree to continue consideration of PE59 once we have received further clarification from the Executive of the issues that members have raised?
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE113, from the Campaign for Borders Rail, on the reinstatement of the Borders railway. I refer members to the covering note on the petition, which sets out a number of possible options for action. This is a cross-party, cross-committee matter that has generated a great deal of interest. I welcome along Murray Tosh, Christine Grahame and Ian Jenkins to our discussion of the petition. I will seek the views and comments of committee members before asking to hear from our other colleagues.
The petition requests that public finance be provided to fund a Scottish Borders rail link. We know that the Government has made available some money for a feasibility study, but we should bear in mind how much money it proposes to invest in projects such as the M74 link—if memory serves me correctly, that figure is a couple of hundred million pounds. It is important that the committee examines the Minister for Transport and Planning's investment priorities. The committee is concerned to provide sustainable transport, rather than just more space for cars.
I declare an interest, in that I am a member of the Campaign for Borders Rail.
I, too, am a life member of the Campaign for Borders Rail—for the wild price of 25 quid.
I hope that the committee will reiterate its support for the Campaign for Borders Rail. I also hope that the committee will recognise the decision that was taken when the Parliament met in Glasgow. At that time, the debate that was requested in the petition took place and there was unanimous backing for the establishment of the rail line to Carlisle. We recognise that feasibility studies suggest that the project might have to be taken in stages.
I hope that the committee will support and endorse the start that has been made—the councils that are involved have come together and the Executive has given money for work on the preliminaries before a parliamentary order is sought. I also hope that the committee will say positively and without reservation that it believes that progress must be made and that the railway must be established in the longer term.
Fiona McLeod was correct to say that we must consider the priorities and that railways must be one of the priorities in a strategic transport policy.
I fully endorse what Ian Jenkins said. We should remember that the vote in the Scottish Parliament in June last year was unanimously in favour of reinstating the line from Edinburgh to Carlisle. We must not lose sight of that.
I want to pick up on something that the convener said about this being a cross-committee issue. I accept that the Transport and the Environment Committee is the lead committee, but I do not think that the issue is wholly a transport issue—it is also an enterprise issue. That point is important when one looks at the reports, in particular the City of Edinburgh Council's report, which is interesting. Paragraph 1.2 states:
"The City of Edinburgh Council welcomes the opportunity to add its wholehearted support to this initiative which would improve sustainable accessibility to the labour markets of the Scottish Borders and Midlothian."
That is at the heart of the issue. We must make the Scottish Executive realise that the matter is cross-cutting. From a social inclusion perspective, one can see that with the levels of poverty and the aging population in the Borders, the railway would not simply make it faster and safer to get to Edinburgh.
With that in mind, I ask the committee to reject option A in the covering note, which proposes that the committee write to the petitioners to say that it has considered the petition and that that is an end to the matter. I hope that the committee will take a proactive role and that Cabinet ministers will realise that public funding is needed. The funding does not have to come out of one pocket, because the matter cuts across transport, rural development, the environment, enterprise and social inclusion. Funds are available from the Strategic Rail Authority and we should be pushing for those funds and for funding from the enterprise budget to make the railway a reality.
I am concerned that the council's report mentions 2008 as the earliest date for track to be laid. In the meantime, the Borders economy continues to decline. As a postscript, I should say that I am a member of the Campaign for Borders Rail and the convener of the cross-party group on Borders rail.
I, too, should declare my interest as a member of the Campaign for Borders Rail and as the vice-convener of the cross-party group.
I disagree with what Christine Grahame said about what action the committee should take. The petitioning process of the Scottish Parliament is different from the Executive or local authority procuring capital contracts. The petitioners are due a response to the petition and, by and large, they have achieved from the petitioning system what it can yield. That is to say that the issue has been thoroughly ventilated—it has been discussed by committees and debated and supported in Parliament.
As far as the Parliament is concerned, the petition has probably just about reached the end of the line for the moment. The matter is now in the hands of the people who are working on the full business case for the railway. That business case will provide detailed calculations about whether investment can come from the Strategic Rail Authority, whether Executive funding is required and how the various sums of money will be put together. The business will inevitably be protracted because it will involve the creation of some kind of public-private partnership. It will also involve the use—possibly for the first time—of the Parliament's new procedures on private legislation, because a private bill will be necessary to give full consent, including planning consent.
The procurement and construction phases will inevitably be protracted and, while I can understand people being impatient about the projected dates, they have to accept that the council has made realistic projections in good faith. The council is strongly behind the project and is unlikely to be dithering unnecessarily. The project will take a long time.
At some stage in the process, a question will arise about funding from the Scottish Executive's budget. Christine Grahame is right to say that the committee will have a role at that stage. Fiona McLeod made the same point. The committee will have a role in considering the Executive's priorities and getting involved in the budgetary wrangle. No matter what the position is in 2007, 2008 or 2009 when the matter is raised, there will be a clash of priorities. There will be the usual politicking about the allocation of money and the project will need powerful support at that stage. The committee should consider that in the broad, strategic sense of evaluating budget proposals. It is also correct that other committees should be invited to participate in that debate.
For now, however, the petitioners should get an answer. They know that the council has appointed consultants, that a business case is being developed and that everything will follow in the fullness of time depending on the effectiveness of the work that all those people are doing.
The petitioners have done well by raising the issue. It is also good to have senior members of the Campaign for Borders Rail at the committee, in the shape of the MSPs who have spoken.
A number of issues have been raised. The committee continually monitors the budget process and the Executive's priorities. We will have the opportunity to take a strategic view of the project, which will be required to ensure that it becomes a reality. We are all aware of the fragility of the area's economy and the fact that the project will deliver a sustainable transport development. We are all, therefore, keen that the project should happen.
I share Murray Tosh's view about the committee's job being to deal with the petition. Progress has been made and the Scottish Borders Council and the Executive are working together on the proposals. That should be the conclusion of the committee in terms of the petitioning process, although the conclusion of the project will be when a train runs along the line. Our conclusion will allow the committee to maintain a watching brief over the strategic funding issues.
If other matters arise during the process—committee members or local members who are involved in the issue might be lobbied, or the Executive or the council might come back to the committee—we can deal with them when they arise. I am keen to progress petitions when they come before the committee, because they can be left for too long. On this occasion, the requests that were set out in the petition have been met and we now want to see the project being undertaken. The committee has the powers to monitor that process through the normal channels.
I suggest that we choose option A while maintaining our interest in the matter through our watching brief on the Executive's spending commitments and its strategic priorities and plans. We must also ensure that those organisations that have been involved with the project to date understand and are happy that they can come back to the committee should they deem that necessary. That offer is open to all the organisations involved and to anyone who submits a petition to the committee. I would rather that we deal with the petition and, if any matters arise in future, the committee can again devote time and effort to dealing with those issues.
Option B seems to offer more encouragement to the petitioners. I am not arguing strongly for option B as opposed to option A, but if the committee wishes to send a message to the petitioners and the Campaign for Borders Rail, option B will help to keep the issue alive.
Anent what Murray Tosh said, it is worth reminding ourselves that the Victorians managed to build the railway from scratch within two years.
The issue is the same with option A and option B and I am happy with either option. As I said in my opening remarks, we will keep an eye on the issue. The petitioners and those who are interested will read the Official Report and will know what the committee has said. That is important.
I am happy to go with option B. I have no problem with entering into correspondence to ensure that a statement is made. It is, however, important that the petition is concluded and dealt with. Under option B, rather than just saying that the petition has been dealt with, we would maintain our interest in the matter until fruition.
Is the committee agreed that option B is the more appropriate route?
Members indicated agreement.
I am sure that, of a dark night, all the interested parties will read the Official Report of our meeting and find fairly positive supporting comments from all members. I thank those members who came to the committee to speak on the petition.
Petition PE178, from the British Aggregates Association, calls for the Scottish Parliament to investigate the implications for the Scottish economy of the aggregates tax and to make representations to the Westminster Parliament as appropriate.
A covering note has been circulated with the petition along with an additional submission that has been received from the British Aggregates Association. If members have not received those, please indicate. The covering note recommends:
"Since the Committee to which the petition was referred under Standing Orders has concluded its consideration of the petition and the petitioner's request is not within the remit of this committee, it is suggested that members conclude their consideration of the petition."
I am happy to discuss the matter and receive contributions from around the table, but it is clear that we need to remain within our remit and responsibilities and that the lead committee has spoken fairly loudly on that issue.
The British Aggregates Association has given me a copy of counsel's opinion that it is within the remit of the committee and the Parliament to discuss the issues and make recommendations to Westminster. Given the strength of feeling that exists among the Scottish quarry owners that the aggregates tax is likely to do damage to their industry, to employment in fragile areas and to the environment, it is vital that we discuss this further.
Let me give an example of how the issue concerns the environment. There is no doubt that, due to the increase in the tax, many small quarries will close down because their product will become uncompetitive. That will mean that quarries will be larger and fewer, which will mean that aggregates will need to be carried more miles to meet the existing demand. The tax will therefore adversely affect the environment.
The petition covers a variety of things, which we have a duty to take seriously.
John Scott has raised an important environmental issue. I would like to see a proper environmental audit of the likely effects of a lot of small Scottish quarries closing down. We might be surprised to find that roads will carry a significant extra load, with consequences for the environment, if that is allowed to happen.
Small rural quarries, which give employment in rural areas, are now under threat because of the tax. The tax is meant to go into the sustainability fund to help communities that are affected by pollution from quarries. However, in the Highlands, the quarries are often not near a community. Look at Glensanda quarry, which is probably the biggest in the country. Not only does it not use roads—everything goes out by sea—but there is no community near it. Where does the tax that is raised from Glensanda quarry go? I know that Highland Council is concerned that the revenue should return to its area, but there seems to be no mechanism for doing that. I would like us to keep an eye on how the sustainability fund is being used.
The committee cannot ignore a tax that impacts on environmental commitments—which are within the committee's remit—just because tax is a reserved matter. We must take seriously the issues that members have raised about this aggregates tax under the green tax/environmental tax heading. However, as well as the aggregates tax, the wider aspect that the committee should examine is the way in which all these environmental taxes that are being decided by another Parliament impact on the environment of Scotland.
I agree with most of what has been said. The quarry industry is heavily regulated and any imposition of further costs, in the form of the aggregates tax, should be guarded against. The tax not only will be a burden on the industry as a whole, but will have far wider implications, as the cost of the aggregate to be used in the construction of roads and buildings will increase dramatically because of it.
In other European countries, the quarry industry faces nothing like the charges that are being proposed here. To suggest that a levy of £1.60 per tonne should be imposed in one fell swoop is absurd. The committee should make strong representations to our Westminster colleagues to ensure that they reconsider the situation and do not impose the levy, which would destroy many smaller quarries as well as some of the bigger ones and would impact seriously on the construction industry that we are vigorously trying to support.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, which has responsibility for overseeing economic matters, has written in plain terms to say that it will not pursue the matter. Our remit is environmental. I am happy to discuss the way in which we can deal with the environmental aspect of the situation arising from the tax; however, we must be clear about what the petition is asking us to do. The petition asks us to investigate the implication of the aggregates tax for the Scottish economy and to make representation to Westminster as appropriate. I shall be blunt: that is not the role of the Transport and the Environment Committee. I therefore have some difficulty with the taxation issue.
Furthermore, we do not all agree with Fiona McLeod's assessment of the parliamentary roles regarding devolved and reserved matters. However, that is not important. The important point is that the committee has a job to do in regard to transport and the environment, and we must stick to our remit. If we were to pick up some of the issues that colleagues have raised, we would stray into another committee's remit, although that is not to suggest that members cannot attend other committees of their own volition to raise those matters.
It is up to the committee to decide what we will do with the petition. However, I make the point that committee members have a legitimate concern only about the impact of the aggregates tax on the environment. I would be more than happy to write to the Executive on that and to discuss, as part of the committee's future work programme, the ways in which we might monitor the effect of the tax on the environment, as that is our territory. However, some other issues that members have raised would be better raised elsewhere. Members have received a letter from Alex Neil, the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, and those matters would be best raised with that committee.
I suggest that the committee agrees that the wording of the petition makes its request not a matter for this committee and that we respond to the petitioners appropriately. However, as members feel that the aggregates tax would impact on the environment, on transportation and on small quarries, and bearing in mind the argument that has been put forward by the British Aggregates Association, the Civil Engineering Contractors Association and local authorities concerning the effect that the tax will have on the environment, we can legitimately address the matter in that context.
I am happy to receive comments on what I am proposing. We must be careful not to stray into the remit of another committee.
I agree with the convener, but I propose that we strengthen the suggestion that he has made by asking the Executive to model the environmental effects of the closure of a large number of Scottish small quarries. That would mean that aggregates would come only from the larger quarries.
I am happy to do that. Apart from environmental matters, do committee members want me to include other issues in our correspondence?
Will the convener also stress the economic consequences that will result from the imposition of the tax?
The organisations named in the petition have lobbied effectively on that issue and I am happy to look at the outturn of the tax. We often hear that it is the end of the world for this, that or the other industry, when they are more vigorous than we imagine them to be. I will be interested to see what the effect of the tax will be. That is reasonable territory on which we can correspond with the Executive. I will give the committee the Executive's response.
That said, are members agreed that we close down the petition at this stage, but that we inform the petitioners of our correspondence with the Executive? We will send a copy of the letter to the petitioners.
Members indicated agreement.
We move on to discuss PE334, submitted by Mr Tony Southall on behalf of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The petition calls for the Scottish Parliament to ask the Scottish Executive to initiate a review of emergency planning measures for nuclear submarine accidents in Scotland to ensure that there is adequate protection for the local population and the environment. As yet, the petition has not been referred formally to us.
We are advised that the petitioner's request for a review of emergency planning measures is not within the remit of the Transport and the Environment Committee. That means that it is more appropriate for PE334 to be referred to one of the Parliament's justice committees. Are members agreed that we proceed on the basis of that advice?
Members indicated agreement.
We move on to discuss PE346, submitted by Mr Lawrence Fitzpatrick on behalf of Scotland Opposing Opencast. The petition calls for the Scottish Parliament to take various steps to protect local communities and the environment from the adverse effects of opencast mining in Scotland. Committee members have received additional submissions from the Scottish Opencast Action Group and the Deputy Minister for Transport and Planning.
I understand that the Public Petitions Committee has received a response from the Executive on PE369. That petition was submitted by the Confederation of United Kingdom Coal Producers. I am advised that PE369 and a copy of the Executive's response will be referred formally to us. Various options are open to the committee, but it is recommended that we await such time as the other petition, PE369, is referred to us.
I am comfortable with the convener's suggestion that we tie together petitions PE346 and PE369. If we are to consider fully opencast mining, we should look at them together. I hope, however, that we can progress the matter speedily as there is considerable controversy in the Lothians about the issue, especially in communities in my constituency in the western part of West Lothian.
I realise that PE346 raises issues that also relate to the structure plan, but they are worthy of consideration—in particular, as the petitioner suggests, the issue of whether national planning policy guideline 16 is a dilution of the original draft. We should consider whether NPPG 16 meets the Executive's aims in respect of the opencast mining industry and whether it gives local authorities the appropriate opportunity to take the community's interests into account when they decide on applications.
The petitioner also raises the key question whether there should be a power to recover the costs incurred in the monitoring of any developments. Aside from this petition, a motion that has been lodged by my colleague John Home Robertson and that is supported by other members expresses concerns about decisions concerning the structure plan. Although such decisions should not necessarily be included in our consideration of this petition, they influence both the degree to which the issue can be considered promptly and the need to address promptly the question whether NPPG 16 is satisfactory.
I support Bristow Muldoon's call for a review of NPPG 16. However, he also touched on the issue of the recovery of costs. Option B in the briefing note on the petition suggests that we find out more about that issue. We should do so now while we wait for PE369 to reach us and before we tie together the two petitions.
That sounds very reasonable.
Over the past two years, letters expressing concerns about opencast mining across the central belt have formed one of my biggest postbags. It is clear that many communities in central Scotland are concerned about the effects of opencast mining on them. I have heard the view expressed that our guidelines are looser than those south of the border, and the fact that opencast mining is more difficult to progress in England is one of the reasons for the push for its expansion in Scotland. The whole area merits urgent review.
I agree with Bristow Muldoon and Fiona McLeod that we should consider PE346 and PE369 together. I remember from my previous life as a member of the Public Petitions Committee that that was the hope of the committee.
Furthermore, I agree with Robin Harper that there is huge concern—in Ayrshire as well—about opencast mining. Although it does not happen in my constituency, I know that concerns exist. Would it make sense to write to the Executive to ask whether NPPG 16 is working as it was intended to work? Apparently, there is a belief that it is easier to get planning permission for opencast mining in Scotland than it is in England, and I am interested to find out whether the Executive is happy that NPPG 16 is progressing as intended.
I am sure that we can do that, although the issue has been raised in previous discussions with the Executive. I am also pleased that we are fulfilling the wishes of the Public Petitions Committee on this matter. It makes sense to join the two petitions together.
In summary, I take on board John Scott's point about raising additional matters with the Executive and Fiona McLeod's suggestion that we should undertake some work now that will not clash with or contradict the work that we might do on another petition. We will therefore agree that aspect of our work—[Interruption.]
John, I think that your phone has gone off.
Is that John Farquhar Munro's phone?
Yes. It is not mine. [Interruption.]
It sounds like the call might be about football tickets for tonight. However, that is another matter entirely.
We will pursue options B and C on the briefing note about the petition. We will raise whatever issues we need to raise with the Executive in order to progress our work. Furthermore, we have agreed to await PE369. When it arrives, we will deal with both petitions together, which only makes good sense.
To sound a note of caution, I should point out that we do not get involved in specific structure plans or with the work of local authorities on such matters. We will conduct a generic overview of the issues. Are members agreed to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
We will have a short natural break for members who require it.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
The next petition is PE357, from Aberdeen City Council, on investment in transport infrastructure. A covering note has been circulated with the petition. Members will see that in a previous discussion of Aberdeen's transport infrastructure the committee agreed to take evidence from the north-east Scotland economic development partnership. I understand that a body called NESTRANS has succeeded that, but we will have more details later.
The covering note sets out options for taking evidence and invites the committee to agree on whether to take evidence from NESEDP or its successor body and, if so, whether to hear the evidence in Aberdeen or Edinburgh. Members will recall that the committee has twice tried to reach Aberdeen. The first time was during the snowfall in March. The second was planned when the general election was called and was considered far too close to that time. I managed to holiday in that part of Scotland and I saw some of the transport infrastructure problems. That was an interesting insight into some issues that have been raised by the petitioners. It is open to the committee to give its views.
I kick off by saying that we have twice arranged to go up to Aberdeen to take evidence and twice been unable to do so. Therefore, option B in the covering note should recommend itself to us as the best option.
Indeed. Are any members otherwise minded? Are we all content to have that organised?
Obtaining evidence from NESEDP sensibly is key. I understand that its representatives would be happy to come down to Edinburgh or to have us in Aberdeen, but that they are keen that we hear from them. Incidentally, I think that NESEDP has changed its name.
It has been succeeded by NESTRANS.
We must be pragmatic. If only a proportion of the committee can get up to Aberdeen, it might be better for the witnesses to come down to Edinburgh. If all committee members can get up to Aberdeen, that is fair enough. We should leave it in the clerk's hands to make the most suitable arrangements that ensure that the evidence is heard. That is a matter for practical judgment. When we try to meet elsewhere, we end up with three or four committee members attending. To the people in Aberdeen, that is less satisfactory than having their evidence heard by the greatest number of committee members.
Other committees have met in other parts of Scotland. There is a mild irony in the fact that the Transport and the Environment Committee has found it difficult to travel to meet in another part of the country. We should give option B serious attention.
Option B would combine evidence from NESTRANS with evidence on the proposed water services bill, so the time scale involved in setting up that meeting might be long and will be determined by the bill's timetable, whereas we could fit in NESTRANS witnesses in the next month if they come to Edinburgh. Combining the evidence might put the meeting in Aberdeen two or three months down the track. I would ask NESTRANS which option it prefers.
We should be a bit more positive than Des McNulty is. We should intend to be third time lucky and transport ourselves to Aberdeen to do the work.
Going to Aberdeen is important. Aberdeen is perceived as handier for me than Edinburgh is, but it is not. When we last agreed to meet there, I was the only person who turned up, in a snowstorm. I then had to continue to Edinburgh by train. If that happened to me and I am prepared to make the effort, we should all make the effort.
To be fair to Des McNulty, he is not suggesting that we should not go to Aberdeen. He is saying that the evidence is important. However, I share the desire of most members to reach Aberdeen. The clerks will be tasked with organising that on our behalf. If a problem arises, I will communicate that to members and we will make our view known. The desire is to get to Aberdeen, do the work that we said that we would do and meet NESTRANS. If anything gets in the way of that target, members will know immediately. I am sure that we will manage to meet our target this time.
I agree with what you say, convener. The people who came to support their petition at the Public Petitions Committee made an effective presentation—the case has been well made already. It is a question of how we proceed. Most people would agree that there is a huge need to do what the petitioners are suggesting, but the gathering of evidence is perhaps less important.
We have therefore agreed that our course of action will be to go to Aberdeen to hear evidence, as under option B in the covering note.