Petitions
Public Transport (Passenger Safety) (PE59)
I welcome John Home Robertson, the MSP for East Lothian, and Jackie Baillie, MSP for Dumbarton, who are here to give their views on particular petitions.
The first petition is PE59, from Mr Frank Harvey, which is about passenger safety on public transport and the issue of taking dangerous dogs on trains. We have twice corresponded with the Scottish Executive on the subject. That correspondence is attached to the covering note on the petition. Members will see from the covering note that the issue of passenger safety on public transport is a reserved matter.
The petition has been on-going for almost two years. We would wish to try to bring the issue to a conclusion and to respond to the petitioner with our views on the petition.
The suggested option for action, as set out in the covering note, is to conclude the petition by writing to the petitioner, informing him which areas of his petition refer to reserved matters; to draw his attention to members' comments on the petition, as set out in the Official Report; and to forward him copies of the responses from the Scottish Executive. I seek views from members on the progress of the petition.
I am sorry, but you are not going to like this. In the most recent letter that we received from the Scottish Executive, the final bullet point is entitled:
"Passengers in Excess of Capacity (PIXC)".
The letter goes on to state that the
"PIXC regime in Scotland applies to the Fife commuter lines to Edinburgh only"
in recognition that it is a
"near-monopoly of ScotRail".
I would contend that the Glasgow to Edinburgh route is also a near-monopoly of ScotRail. I know that it will delay a response to the petition, but I wonder whether we can write yet again to ask why PIXC is not applied to the Glasgow to Edinburgh route. PIXC applies only when 3 per cent of passengers have to stand.
I suggest that we should address that broader issue in any review of the ScotRail franchise. I have no problem with our writing to the Executive on that issue, but it is not necessarily specifically related to Mr Harvey's petition, which was on safety. Safety on public transport is a reserved issue and a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.
It might be helpful to Fiona McLeod to point out that the last sentence in the next paragraph might, in a way, address her question. It states:
"Apart from additional capacity negotiated through the franchise replacement process, the options to control overcrowding include altered stopping patterns through timetable changes, and longer or additional trains."
That is a pragmatic and commonsense way of addressing overcrowding, which I would expect the rail companies to use.
The only question is one of the effectiveness of the procedures. I would be interested to get information on what action has been taken with regard to overcrowding, on the basis of the surveys that the Strategic Rail Authority and so on were undertaking. I note that there is a members' business motion from Sylvia Jackson on overcrowding. We seem to have on-going problems with it. It would be useful to obtain that information on what action has been taken under the franchising arrangements.
That is not directly related to Mr Harvey's petition. It is my intention as convener that we consider the broader aspects of the railway industry, in particular Scotland's passenger franchise. Those issues might be better addressed in that way rather than by way of the petition. The petition is specifically about safety on passenger services, which is clearly a reserved matter. That should form the basis of our response.
I agree with that, convener; the issue is one of health and safety and is therefore not within our remit. However, we should write to the petitioner to say that the committee intends to examine railways in Scotland and that his concerns might be dealt with in some way. The petitioner's concern is
"especially about overcrowding on trains"
and he thinks that
"there is no limit to standing passengers".
For the reasons that we have mentioned, it would be worth pursuing those questions—whether or not they are reserved—on behalf of the petitioner. We all must get on the trains every morning.
My point was that the committee's remit does not extend to reserved issues. I did not say that the quality of public transport services is not an important issue. Overcrowding is an aspect of the quality of service. However, it would be unhelpful and improper of us to delve into reserved issues when an appropriate mechanism exists by which the petitioner's concerns could be considered further.
Will you clarify the reserved nature of the issue? I do not dispute what you said, but I am new to the committee and I would like to understand the matter better.
Regulation of the railway industry falls under the remit of the Health and Safety Executive, which is a United Kingdom body and is responsible to the UK Government and the Westminster Parliament. That is why the matter is reserved.
Does that mean that the content of the petition is a matter for Westminster?
Yes.
So why are we discussing it?
Are we not in the realms of the franchise agreement, which is not reserved? When we review the franchise agreement, we will consider whether measures to prevent overcrowding are being implemented. Therefore, it is relevant for the committee to consider the matter.
The subject of the petition is:
"Passenger safety on public transport in Scotland."
Therefore, I take the petition to be about passenger safety, which undoubtedly is a reserved issue.
In so far as the franchise agreement is connected with those matters, they are a legitimate concern for the committee.
The franchise might be connected to the issue of capacity on the rail network and, as I said, I am happy for us to come back to that. The Parliament can discuss the definition of the franchise, the extent of public support for the franchise and the effect that the franchise has on capacity. However, the petition is not about that.
I want to be clear on the matter. The franchise negotiation has no locus in addressing public safety on public transport.
It does.
No, it does not. The franchise replacement process can deal with overcrowding by considering matters such as stopping patterns and timetable changes, but that is different from public safety on transport. A regime for public safety operates at Westminster, so, frankly, we are wasting our time by discussing it here.
I subscribe to that.
Given the response that we had from the Executive on capacity considerations, the petition is of interest to the committee. As Maureen Macmillan said, we should write to the petitioner to say that we will consider the matter in due course.
I have no problem with saying that we will consider capacity, but given that the petition has been in the system for some time, I wish to bring it to a conclusion. I do not wish to give the petitioner the idea that we will continue with it. We will deal with the broader issues of the franchise in due course.
Does the committee agree that we should respond to the petitioner in the manner that is suggested in the report?
Members indicated agreement.
Raptors (Licensed Culling) (PE187)
Petition PE187, which came from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, called on the Scottish Parliament to allow limited licensed culling of raptors. Maureen Macmillan, who was appointed as the committee's reporter on the petition, reported to the committee initially in June 2000 and the extract of her report is included in the cover note. The committee agreed to the report's recommendation to write to Scottish Natural Heritage to seek clarification on the legal status of the petitioners' request. We have received a response from SNH and a letter from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, copies of both of which have been circulated.
Before I ask for members' views, does Maureen Macmillan, as our original reporter, wish to comment on the developments since the report?
I am sure that members will recall the petition from the SGA, which was concerned at the effect on the grouse population of the increasing numbers of raptors. The petition requested a derogation from the wild birds directive, which the petitioners thought might be possible if grouse were defined as livestock.
The SNH response to our request for clarification of the legal position is given in paragraphs 7 to 11 of the cover note. Although SNH does not close the door on derogation, it notes that derogation would be a last resort, for which substantial evidence would be needed to show that diversion methods do not work.
At the time, the committee did not take the view that shooting or culling raptors was an option. We thought that any derogation from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 would have to be for a measure less serious than culling, such as the disruption of nesting birds.
Paragraph 10 of the cover note indicates that a moorland working group has been established, but the SGA is not listed as a member. It is important that the SGA is not left out on a limb. The SGA should be included in talks with organisations such as those that are represented on the moorland working group so that a way forward can be found to address the SGA's concerns or to reach some compromise. The situation is similar to what happened with the petition from the Scottish Homing Union, where there seemed to be a stand-off between the two sides.
It is important that the groups get together to discuss how they can make progress on aspects such as tactics to divert raptors from the grouse. Those tactics need to work, but the SGA feels that the tactics that are being suggested by groups such as SNH or RSPB Scotland are not workable. More research needs to be done.
For the sake of clarity, which of the options that are outlined in the paper would you prefer?
Option B would be the appropriate way forward.
Option B mentions
"the need to address the problems identified by the SGA".
Are we to respond to that merely through Maureen Macmillan's report?
The recommendation is that there needs to be some kind of joint approach and joint working. We need agreement on the way forward.
Do we want to ensure that the SGA's views are properly heard and consulted upon?
Perhaps we could also say that the SGA should be incorporated into the moorland working group.
Will we subsequently want to seek a derogation?
Paragraph 8 of the cover note quotes SNH's contention that:
"an application to derogate from the Birds Directive would need to follow on from a substantial amount of work and evidence to show that non-lethal methods would not work".
That has not been done yet. Other methods to protect the grouse population from raptors have not been investigated. As far as I can see, the SGA has not been closely involved with the working groups.
It seems to be a source of great resentment to the SGA that it has not been involved. That resentment seems reasonable.
I agree.
Will the SGA's inclusion in the working group be sufficient to address the problem?
The committee was not prepared to agree with the SGA's call for the culling of raptors; in our view, the petition went too far. We discussed the possibility of methods that did not go as far as shooting or killing raptors, such as pricking eggs or disrupting nesting sites. Such methods would also require a derogation from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and Scottish Natural Heritage says that every other possibility would have to be examined before that was done.
I want the SGA to be involved. Other organisations should not be conducting experiments while the SGA is standing on the sidelines saying that the method does not work. We should recommend that the SGA should be involved and consulted during the experiments and field trials, just as we recommended that the Scottish Homing Union should be involved in examining methods of stopping raptors taking homing pigeons. That situation has been worked out, and a joint group that involves the Scottish Homing Union and environmental organisations is working on the matter. I do not see why the SGA should not be able to work with other organisations on this matter.
The SGA says that this is a matter of balance between raptors and the grouse population; it believes that measures such as diversionary feeding would only add another element to the equation and that the number of raptors would rise to compensate for the added feeding. The same argument could be applied to habitat management. If you tackle the problem by creating better heather cover for the grouse, you are working with nature instead of against it to keep the balance more in favour of the grouse.
Who set up the moorland working group? Is it under the aegis of SNH?
I do not know.
It would be useful to find out the sponsoring body. As part of our response to the petition, we should write to the sponsoring body and ask it to invite the SGA to be part of the group. Would that be a helpful way forward?
My advice from the clerk is that SNH set up the working group.
I declare an interest as a member of RSPB Scotland.
Having read through the documents, I would observe that until a common method for assessing raptor numbers has been agreed between the SGA, RSPB Scotland and other groups, it will be difficult to make progress.
The SGA has a case, in that it intends to kill raptors only in areas where the balance is out of kilter. The issue lies in determining the correct balance, which must be based on scientific research. The fact that the SGA is not involved in the working group is a serious omission. I would like the committee to put as much weight behind the recommendation as it can, to ensure that the SGA becomes involved in the group.
We are in danger of repeating debates that we have already had—some of us were on the committee for the previous debate—and I am anxious to avoid that.
I agree with Adam Ingram. We need to state specifically that consideration should be given to involving the SGA in the moorland working group. If we can make that amendment to option B, that would be reasonable. Ultimately, there is disagreement and we will not resolve the matter in this committee—we do not have the expertise—but if we could promote dialogue, that would be a step forward.
At the risk of upsetting Des McNulty—I was not here at the first debate—there is a need for balance to be struck, as Nora Radcliffe and Adam Ingram have said. There is a widely held view in the countryside that somehow, the situation is out of balance and the grouse population needs to be reconciled with the huge increase in the number of raptors.
SNH and the RSPB want to produce more raptors; I appreciate the reasons for that. They are perfectly entitled to pursue their position, with which I agree, but the situation is out of balance and people are suffering. It was said earlier that a derogation could be found only if grouse were treated as a crop. Grouse are definitely harvested in the shooting season, so they are no different from a crop of lambs on hills in that respect.
I am afraid that that is not the case under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
I am just saying what the situation is as I see it.
We should write to the Scottish Executive and the SGA to outline the views that members have expressed today. We should indicate that our strong recommendation is that the SGA should be incorporated into the moorland working group. We should double-check whether SNH is the sponsoring body and write to it about the matter.
Do members agree to take that approach as the way forward?
Members indicated agreement.
Quarrying (PE225)
Petition PE225, by Mr William Ackland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to address the concerns of local residents about the vibration, noise and environmental threats that are caused by quarrying. A covering note has been circulated with the petition and members will note that the petition is outstanding and has had slow progress. It relates to a planning decision at Sheephill quarry in Milton.
I remind members that the committee has previously decided not to express a view on individual planning issues. I ask members to concentrate on the broader issues that the petition raises. On the broader issue of mineral permissions, the Executive issued a consultation paper on the review of old mineral permissions in November. Before members comment, I invite Jackie Baillie, who is the constituency MSP for the area from which the petitioner comes, to make a contribution to our response to the petition.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. I appreciate the fact that the committee is not in a position to comment on individual cases, but I think that the case illustrates a flaw within the current planning process. I add that I have visited both the constituents and the quarry operators, so I have a well-rounded perspective of the problems.
I will not rehearse again what the committee has already considered. I will focus on the fact that there has been inordinate delay in the planning process and in obtaining an environmental impact assessment, and illustrate the point by describing the situation to the committee.
The situation goes back to March 1998, when the quarry operators submitted an application for the review of mineral permissions and to extend the coverage of their operation very close to residential property and a scheduled ancient monument.
In November 1998, the Scottish Office issued guidance about the need for applications to be supported by an environmental impact assessment. At the time, the Scottish Office took the view that it was the responsibility of the developer to obtain an EIA. The developer agreed to obtain an EIA, but it is now December 2001 and, so far, there is no evidence of an EIA.
In February 2001, application was made to Historic Scotland concerning the excavation of the fort at Sheephill, which raises the issue of scheduled monuments. Historic Scotland is still to determine on the matter.
The crux of the problem is that we are now in December 2001. The local authority will not proceed until there is an EIA, because it could be accused of failing to take into account all material considerations. It appears that the operator will not want to proceed to obtain an EIA until it hears from Historic Scotland. In the correspondence that has been supplied to the committee, Historic Scotland is saying that there is nothing to stop an EIA being obtained anyway. You can imagine that there is confusion about the delay as Parliament approaches another birthday, and the frustration of all involved.
I would like the committee to address the principles. Aside from ensuring that, within the regulations, there is specific provision for consideration of a range of environmental matters including noise and vibration, we need to be clear that time scales need to be applied for submission of EIAs to local authorities. Given the committee's knowledge of the area, I would appreciate advice on whether the proposed regulations will cover that aspect. If they will not, will the committee recommend that time scales be specified?
I note from the report that has been presented to the committee that the presumption is that the new regulations would not apply in this case. I have to say that, while a review might be technically under way, little progress has been made. I therefore believe that such situations should be covered by the new regulations and I would like the committee to explore that with the Executive. The determining factor should not be the start of the process, but whether the process has been completed.
Thank you. I understand that the regulations that are under consultation cover time scales. The consultation process continues and concludes at the end of this year. At the end of the consultation, the Executive will consider how it intends to progress the regulations.
No other members want to add to the debate. Does the committee therefore want to progress the matter according to the options set out in the paper? We can write to the petitioner to advise of the correspondence the committee has received to date about the matter. We can also indicate, while referring to the current Scottish Executive consultation, that we have a policy of not becoming involved in individual planning issues. It might also be useful to write to the Executive to express some of the concerns that Jackie Baillie outlined about the general principles of the delay that has taken place and how they might apply to other, similar, situations. The Executive might take that into consideration in the consultation. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I want to raise one issue. The letter from Sarah Boyack refers to
"draft regulations which will introduce statutory environmental assessment procedures into the mineral review provisions."
The letter also indicates that the application of environmental impact assessment is voluntary and operates on a precautionary basis.
I wonder whether it would be worth writing to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to ask what stage the introduction of statutory procedures is at. It seems that "shortly" can mean at least a year and a half.
Are not those the regulations that are currently under consultation?
Presumably. I would like to know when they are going to be introduced.
So you are seeking clarity on the timetable for the introduction of the regulations following the consultation process?
Yes.
Is it agreed that we include that point?
Members indicated agreement.
Opencast Mining (PE346 and PE369)
The final petitions that we must deal with relate to opencast mining: PE346 from Scotland Opposing Opencast and PE369 from the Confederation of UK Coal Producers. Members have been provided with a note on the petitions. I seek members' views on how we should deal with them.
Three options are set out in the paper. Option A is to note the petitions and write to the petitioners, including a copy of the Official Report of any relevant meetings. We could also write to the Executive setting out the views in the petitions. Option B would be to take oral evidence from the petitioners. Option C would be to consider the issues raised in the petitions and to appoint a reporter or reporters to take evidence from the petitioners and other relevant bodies, including the local authorities, and report back to the committee.
I welcome John Home Robertson, the MSP for East Lothian, which is the source of one of the petitions. I, too, am a member for one of the areas referred to in petition PE346.
The layout of the committee room would be a credit to the Stasi—I would hate to face hostile cross-examination here.
The committee is considering two petitions, one that would wipe out the opencast industry altogether and one that would open up all coal-bearing areas in Scotland to exploitation for opencast mining. My position is somewhere between the two. However, from a constituency point of view, my main concern is petition PE369, from the Confederation of UK Coal Producers, which calls for a guarantee that
"exploitable coal deposits are accorded positive policies in development plans."
As we know, that is extremely controversial. I will not detain the committee for much time on that point, because it was fully covered in the members' business debate that I initiated on 21 November. That debate included eloquent speeches from Bristow Muldoon and Adam Ingram.
I understand the interests of opencast companies. I am sure that any reasonable person would acknowledge that there are places where opencast mining is appropriate, might be beneficial to the local economy and could help in the reclamation of industrial dereliction. However, it is very important to have regard to the track record of the industry. Several members have opencast mines in our constituencies and are aware of particular problems arising from dust, traffic, noise and so on.
I submit that it is also very important to take account not just of the economic, environmental and social interests of communities that are close to proposed opencast sites, but of those that find themselves in areas that have been designated as areas of search for opencast coal, which could be blighted for many years to come by the implied threat of an opencast site in that neighbourhood.
Recently, a substantial part of my constituency has been designated by the Scottish Executive as an area of search. It is very important that that area is narrowed down and that the industry is directed into areas that are genuinely suitable for opencasting. That would lift the blight from other parts of the countryside, because the designation of an area for opencast searching impacts not only on the landscape, the value of people's houses and the environment in such areas, but—crucially—on other industries. The area in my constituency that has been designated as an area of search has several new industries that employ a lot of people. Those industries could grow and be valuable to the local economy and benefit the area in the long term. It would be tragic if such potential were blighted by the threat of opencasting for short-term gain and short-term jobs.
I have an obvious constituency concern. In any deliberation on the issue, I urge the committee to have regard for considerations of the kind that I have described. It is important to establish a credible distinction between the fairly narrow range of areas that are suitable for opencasting, which the industry could consider further legitimately, and the much wider range of areas that are not suitable for opencasting and should be excluded from such consideration. I hope that those points will be taken into account in the much wider examination of the national planning policy guidelines and other aspects of Scottish Executive policy.
I endorse much of what Mr Home Robertson has just said. I suggest that we should look at options B and C together. Where there is a large number of opencast sites, particularly in the areas in East Ayrshire with which I am familiar, there is the problem that councils and other authorities do not have the resources to monitor properly what is going on.
I note the Executive's letters that indicate that NPPG 16 has tightened up a lot, which I agree with. I am less sure about whether the guideline has tightened up enough, particularly on issues such as airborne dust and particulates, which affect the health of people in and around opencast sites. The Executive has acknowledged that it has changed the framework on that to some extent. It also says that it wants the new framework to settle down. Although I agree with that, I do not want the Executive to close its mind to the concerns of local communities, which Mr Home Robertson has articulated and of which I am aware in East Ayrshire.
There is still controversy about issues such as the buffer zones between opencast sites and local communities and the definition of a local community—how large a group of houses constitutes such a community. On fees for mineral permission, there are a lot of section 75 agreements, whereby opencast companies pay a levy per tonne to a mineral trust fund. Such funds, which have been set up in many areas, might represent a mechanism for raising moneys to pay for a type of fee arrangement that would enable the local authorities to hire the relevant people to do the necessary monitoring of sites.
As we need to examine such issues, we should choose option C. That said, given that there is continuing controversy on this matter, we should ask the two sets of petitioners to give evidence for our consideration.
I, too, spoke briefly in the members' business debate on the motion that John Home Robertson lodged. I have been lobbied about an opencast mining site and a quarry in Midlothian, and have attended a meeting in Ayrshire. The depth of feeling in threatened local communities compels me to suggest that we choose options B and C, if for no other reason than to show these small, widely dispersed communities that the Scottish Parliament takes their feelings very seriously. Appointing a reporter would be a very good way of ensuring that we gather views at first hand from the communities that feel most threatened.
I agree that we should appoint a reporter or reporters to take the matter forward. Although the area is quite technical, the issue itself is localised. I wonder whether we should follow the approach that Andy Kerr took with a relatively recent petition, when he went out and spoke to people in a specific locality. As far as this petition is concerned, it might be appropriate for the reporter to identify a couple of localities, find out the situation on the ground and come back to the committee with a report which would form the basis for deciding how we proceed with the matter. That would be a good way for the Parliament to deal with a particular issue without necessarily interfering with the usual run of committee business.
If we appoint a reporter or reporters, we can address the problem almost immediately. Goodness knows when we would be able to fit in any evidence taking. We should appoint the reporter or reporters and find out later whether we need to take evidence.
I must try to draw everything together. Without wishing to abuse my position as convener too much, I should repeat—as John Home Robertson mentioned—that I made a speech in the recent debate on this issue, so many of my concerns are well known and on the public record.
Both petitions raise important issues that the committee should investigate further. I am getting the feeling that members favour option C, which is that we appoint a reporter or reporters to carry out further detailed research on the committee's behalf and submit a report to us in due course. Perhaps the report could concentrate on specific issues such as the NPPG, the cost of monitoring and the question of enforcing permissions.
I am also attracted by Des McNulty's suggestion that the reporter or reporters pay site visits to some communities, as the geographical context of some of the communities is an important part of the issue. Before we agree on who will undertake the work, are members agreed that we appoint reporters who will be able to carry out site visits; speak to the individuals, communities and organisations associated with both petitions and other organisations, such as local authorities, that are not signatories but whose contributions are obviously worthy of consideration; and report back to the committee in due course?
Members indicated agreement.
I open the question of who will act as reporter to expressions of interest from members.
I am very interested.
Are any other members interested?
It would be sensible for two members to share the burden.
I agree. Are you expressing an interest, Nora?
I am prepared to work with Adam Ingram on the issue, if the committee is agreed.
If no other member wishes to express an interest, are members agreed that Adam Ingram and Nora Radcliffe will act as the two reporters on this issue?
Members indicated agreement.
I look forward to seeing the reporters in East Lothian.