Transport and the Environment Committee, 19 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 19, 2000

Official Report 210KB pdf

---

Petitions

We have three petitions to consider. PE28 is from the 999 Clear Roads Campaign, which calls for the introduction of a law requiring drivers to give way to the emergency services. The petition has also been referred to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which considered the matter at its meeting on 7 December. It concluded that the petition sought legislative change on a reserved matter and that the Parliament could therefore not provide the remedy sought. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee had further discussions on the matter, of which Lynn Tullis has made me aware: it drew the matter to the Executive's attention, asking whether there is a need for a related public awareness campaign. We may wish to note and endorse the decision of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. Do members have anything to add?

Despite my 20 years as a defence solicitor, I was not aware that there was no legislation on this. I had assumed that there was, because I once had involvement with a taxi driver who held up the obligation to give way to the emergency services. When I checked the matter, it came as a surprise to me that there was no legislation.

While I have sympathy with the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's stance, we should be going a wee bit further. I think that the petition highlights something that is missing in legislation. It should be a matter of statute, and I think that we should be referring it to the Executive—not calling for a public awareness campaign, but for the Executive or the Minister for Transport and the Environment to raise it with the DETR. Had the minister still been here, we could have canvassed that with her. Alternatively, we could communicate directly with the DETR.

I do not think that we should not take a position on this just because it is a reserved matter. We should let the Executive and the DETR know that we think that this omission in legislation is a glaring error and that we wish steps to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity to include such an obligation, by way of amending the Road Traffic Act 1998, for example.

I have great sympathy with that view. It has been made clear that the petitioners have also taken the petition to Westminster. Although that is now on the record, I think that the committee is minded to concur with Kenny's views, which I share.

I did not raise the matter with members directly because I was aware that the petition had been sent to the House of Commons, but I think that we can become involved on the back of that and express the committee's views.

I support what you have just said, convener, but the petition system at Westminster is, frankly, hopeless. Petitions go into that bag behind the Speaker's chair. That is where we are so much better.

I think that the DETR is picking the matter up directly.

This highlights the role of the Scottish Executive in relation to Westminster. This committee's requesting Westminster to examine a matter is one thing; the public going through a petition or through MPs is another thing. Something endorsed and promoted by our Executive ought to carry considerable clout in Westminster, and it should be reasonable for us to ask the Executive to take an active stance on this matter, as on a range of other issues that this and other committees may encounter.

I suggest that we request that the Executive take that position and express its views to the proper departments in Westminster, and that we do likewise, to express the view of the committee.

I know that the DETR exists in Scotland, but I do not know who or where it is. Seeing name tags for the civil servants who come with the minister is welcome. At some stage, should we not ask representatives of the DETR to present themselves and at least make themselves known to us? We will have to work hand in hand with them. Would there not be merit in meeting the officials at some stage to try to establish some form of conduit so that if we want to make representations on reserved matters, we do not have to go to the Executive to direct the communication, but can put forward our view directly? The point does not arise only in relation to this matter; it would form a structure for communicating with the DETR. Many reserved or overlapping areas arise to be dealt with.

That is ultimately sensible. The Procedures Committee is examining our relationships with Westminster and Lynn Tullis advises me that the clerks are also working on those systems. We will try to take up the option that Kenny has suggested.

Are we minded to proceed on that basis?

Yes.

We will respond to the petitioners.

PE 33 from Stuart Crawford calls for the clearance of rubbish and litter from roadsides and other public areas. The petitioner advocates the use of community schemes such as the adopt-a-highway scheme, of which he has experience from living in America. We have no hard evidence on the extent of the problem in Scotland. Because there are agency arrangements in some authorities, whereas others use direct labour, we do not have a clear picture of the situation in Scotland. We may want to ask the Executive and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for information on what currently occurs and on whether any special schemes exist. However, I am open to suggestions as to how we should proceed with this petition.

Is there any requirement for local authorities and the Scottish Executive to keep road verges clear of litter?

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the litter code of practice would cover that.

Local authorities have some discretion about the extent to which they undertake that duty. I was not at the meeting of the Public Petitions Committee when this petition was discussed, but I did read it. I have every sympathy with the petitioner's concerns because I, too, am concerned about litter. I welcome the action that you have suggested, convener—that we write to the Executive, gather information and begin to consider this issue. It has an impact on tourism as well as on the way we live. A moment ago we were talking about waste, so let us deal with it.

It would be useful to get an assessment of the problem.

Many of the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are still suspended; if we had had time, I would have asked the minister when the contaminated land issue was going to be dealt with. It may be useful to get a briefing from the Executive on where we stand with the EPA and when the suspended parts of it are likely to be implemented. I do not know whether the sections relevant to this petition are suspended or enacted. When I was a councillor, my council took responsibility for keeping road verges clear of litter, but I was under the impression that we were doing it as good practice under the EPA, rather than as a statutory requirement. That was a number of years ago and things may have changed.

I am sure that we will incorporate that into our response.

I have observed signs in California that indicate that a particular stretch of motorway is covered by a community scheme. It is difficult to tell how effective that is—the motorways are clean, but they might have been clean anyway. I should have thought that community service orders would be a better route for us to go down.

Those are a different issue.

They provide another opportunity for people to do something useful and would obviate the need to set up new voluntary groups.

We discussed the trunk roads maintenance scheme with the minister. Would it be sensible to write to her and ask that a standard of litter removal be included in the contract?

Let us find out what local authorities do. I know that there are agency arrangements between roads departments, or contractors who are responsible for roads maintenance, and cleansing departments, governing who does what. It is about the good use of resources.

Other issues are involved. Health and safety springs to mind. Collecting litter from the side of some of roads could be very dangerous. Let us put the idea out for consultation with the relevant bodies and see what comes out of that. Perhaps we can expand the discussion to include litter along railway lines that is dumped by irresponsible citizens. I know that there are agency arrangements for maintaining the sides of railway lines. Through consultation, we will get a sense of the importance of the issue, the current arrangements for dealing with it, and what might be done. We will then reconsider it.

PE 39 from George Anderson also concerns litter. The petition is concerned with different approaches by local authorities to dealing with street litter. In particular, it calls for provisions that deal with penalties for littering—sections 87 and 88 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—to be made mandatory. The act currently gives discretion on the promotion of anti-litter schemes and the petitioner contends that that produces confusion among local authorities.

As when discussing previous petitions, we may want to seek information from COSLA on the schemes that are currently in place in Scottish local authorities. We may want to consider the implications for the Scottish Executive and for COSLA of amending the legislation to make the relevant provisions mandatory.

Litter is a difficult problem for local authorities. Dealing with litter is also a difficult job. I worked in the cleansing department in Glasgow, so I know that it is not easy to approach someone in the street who has dropped a piece of litter, ask them for their name and address and issue a fine.

I agree with you about finding out what the options are. Could we expand our inquiry a wee bit to find out what the costs are? In Angus, where such a scheme exists, is it cost effective, or is the council subsidising it?

That could be part of our inquiry; it is a worthwhile aspect to consider. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

That is agreed. We shall report back to the Public Petitions Committee with a view on that matter.

Do we have to tell the Public Petitions Committee what we are doing about the petition?

We shall respond to the Public Petitions Committee and to the petitioner. In discussing this committee's work programme, we shall also discuss how we are dealing with petitions that we have already considered. We must not lose track of those important documents.