Transport and the Environment Committee, 06 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 6, 2000

Official Report 199KB pdf

---

Petitions

Agenda item 5 is public petitions. First, I refer members to PE63 from the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which calls for the Scottish Parliament to increase resources for agri-environment measures in Scotland. The petition is circulated as TE/00/20/13. Members may want to refer to the covering note, TE/00/20/12. The Rural Affairs Committee is taking the lead on the petition and has requested our views.

When we first considered the petition on 23 May, we agreed to write to the Executive to seek its views on the issues that are raised in the petition. We have received a response, which has been circulated. The Scottish Parliament information centre information on agri-environment schemes was also circulated to members.

It is desirable that we give a prompt response to Rural Affairs Committee, given that six months has elapsed since it requested our views. We have continuing difficulties regarding outstanding matters with some petitions. I suggest that in our response to the Rural Affairs Committee, we pass on our views on the two points raised by the petitioner, which are that the Scottish Parliament should determine the level of resources required for agri-environment measures and that the Scottish Parliament should use its powers to obtain additional funds from UK resources to obtain agri-environment measures.

Does the committee have any views on those two matters? Do we consider the Executive's response adequate?

Yes. My bill on organic targets is about to go for its final wording and I hope to introduce it to Parliament via the Rural Affairs Committee. I support the extension of agri-environment schemes and I hope that the two matters will be considered together by the Parliament. Discussion on agri-environment schemes should take place at the same time as the organic targets bill is going through Parliament, so that we do not end up in a position where organic targets and agri-environment schemes are conflicting and competing for funds. That would be an unfortunate development. I would much rather that both went through at the same time, so that the Parliament was able to arrive at a good decision.

As you know, that is outwith my direct control. As sponsor of the bill, your views will have more weight with the bureau. However, I am happy to support the general approach that you outlined.

The committee should not get me wrong—I am very supportive of agri-environment schemes. However, I do not want to be steering a bill on organics through the Parliament at the same time as a conflicting piece of legislation is being debated.

The point is taken, and I am happy to support what has been said. No member has indicated that they are otherwise minded.

The petitioners are asking for the Scottish Parliament to increase their resources, but that is for the Scottish Executive to decide. Resources are always finite, whereas demand is always infinite. There are competing priorities. We support agri-environment schemes—that is not at issue—but the body that is best qualified to take an overview across Scotland is the Scottish Executive.

I concur with that view. The Executive has laid out in fairly clear terms what is done currently. We can also influence the budget process and comment on the allocation of resources.

I have a brief point about budget allocations, on which there seems to be some confusion. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to use its powers to obtain additional funds from UK resources. That somewhat strange wording is not particularly helpful. As is outlined clearly in the briefing note, there are ways in which decisions could be made to increase funding from the Scottish Executive, but that would have a knock-on effect on other things. There may be some political discussion to be had about that. It would be wrong of us to indicate that the Parliament has powers that it does not have.

Do we agree to send comments to the Rural Affairs Committee outlining what members have just said? They will also receive a copy of the Official Report of this meeting, which will reflect our discussion of the petition.

Members indicated agreement.

I refer members to petition PE115, from Ms Julia Clarke, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to request Scottish airports to reroute aircraft taking off and landing at Edinburgh airport away from residential areas. A copy of the petition has been circulated as committee paper TE/00/20/15 and is accompanied by covering note TE/00/20/14. The Public Petitions Committee has been taking forward consideration of the petition and has written to Scottish Airports Ltd and Edinburgh airport consultative committee. Their responses are attached in a covering note. The Public Petitions Committee has indicated to us that the responses appear to have answered the questions raised by the petitioner. It has asked for our view on its proposed response.

Do members agree with the Public Petitions Committee's proposed response?

Members indicated agreement.

I refer members to the third and final petition that we will consider today, PE117, from Mr Alexander Donald, which relates to ice-cream van safety. As members will recall, we considered Mr Donald's petition on 23 May and agreed to seek the Executive's views on the issues that he raised. A response has been received from the Executive, which addresses the points made by Mr Donald; it is attached as annexe A of the covering note. As the covering note on the petition indicates, the petitioner, the Executive and the DETR differ in their approach to ice-cream van safety. Mr Donald believes that the matter requires specific targeted action, whereas the Executive and the DETR believe that wider road safety campaigns that address the behaviour of drivers will have more impact.

The petitioner's proposals relate largely to reserved matters, such as the use of hazard warning lights, so the Parliament cannot effect the change that he requests. The committee has two options. We can conclude the petition by writing to Mr Donald saying that we support the aims of his petition but explaining that the specific solutions that he suggests are not within our powers. We can also reassure him that the committee may have other opportunities to address behaviour that causes accidents. Alternatively, we can write again to the DETR regarding the recommendations and requests made by the petitioner. I am in the hands of the committee.

There is an issue concerning the way in which the Public Petitions Committee is using the other committees to deal with such matters. If it is that committee's judgment that the matters to which the petition refers are largely reserved, why is it passing the petition to us to consider? Should not there be a more effective filtering system, which would advise the petitioner that he might do better to pursue matters through his local member of Parliament?

That is a fair comment.

I am a member of the Public Petitions Committee, which took the view that it was sympathetic to the petition—as we, as a committee, are sympathetic to it. The Public Petitions Committee thought that it was in our powers to address certain elements of the petition, such as the road safety issues. Every local authority in Scotland must produce a plan of how it will effect road safety in its area. It would be within the competence of the Scottish Executive, or the Transport and the Environment Committee, to ask the local authorities to give that plan a higher priority and a higher profile.

In my constituency, the police and the local authority are giving a high priority to road safety issues and the reduction of speed limits. One of the aims of Sarah Boyack and others is to get drivers down to 20 mph in residential areas, as is common practice in many other parts of the world, and to get people to lower their speed in general.

Dealing with the specific case behind the petition was a harrowing experience for the Public Petitions Committee and for the petitioner when he came tearfully to present his evidence. His granddaughter was involved, and he was still very emotional after many years. The Public Petitions Committee felt great empathy with the petitioner and wanted to appeal to people throughout Scotland to lower their speed. We should put that message across clearly; lives would be saved if people did that. The actions that the petition calls for are reserved to Westminster, but we can promote that message to people in Scotland.

The home zones initiative to which you refer is successful, and should be continued and expanded on.

I remember sitting my driving test. Part of the test was on behaviour in residential areas, and there used to be a question about what a driver should do on seeing an ice-cream van. Perhaps that could be underlined, to ensure that all driving tests are taken in a residential area where that question will be asked. I presume that it is still part of the test, but perhaps it is not.

Most ice-cream vans have "Children—Slow" on the back. Perhaps guidance could be given by local authorities, when the vans are licensed, to make that sign as big as possible.

Far be it from me to jump to the defence of the Executive and the DETR, but they are trying to address such matters. I have no doubt that there is a harrowing tale behind the petition. I know from experience that ice-cream vans are a magnet for children. However, I agree with the DETR that matters cannot be considered in isolation. We must try to explain to the petitioner that matters are being addressed and that transport issues must be considered in their totality—regarding not only ice-cream vans, but delivery vans and a range of other vehicles that act as magnets for children.

I suggest that we opt for the former position, which is that we conclude consideration of the petition by writing to Mr Donald, saying that we support the aims of the petition and relating the discussion that we have had this morning. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I propose that we take the earlier part of our next meeting in private, to discuss procedures and arrangements for dealing with stage 2 of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you.

There is no further business. I thank members of the press and the public who have attended this morning. It has not been the warmest room in which we have met, but we have had a good meeting. Thank you all for your attendance.

Meeting closed at 11:53.