Transport and the Environment Committee, 06 Dec 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 6, 2000

Official Report 159KB pdf

---

Petitions

We have 10 petitions on our agenda this morning. The first, petition PE8, is from the Scottish Homing Union, on the impact of the number of birds of prey on the sport of pigeon racing. We will consider that petition in conjunction with petition PE187, which is from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and calls on the Scottish Parliament to allow it to license culling of raptors under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 where the population has increased beyond normal levels.

I draw the committee's attention to some additional documents that we received this morning. We have been sent material from RSPB Scotland and the Scottish Homing Union. Perhaps more important for consideration by the committee is the paper that has been produced by Helen Eadie, who is our reporter on this matter. Helen's report is comprehensive but she was unable to deliver it to us until shortly before this meeting. It might be appropriate to defer consideration of the petitions until a later meeting to allow full consideration of the report and the other submissions that we have received. I apologise to people who have attended today's meeting specifically because of this matter, but I would rather that we considered the matter fully. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Members will be notified of the meeting at which those petitions will be considered.

Petition PE65, from the National Farmers Union of Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to seek action on taxation on road haulage. The petition is accompanied by a covering note that details the progress of the petition.

The petition touches only lightly on the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. I suggest that, of the six measures that the petition addresses, five cover reserved matters. The first four may have been overtaken by events. It might be appropriate for us either to ask the Scottish Executive to draw the attention of the Government to the petition or to do so ourselves. I cannot recall whether there is a standard practice across committees when we are dealing with petitions that concern reserved matters. Whatever the procedure is, we should pass those points on, as they are not our responsibility.

In relation to the fifth item—the environmental problems of urban transport—it would be appropriate to advise the petitioner about the report on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which touches on the issues of road pricing and public transport.

Strictly speaking, the sixth item—the sustainability of petrol stations—concerns a reserved matter. However, I am aware that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has been examining the problem. We might want to defer taking action on that item until that committee has completed its work. That would allow us to decide whether we want to do any more work on it.

I agree with what has just been said. However, on the sixth item, the clerk has presented us with another option. We are told that we may write to the Scottish Executive to get details of the rural petrol stations grant scheme. That would be useful information to have.

The issues that relate to the sixth item highlight the fact that the rural development plan for Scotland includes no modulation proposals to fund fuel differentials. Should we draw the attention of the Rural Affairs Committee to that issue? That committee has been hostile to any proposal that money be diverted from farmers for any rural development purpose. I wonder whether the issue has been highlighted by the rural lobby and whether it can take action on the matter itself. It must confront that issue, rather than pretend that all rural development issues can be dealt with by channelling money from elsewhere.

Thanks for that interesting comment, Des.

I realise that the petition comes from the National Farmers Union of Scotland, but the point about the rural petrol price differential applies more widely than to only one category of user. It would be difficult to suggest that the overall problem could be tackled by a scheme that diverted agricultural subsidies to all petrol consumers in rural areas. That might be a bit oppressive.

I am not arguing for a maximalist arrangement. I simply highlight the fact that farmers receive substantial European funds directly. The European Union introduced the modulation scheme to allow part of that subsidy to be diverted to other rural development purposes. If a targeted rural development scheme can use modulation resources to deal with economic difficulties that people from rural communities face, it should be considered. I do not think that it should not be considered.

The moneys that modulation recovers are intended for diversion to environmental purposes—away from direct farming support and into environmentally friendly farming practices. I do not think that modulation money was intended to be used purely for economic development. Some of the arguments that are being made against helping rural sustainability could be applied to some of the inclusion money that is diverted in other directions. Des McNulty is on fairly shaky ground with his argument.

The key points are those about the elements of the petition that are within the Scottish Parliament's powers. We should pass to Westminster the points that are relevant to it. I accept that it has taken the committee some time to deal with the petition, because of our work load. Other committees have covered many of the issues, and I do not want work to be duplicated. We should obtain the available information and supply the report of the work that has been done on rural petrol stations to the petitioner. If people are not happy with that, they will take up the matter through the appropriate channels.

Members of the Rural Affairs Committee may read Des McNulty's comments in the Official Report of this meeting, if they wish, so his points will be made.

My points have already been made. I agree with Cathy Jamieson, who described a sensible approach.

It has been our habit to write directly to Whitehall, when appropriate, so we will probably do that with most of the items for action. We agreed to Fiona McLeod's proposal about the rural transport fund and the role that the Scottish Executive plays. We will forward the petition to it for action on that aspect and to get information on Executive responsibilities and actions. The Transport (Scotland) Bill also deals with one of the items on the list in the petition. Bearing in mind people's comments on some aspects of the petition, I am happy to proceed with that action. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We will close down our actions on that petition. I thank members for their co-operation.

The next petition is PE68, which is also from the National Farmers Union of Scotland. It calls for the agriculture sector to be exempted from the proposed climate change levy and is accompanied by committee covering note TE/00/30/8, which sets out possible options for action. I seek members' advice on how they want to deal with the petition.

It would be consistent to deal with the petition as we dealt with the previous petition. We should pass on all the points for consideration by the relevant Government agencies.

When we pass on the petitions, I would like us to ask the relevant Government agencies to explain the logic behind the exemptions that have been granted.

We will pass the petition on to those with whom it belongs—those who are responsible for the levy. We will add a question about the current scheme for exemptions. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We come now to petition PE123, from the Scottish Warm Homes Campaign. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to identify, discuss and seek to implement measures urgently to eradicate fuel poverty. Our progress on the petition is outlined in committee covering note TE/00/30/10. I seek members' views on the petition.

I suggest that the Executive has taken fairly sizeable action through its central heating scheme.

Yes.

I still think that it could be productive to have another full-scale debate on the subject in Parliament. I initiated a Scottish Green party debate on energy efficiency earlier in the year. Does the committee take the view that no further action needs to be taken?

I note again the time that has passed since the petition was submitted. Several initiatives have been taken since then, to which we can draw the petitioner's attention. I do not suggest that there is nothing left to do—obviously, there are matters that we will want to take up—but I suggest that the committee should not conduct another inquiry. We should look to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee to take the issue forward, monitor progress and initiate a future debate, if necessary.

I support what Cathy Jamieson says. In response to Robin Harper's suggestion, I should say that I do not think that anyone is suggesting that nothing more will be done. If we followed the recommendation that we pass to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee and to the petitioners a copy of the Executive's response, we would keep the issue on the agenda of other people and other relevant committees.

The issue will undoubtedly come up because it has its tentacles in many aspects of the Parliament's work. I am happy to support the clerk's recommendation. We should also ensure that the petitioners receive a copy of the Official Report of this meeting, so that they understand that we fully support the Scottish Warm Homes Campaign and that the Parliament is busy working on the issue, as is the Scottish Executive. Several major strands of progress have been made to date.

I realise that the committee discussed the issue before I joined it. The clerk's note says that the committee agreed to write to the Executive to ask it to address the issues in the proposed housing bill and in building regulations. When I read the reply of the Minister for Communities—the relevant minister at the time—I see no reference to those questions.

I would like to question the new Minister for Social Justice more closely on the proposals that the Executive intends to put into the housing bill—if any—and on whether the Executive intends to review building regulations to ensure higher standards of energy efficiency in all new housing.

Towards the end of her letter, the Minister for Communities talks about the number of houses that will be built and the amount of new money that will be released to build new houses. At no point in the letter are there guarantees that the new houses will reach levels of energy efficiency that are high enough. The Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee is the lead committee on the issue, so, in our environment role, we should bring that to its attention. We should say that we hope that that committee will investigate the matter more fully in its deliberations.

That is a valid point.

I was going to make similar points to those Fiona McLeod made. A good start has been made, but it will not eradicate fuel poverty. That is a long-term problem that will take a long time to solve. Matters that fall within our remit, under the planning and building regulations, will give us opportunities to advance the cause in the future.

I thought that we had received documentation about revised building regulations. Did not Sarah Boyack give us a talk about them? I was under the impression that they were currently the subject of consultation and that there was therefore every intention that the regulations should reflect the priorities.

The petition was directed not to the Transport and the Environment Committee, but to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee. It was remitted to us for our interest. The appropriate response would be that we are aware of the building regulations review and would be happy to consider any appropriate planning matters that arise. Fundamentally, we wish the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee to do everything that it can to advance the agenda, to treat the proposed housing bill accordingly and to consider the methods that it wishes to use to raise the profile of the issue and press it. It is up to that committee to do that, rather than us.

I agree with Murray Tosh. We must be conscious of our role and that of other committees. The one bit of information that I would like to have—perhaps it should go to another committee rather than ours—concerns how the initiative is being spread out across Scotland. Where are the resources being spent? We have global figures, but we do not have a breakdown. That would be interesting information, but it might be more appropriate for that to be provided to another committee.

I support Fiona McLeod's remarks. There is a general concern that the current proposals for the housing bill concentrate on management and ownership and that there is not an awful lot on housing conditions. During the bill's progress through Parliament, I would welcome an opportunity for the Transport and the Environment Committee to express a view on the environmental aspects or to have an input on environmental issues.

I will try to summarise members' views. We are fairly positive about the measures that have been taken, but recognise that that is not the end of the story and that a major amount of work on fuel poverty has still to be done. We see our role as passing to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee our view that the central heating initiative should be combined with proper building standards through the review that the relevant minister—now Sam Galbraith, although Sarah Boyack originally presented the proposals to us—is conducting. We should draw that committee's attention to that review and find out where the review stands. We discussed it some time ago, and I am not sure what has happened since then, so we need clarification. To put it bluntly, going further than that would stray into the remits of other committees, but members made legitimate and correct points.

The committee received a response from the Minister for Communities about action that has been taken on fuel poverty, but we want to focus on further information on building standards. There is no point in the initiatives that have been taken if they are not supported by new building standards that encourage more environmentally friendly measures when building houses so that heat is retained and fuel poverty is reduced because people save money on their heating bills. There are a number of areas on which we want to focus, but without overlapping with the job of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector committee, which is to look at the broader fuel poverty issues.

In summary, we recognise that work is being done and that work remains to be done. We will keep a close eye on building standards and new regulations to ensure that they are environmentally friendly but, as far as possible, also take fuel poverty into account.

With reference to the letter from the Minister for Communities, now that a new minister is responsible could we put what the convener has just said in a letter to the Minister for Social Justice, in which she is also asked how a review of the building regulations will tie in with proposals in the housing bill—if there are any—to tackle the problem of fuel poverty?

We can ask that question but I think it brings together two different things. The warm homes initiative is for elderly people living in the community and social rented housing; I assume that new housing partnership homes must be built under current and new building regulations. We will seek clarification and a response on that.

It should be drawn to the Executive's attention that in the summing up of my members' business debate on fuel poverty, what seemed to be a commitment was given to introduce, through legislation, energy audits at point of sale. I would like the Executive to be asked to consider whether that could be included in the housing bill and if not, whether and when it plans to introduce that measure in some other way.

Okay—we will go back to that debate and go through it to find the relevant extract to ensure that ministers are held to account. Are those actions on the petition agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We will now take petition PE178, from the British Aggregates Association,

"calling for the Scottish Parliament to investigate the implications for the Scottish economy of the aggregates tax and to make representations as appropriate to the Westminster Parliament."

The petition is accompanied by the note TE/00/30/12. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is the lead committee on the petition; it seeks our views and those of the European Committee and the Rural Affairs Committee. What are members' views?

I have received representations about the matter and I am sympathetic to the case about the impact of a flat-rate tax on Scotland, but the petition is not suggesting that the tax will have significantly different environmental implications in Scotland and England and Wales; it suggests that because of the structure of the industry there will be an adverse impact on the viability of Scottish businesses. The petition is about employment and economic viability and so is a matter for the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to pursue. I do not see that there is much that we can add, other than noting it and asking the lead committee to alert us if it discovers any environmental implications that have not been drawn to our attention and which it wishes us to consider.

It is worth asking for further information on the expected environmental benefits of the tax, as option B in the clerk's note suggests. It is a tax that is supposed to have an environmental benefit. What is the evidence for that? Will it work? What effect will it have?

There may be a case for looking at the impact of the tax on smaller businesses that supply local areas and at whether we could end up with large volumes of aggregates being transported over much longer distances in consequence. A balance of environmental benefits needs to be considered so that it is got right. That follows from what Fiona McLeod said—the Government could perhaps look at it in that light.

Who will monitor the use of aggregates and whether the use of recycled aggregates increases as a consequence of the tax? Who will monitor whether, as Robin Harper suggested, the distance that aggregates are transported increases? I do not know whether that is covered by the final sentence in option B on "other competent action". Are such data being collected? Without that information, it will be difficult to make a judgment on the effectiveness of the tax.

We need to be clear about how we can respond to the petition, what we need to draw to the attention of other committees and our view of matters that may concern other committees. We should stick to that.

The main matters that the petition is concerned with are reserved. However interesting it is to get into the debate, we should concentrate on what is within our remit. This committee has a particular interest in the environmental consequences of the tax and if we are going to ask for information it should be on the environmental benefits and how they would filter down to the local communities most affected by aggregate production.

I support what Cathy Jamieson said. My experience bears out what Robin Harper said. From seeing some of the aggregates operations and attending a conference of aggregates companies, I think there is an acceptance by the industry that there are environmental benefits to the way the tax is structured. However, as Murray Tosh said, that needs to be weighed against the implications that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee will consider. It is right that that committee should take up that aspect and that we should get information on whether public perceptions are borne out by evidence that the environmental specialists in the Executive give us.

Are we seeking such information for our own benefit or, after getting the information, will we respond to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee? If we are gathering information for interest, with a view to possible pursuit of the issues, we may slow down the progress of the petition.

I assume that one of the first questions that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee would ask is what the benefit of the tax is. That is the same question that we are proposing to ask. If the committee agrees, I will talk to the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee about how the petition will be handled, mention the aspects that we are interested in and report to the committee on what he says. If we go ahead and seek information, we may be duplicating work the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is doing. We do not want to create more work than necessary and perhaps slow down the progress of the petition. I suggest I discuss it with Alex Neil and report back as soon as possible.

There is no doubt in my mind about the general environmental benefits of the tax in making it far more commercially viable to recycle aggregates. My concern is that when the tax is applied it should have an environmental benefit in the way it is applied to the aggregates industry at present, although we hope it will gradually turn to recycling rather than digging holes in the ground.

Indeed.

With reference to the convener's proposed approach, my approach to petitions when we are not the lead committee is that our role is to ensure that the lead committee is aware of issues that are within our remit—in this case the environmental impact. I suggested that we ask for information to ensure that those issues and that information are part of the debate of the lead committee. I think that is what the convener meant. Is that the general approach of the Transport and the Environment Committee to such issues?

Generally, our approach is to keep to specific targets within our remit, to ensure that the lead committee is aware of those priorities.

The aggregates tax is an environmental tax, for want of a better phrase. Therefore, there will be early discussions on it in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, which will probably start at the same place as this committee. However, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee will consider different issues, such as the effect of the tax on smaller businesses and rural communities, as well as the various matters that members have raised this morning.

We might say to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, which is the lead committee for the previous petition that we discussed, that we want to raise an issue about the petition that is important from our committee's point of view. However, if the lead committee responds, "Well, that's not going to be a major consideration," would we decide, as a committee, whether to investigate that petition more fully?

It would be down to us to decide what to do, although our decision might be based on the petition or on prioritising that element of work within our work programme. It is up to the lead committee to decide what it does with the information provided by other committees. We will have to monitor what it does and decide at a later date whether to take further action, should members of the committee wish to pursue the issue.

On Murray Tosh's initial point, it is important that we do not set up endless communication loops, otherwise we will never deal with business. We have a self-denying ordinance to be careful and to avoid that situation.

I will report the content of our discussion to the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and will try to ascertain the direction in which that committee is to take the petition. I will report back to this committee whether it is appropriate for us to develop our work on the petition or whether the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee will deal with it. Do members agree to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

We now come to petition PE196 from Dundee and Tayside Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to review section 46 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, which deals with the power of the First Minister to call in planning applications that have a significant social and/or economic impact on the neighbouring local authority area. I refer members to the covering note on the petition, paper TE/00/30/14, which outlines the work on the petition undertaken by the Public Petitions Committee and sets out various options for our consideration. I seek members' views on the petition.

This is an interesting petition. The letter from the Scottish Executive development department planning division, which contains more information about the review of planning policies than the committee has been told about formally in a year and a half, is particularly interesting.

I am not certain whether Dundee City Council and Angus Council have a joint structure plan arrangement, but it is clear that if they do not, they ought to. It is also clear that the Scottish Executive is able to call in and determine any difficult planning application, whatever the cause or source of the difficulty, including matters of dispute between two councils.

As I understand it, this dispute did not reach that stage because Dundee City Council accepted the planning application rather than test the procedure. I am not sure that there is anything in the petition that we can pursue, although we might wish to pursue the broad point about seeking information from the Scottish Executive about the number of representations made to it over a period of time by one council in relation to proposed planning consents by a second council. That would allow us to identify the action that the Scottish Executive has taken. For example, does it generally call in such applications? Deciding not to call in an application would sustain the decision of the relevant planning authority. There might be some professional interest among the planning industry in such information, as there may be a general point to be brought out for the Executive's future practice. Other than that, I cannot see what we can do about this petition.

I may be wrong as I am not an expert on planning, but my understanding is that when a planning application is submitted to two authorities, one takes the lead and gets the fee that is attached to the processing of the application. That will very often have a significant bearing on the authority as the planning fees for large developments can be substantial. Such fees and whether where they go is a significant material consideration in influencing the outcome of the planning process are issues that could be highlighted when the joint arrangements between local authorities for dealing with planning applications are reviewed.

Do members have any comments on the fees issue? Although the petitioners' attention will certainly be drawn to this discussion in the Official Report, I am not sure that we should go into the area in any great detail as far as our work load is concerned. We could also draw the Executive's attention to this discussion. I am not sure how we can resolve such an issue with this discussion. Perhaps we should carefully consider that matter. Before I try to summarise and reach some conclusion on this issue, I will let in other members.

We should not get tied down too much with the fees issue, as the issue centres more on whether the two authorities have submitted conflicting reports. In such a situation, there needs to be some sort of arbitration. In light of that, the committee could choose option B which is to write

"to the Scottish Executive . . . or the Scottish Society of Directors of Planning"—

which would be better—

"asking for their views on the specific suggestion that the authorities be required to undertake additional impact assessment, including whether they agree with the petitioners' assessment that this could be done within existing legislation".

Such feedback might open up the point that Des McNulty made; however, this is a significant issue for authorities with cross-boundary responsibilities.

The Executive's response is unusually full. I would have thought that the committee would want to take any further action on this matter only if other options were not available. Several mechanisms in the system could adequately deal with the issue and I am not sure that our getting involved would add very much to the process.

I am still very much in favour of option B and of at least gathering some more opinions on the subject. It is clear that the petitioners are strongly of the view that enabling powers are not enough. The Executive has said that

"the powers contained in Section 46 of the 1997 Act . . . enable the Scottish Ministers to intervene in the determination of any planning application".

The petitioners are looking for something stronger than "enable".

Enabling powers are slightly different from what is usually understood by those words. They empower Scottish ministers to call in any planning application under the sun. In practice, it is quite likely that the Scottish Executive would call in a planning application if two local authorities found themselves in serious dispute about a matter that was the responsibility of one council but which had an impact across boundaries.

If the committee wants to pursue a course of action, perhaps it should ask the Scottish Executive to examine the pattern of potential planning application call-ins that it rejects. In fact, the piece of work would be much broader than that, as we might want to consider when and why the Executive calls in planning applications and whether we are satisfied that it deals adequately with councils' notifications of intention to develop, or developments that they propose to pass that are contrary to the approved local plan. There is a vast category of potential call-ins; the Executive usually calls in 20 to 30 applications a year. For all I know, they are called in randomly or according to a certain geographical spread, and if someone in the reporters unit is sick one year, perhaps not so many are called in.

If we wanted to consider that issue, it would be better for us to carry out an investigation into call-in procedures and how ministers use them. Anything else would mean considering the specifics of this case, which we try not to do. I am not sure that we want to get involved in such an investigation. There may be scope for a few parliamentary questions to tease out how many of these decisions ministers make over a period of time. I may pursue that, out of interest.

Option B—to seek information and comment from the relevant professional bodies—would seem to be the best way of proceeding.

To what end?

To ensure that there is nothing at work.

It is clear from the Executive's report that any of these things can be done under existing legislation. At issue is whether there are a lot of these problems and whether the Scottish Executive should be calling in more cases. If a difficulty is not being picked up, how can we pursue this issue in relation to inter-authority disputes without considering all the other categories of potential call-in? With respect, Fiona McLeod is suggesting that we embark on a vast piece of work.

There is not much that we can do about the particular instance that has been brought to our attention. The Executive's response is appropriate—it has informed us what powers are available to it, how it uses those powers and how it may use them in the future.

I disagree with Robin Harper's point about enabling powers. They are a very important weapon in the Executive's armoury, as they allow the Executive to do anything it wants with planning applications and to call in any application. The necessary powers exist.

I am not sure whether option B would meet our needs. If we say that we have a problem with call-ins and how the Scottish Executive deals with individual cases, a much broader investigation will be required. Members may see that as a priority in our work programme, and I would be happy to discuss that, but I am not sure how option B helps us deal with what the petition says about this particular case. If members have particular concerns about issues that can arise out of the planning process, we can conduct a separate investigation of call-ins.

Would it be helpful to say that we have noted the general issue that has been raised through the specific points made in the petition, and that we will consider it in the context of any future investigations that we undertake in the area of planning regulations and planning law? That would mean saying to the petitioner that we cannot deal with the specific issue that they have raised, but that we will take account of it when we consider these matters more generally. That would be a perfectly legitimate response.

Are you happy with that, Fiona?

Fiona McLeod indicated agreement.

Do we agree to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for your co-operation.

The next petition for consideration is PE204, from Dundee Anti Poverty Forum, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate ways in which the investment that is needed to upgrade the water service can be met and whether the burden on low-income households can be reduced by extending council tax benefit to cover water and sewerage charges. The petition is accompanied by committee covering note TE/00/30/16. I suggest that the committee may wish to conclude consideration of the petition by writing to the petitioners to confirm that the committee will shortly undertake an inquiry into water and water services, and that that inquiry will address the affordability of water charges.

We might also usefully advise the petitioners of the statement that Sam Galbraith made recently, announcing transitional relief, and send them the relevant extract from the edition of the Official Report in which it appeared.

Indeed.

If my memory serves me correctly, convener, we agreed that the voluntary sector would be represented in our inquiry into the water industry. You may want to mention that in your response to the Dundee Anti Poverty Forum, so that it can feed any points that it wishes to make into that process.

The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations will give evidence as part of the inquiry.

The problem of the number of people who receive council tax benefit but do not appreciate that the water and sewerage charges are separate and have found themselves in difficulties has recently been brought to my attention by one of the local authorities in my constituency. The question whether the whole process of water and sewerage charges collection should be addressed was raised. I am not arguing that we should investigate that, but it should be noted for the inquiry.

I think that that will be part of our considerations.

Can we agree to proceed on the basis of the actions that were outlined by Murray Tosh, Helen Eadie and me?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE225, in the name of Mr William Ackland, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to take steps—including legislation if necessary—to protect the human rights of residents of homes adjacent to quarrying, with regard to vibration, noise and environmental threats.

The petition is accompanied by committee covering note TE/00/30/18, which sets out background information on the petition and possible options for action. The petition and the covering note were circulated to members yesterday, as late papers. Members should bear that in mind in their consideration of the matter.

This is an interesting petition, which raises a number of issues with which I have great sympathy.

On the specific complaint, questions might usefully be asked somewhere about the decision to grant planning permission for the houses in 1963. It might not be fruitful for us to pursue that. However, I am clear that where, in pursuit of modern environmental standards, a local authority proposes to recondition long-standing planning consents, or indeed to revoke them in part or in whole, the compensation that would arise is likely to be considerably beyond the resources of the local authority.

I suspect that that raises a fundamental issue about people who are adversely affected by mineral workings that do not conform to modern planning standards, in that if they pursue the case with the local authority to have a consent revoked or amended—thereby creating those compensation issues—the local authority, as the agency that would pay the compensation as well as revoke the planning consent, has a distinct conflict of interest. I suggest that, in normal circumstances, the local authority is likely not to entertain a revocation, simply because it could not afford the compensation. I wonder whether that raises European convention of human rights issues, in that it might be held materially to constrain the ability of people affected by circumstances such as these to obtain what might be seen as a just solution.

I suggest that we pursue the matter with the Scottish Executive, to clarify—as the clerks suggest in their paper—the compensation issues and to ask it to explore the human rights issues associated with the potential conflict of interests for the local authority. There is little we can do about the specific dispute in Dumbarton. There are important issues here about how mineral consents granted immediately after the war, which are still live, are handled. I have come across this before. It is clear that someone's planning consent cannot just be wiped out. It can be done, but proper compensation must be paid. That is at the heart of this: who compensates, in what circumstances and what rights people actually have, as opposed to their theoretical right to seek the amendment of a planning consent.

To add to what Murray Tosh has said, my mailbag suggests that there may be a big problem throughout Scotland in that respect. The matter deserves to be considered in detail.

If there are no other comments, do we agree to proceed as outlined by Murray Tosh?

Members indicated agreement.

We now come to petition PE249, in the name of Mr Leon PG Cadman-Goodwin, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to seek to resolve with the UK Parliament a means to achieve an immediate stop on excise duty or tax increases on road diesel, to legislate to prevent illegal use of rebated diesel by all types of tractors, and to legislate to ensure that all tractors used on the public highway are subjected to yearly MOT testing.

The petition is accompanied by a committee covering note that contains further information on the issues that are raised by the petitioner and suggested possible actions. I invite members to comment.

I suggest that we deal with this petition in the same way as we dealt with another, similar, petition—by drawing the reserved matters in it to the attention of the relevant Whitehall department. The report suggests that some issues that the petition deals with are devolved, although the only one that I have identified is policing. The committee would not want to get into the mechanics of how individual police forces allocate their manpower and other resources. Those decisions must be left to chief constables and the relevant police authorities. With the exception of policing, all the matters that the petition addresses are reserved, so we should treat it as we treated the NFU petition.

That seems sensible. Thank you. Are we agreed to proceed in that way?

Members indicated agreement.

Before we move on to the next item on the agenda, I inform members that at next week's meeting we will begin to take evidence for our water inquiry. Do members agree that we should meet in private for a short time at the start of that meeting, to discuss possible areas of questioning?

Members indicated agreement.

At next week's meeting we will also discuss practical arrangements for that inquiry, such as possible candidates for the post of adviser. It would be appropriate for such matters to be discussed in private. Is the committee agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We now move into private session for the final item on the agenda, which is discussion of our draft report on genetically modified organisms. I thank everyone for their attendance.

Meeting continued in private until 11:54.