Local Government and Transport Committee, 21 Jun 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Official Report 122KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Scottish Airports (Access to Public Roads) (PE528)

Agenda item 2 is petitions. The first is PE528, on airport parking, which was submitted by MacRoberts Solicitors on behalf of Glasgow Airport Parking Association Ltd. This is the first time that we have considered the petition. I draw to members' attention a matter that I am sure they will all have spotted, because they will have avidly read their papers. The last page of the paper prepared by the clerk was missing, but it is now on members' desks. I will give them a few seconds to peruse it before I ask them to express their views.

We could decide that the matter is worthy of further investigation and carry the issue forward, or we could decide that it is not worthy of further investigation at this stage and decide to note the petition. The third option is that we could hold final consideration of the petition back until we have a discussion on our work programme for the forthcoming year. We will have such a discussion sometime after the summer recess. I am happy to listen to members' views.

I read the papers that were originally circulated. It seems to me that it would be useful to get some further information. The Enterprise and Culture Committee seems—certainly in the evidence session that I saw—to have considered the petition along with other matters; it does not seem to have focused exclusively on the petition.

In particular, I would like to know the extent to which other car parks are competing with BAA's and how the £5,000 charge that BAA is said to have made as a condition for access is influencing competition. In his evidence, Michael Hirst indicated that it was not at all uncommon for business travellers to find that they missed their plane because they could not get a place in a car park. This committee does not exist just to look after business people, but, if that is a problem, it is one that we would all wish to tackle. The petitioners gave evidence quite a long time ago and I would like to hear an update from them.

For all those reasons—and various others that I will not go into now, for the sake of time—I think that it might be best to hold the petition over. We may not necessarily select it in our work programme, but I would like the committee to seek some more information and to consider the matter again once we have that information—perhaps in September, when we consider our work programme.

I support Fergus Ewing's comments. A number of questions arise from the evidence given by the minister and by Caroline Lyon, as reported in the papers that we have. I think that other issues may emerge—Helen Eadie certainly broadened the issue to include a number of other areas, such as taxis and access. We have two pieces of evidence from Caroline Lyon. When she was asked to confirm that no charges can be imposed under the byelaws, she said, "That is correct." However, when Nicol Stephen asked her a question, she agreed that the result of a commercial negotiation was perfectly legitimate if there was an agreed charge. We need to clear that up, particularly in light of the fact that there are currently no real park-and-ride or rail connections to allow people to park and take a train into some of our major airports. It would also be helpful to ask for written evidence from BAA, which is involved in the matter.

I take it that there is consensus that we should carry the petition forward until we consider our work programme for the forthcoming year and that there are a number of questions that members would like to pursue further before reaching a conclusion.

All that we have said is that we want to carry the petition forward, but we have not been specific about how we should deal with it. It is not the case that there are exclusive contracts only with airport parking. New shopping centres that are set up—I do not want to mention them by name—will have their own exclusive parking facilities and access to taxi services. Although supermarkets do not charge for parking, they have exclusive taxi services, and a wide range of hospitals now have parking charges and exclusive contracts. The issue arises in a number of areas. If we are going to carry the petition forward, we need to be specific about how we will consider it and how that will link in with the previous evidence that was taken.

I do not think that, at this stage, we are giving a commitment to carry out a formal inquiry into the issue. What has been suggested is that we delay consideration of the petition until we consider our work programme for the forthcoming year. That would leave it open for you to propose a broader line of inquiry into other areas of car parking that encompassed the issue raised in the petition.

I am not saying that we should not do that.

What I am saying is that, if you wanted to, it would be open to you to suggest further work. We are not making a decision here and now as to whether we will take the petition forward as a major item on our work programme. We shall simply postpone consideration of that question until our work programme meeting in September. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Local Government Finance Act 1992 (Council Tax Discounts) (PE784)

The next petition is PE784, which was lodged by Damian Pavillard. It calls for the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that local authorities can no longer reclaim the value of council tax discounts that are found to have been unwarranted. Today's meeting is the first time that the committee has considered the petition.

The paper by the clerk suggests that it may be inappropriate for us to carry out further work on the issue, given that the Executive has established an independent review of local government finance. In addition, after the recess we will consider Tommy Sheridan's Council Tax Abolition and Service Tax Introduction (Scotland) Bill. It seems to me that the issues that Mr Pavillard raises in his petition can be considered either as part of the independent review or during our consideration of the bill. I suggest that we take that approach. We can advise Mr Pavillard of that and suggest that he makes his views known to the independent review. I invite comments from members who support that view or wish to suggest an alternative.

I am happy to support your line, convener. We should advise the petitioner in writing that the committee, in addition to considering the Council Tax Abolition and Service Tax Introduction (Scotland) Bill, will consider the outcome of the independent review in due course. I assume that that is the case. We should make the point to the petitioner that, in addition to the specific proposal in Tommy Sheridan's bill, there will also be a wider review.

I was going to make exactly the same point. When we consider the review, we should bear in mind the petition, which raises a point that needs to be clarified. At an appropriate time during our review of the report on local government finance, we should make sure that the petition is addressed.

Do we agree to respond to the petition in that manner and to conclude it?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Council Tax (PE787)

The third petition is PE787, which was lodged by Alastair Murdoch on behalf of Scottish Action Against Council Tax. It calls for the Scottish Parliament to replace the council tax with a system that is more closely related to the ability to pay.

Again, I recommend that we advise the petitioner that we will shortly consider Tommy Sheridan's Council Tax Abolition and Service Tax Introduction (Scotland) Bill, which appears to contain the proposal that the petitioner seeks to have implemented. The issues that are raised in the petition will be discussed during the committee's analysis of the bill. The committee will subsequently report to the Parliament, which will decide one way or the other on the merits of the bill. Do members agree that we should take that course of action and conclude the petition?

Members indicated agreement.