Current Petitions
The next item on the agenda is current petitions, on which we have separate briefing papers.
The first response that we received relates to petition PE237, which was submitted by Mr David Bryce on behalf of Calton Athletic Recovery Group. The petition was considered at our meeting of 4 July. Members will recall that the committee agreed to write to the then Deputy Minister for Justice, Angus MacKay, asking him to consider granting the petitioner's request for a meeting. We have now received a response from the new Deputy Minister for Justice, Iain Gray, a copy of which is included with the papers that were circulated to members.
Members will see that the minister is not willing to meet the Calton Athletic Recovery Group. He indicates that his predecessor, Angus MacKay, met the group in February to discuss some of its concerns. The minister states that he is unable to give credence to the alleged discrimination outlined by Mr Bryce when he addressed the committee. Executive officials have checked the allegations made by Mr Bryce and have established that the organisations concerned
"not only refute them but provide an alternative history of events."
Members will note that the minister also spells out the criteria that voluntary groups such as the Calton Athletic Recovery Group are required to meet if they are to access Executive funds. They include demonstrating partnership working, accountability and willingness to work to agreed objectives. He states that the Calton Athletic Recovery Group has failed to meet those criteria by refusing to provide proper audited accounts to its funders. Details of the problems encountered by Greater Glasgow Health Board, the main funder of the Calton Athletic Recovery Group, are given in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the letter.
The minister closes by saying:
"I do not deny CARG's work in tackling Scotland's drugs problem in the past, and do not wish them excluded from any bidding process in the future, either national or local."
However, like other voluntary organisations, the group must comply with the conditions of funding.
In the light of the minister's reply, it is suggested that there is little that we can do to facilitate a meeting, as requested by the petitioner. It is recommended that the committee agrees to pass the minister's response to the petitioner for information, with the suggestion that Calton Athletic Recovery Group endeavour to meet the requirements for accessing funds, as explained by the minister, in an effort to resolve its difficulties.
The minister's response seems reasonable.
One must assume that the minister conducted thorough investigations. I do not see that we have any option other than to support his conclusions.
We will do what has been suggested. We will pass the minister's response to the petitioner for information and suggest to him that the group endeavours to meet the requirements for accessing funds, as explained by the minister, in an effort to resolve its difficulties.
The next response that we have received relates to petition PE244, from Mr Graeme Brown, on behalf of Holyrood View Residents Association. The petition is about the wheel clamping of illegally parked vehicles in Edinburgh. At our meeting of 12 September, we agreed to copy the petition to the City of Edinburgh Council transport committee and to request a response to the issues raised in it. That response has now been received and a copy is attached.
The council's reply makes clear that the areas in which the illegal parking referred to in the petition is taking place
"are ‘private' and outwith the existing controlled parking zone."
It indicates that wheel clamping is one of the powers available to the council as a means of enforcement within the controlled zone. Members' attention is drawn to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the council's letter, which indicates that the on-street parking bays referred to by the petitioner are private, and that in the past the residents have rejected proposals to integrate them into the controlled parking zone. Inclusion of the bays in the controlled zone would assist in dealing with the problem of illegal parking, but residents have been reluctant to pay for residents permits to park in what they consider to be their private driveways.
The council suggests that properly controlled wheel clamping could provide an answer to the residents' problems. However, that advice conflicts with information that the Scottish Parliament information centre provided to the committee at our meeting of 12 September, which indicated that the practice of wheel clamping on private land in Scotland was banned by a court case in 1992. SPICe has been unable to trace any proposals to change that situation. The council's advice is that the parking bays in question should be included in the controlled parking zone, although it acknowledges that residents may still be unwilling to pay for passes and that residents from other parts of the zone could, in theory, also use those parking bays.
It is suggested that we write to the Minister for Transport to ask for clarification of the provisions in relation to wheel clamping on private land in Scotland, and for any comments that she may have about illegal parking on private land. A copy of the council's response should also be sent to the petitioner.
I have been feverishly searching through the Official Report of last week's Transport and the Environment Committee meeting, at which this very topic came up and Donald Gorrie raised a point about trying to legislate for private ground. The minister gave a response at the time—I am afraid I cannot find the relevant part of the report at the moment—but perhaps the simple answer is to do what the petitioner suggests.
To raise the matter with the minister and ask her to respond formally?
Yes.
It seems odd that it should be so difficult to get a clear-cut answer to something as simple as this. It is also odd that there is a divergence of views between SPICe and the council.
The matter certainly must be cleared up. The council has its own legal advisers and one would have thought that they would be aware of whether something is against the law.
I have not seen clamping signs anywhere for a long time.
It is important to have the point clarified and we should write to the Minister for Transport to ask for that. In the meantime, we shall copy the council's response to the petitioner. Once we have the minister's reply, we can pursue the matter further. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
What did the Transport and the Environment Committee conclude? Can you remember, Helen?
I have now found the section that I was looking for. It is a little more complicated, as we were also talking about commercial parking and about the need to adopt certain bits of roads. The minister said that
"under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, one of the core conditions is whether the owners of an area are in favour of the road being adopted."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 17 November 2000; c 1239.]
Donald Gorrie went on to say that he would go away and investigate the minister's point about private parking, because there already seem to be powers about that.
Perhaps we should write to Donald Gorrie to ask him for the result of his investigation.
I am sure that Sarah Boyack will give you the answer.
We shall ask Sarah Boyack to clarify the position.
The next response that we have is to petition PE253, from Sustainable Stewartry, which called on the Parliament to investigate, promote and assist in the production of cars powered by compressed air. We have received comments from the Minister for Transport, and her letter points out that the issues raised about technical standards are reserved matters. However, the reply provides details of the view of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the pros and cons of the use of such vehicles.
On the question of manufacturing, information is given on the availability of regional selective assistance, a discretionary grant that is available as an incentive mainly to manufacturing industry to undertake investment in designated assisted areas. The letter also provides details of the European Union regulations that apply in respect of state aid to the motor vehicle industry, including the need to notify the Commission in certain circumstances.
It is suggested that the minister's response should be copied to the petitioner and that no further action should be taken. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The next response is to petition PE266, from Mr and Mrs Currie, about the switching off of vehicle engines after two minutes' rest. We agreed to request comments from the UK Minister for Transport about the issues raised in the petition. A copy of his response is attached to today's papers. It gives information on steps that have already been taken in addressing the concerns expressed by the petitioners, including the introduction of a new offence under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, which apply throughout Britain.
A trial scheme has also been introduced in certain major UK cities, including Glasgow, to allow on-the-spot fixed-penalty notices to be issued to drivers who leave an engine running unnecessarily. The scheme is currently being evaluated and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions expects to make a decision shortly on whether to roll it out to all local authorities in England. It will be for ministers in Scotland and other devolved Administrations to decide whether to implement a similar scheme in their respective countries. It is suggested that we simply copy the minister's response to the petitioners for their information, and that we take no further action.
You are right, convener. Gus Macdonald is also right, in that this is a matter of common sense, about which it would be impossible to make hard and fast rules.
Even if one were to try to imagine every situation that might arise, one would still miss some out. The only way in which to enforce legislation in such situations would be to take a commonsense approach.
It would be interesting to find out how the Scottish ministers will respond to the pilot scheme in Glasgow.
I agree.
It would also be interesting to find out whether ministers intend to do something about on-the-spot fines.
I would be interested to learn what the scale of the problem is. Given the price of fuel, I cannot believe that people leave their cars running unnecessarily for extended periods.
People should buy liquid petroleum gas, which is half the present cost of fuel.
As well as passing a copy of the minister's reply to the petitioners, we should write to the Scottish ministers to ask them to keep us informed of their response to the pilot that is being undertaken. We could inform the petitioners when that response is received.
The final response that we have received is in relation to PE267 from Mr Thomson, which is on solar panels in new buildings. We agreed to request information from the Scottish Executive on its policy on solar panels.
Members will note that the Executive has no immediate plans to amend the building standards regulations for Scotland to require the installation of solar panels in buildings for water heating. The Executive points out that, while the panels have the potential to assist the conservation of fossil fuels,
"at present the technology is too expensive and thus not cost effective. Most solar heating installations would never pay back the initial cost."
The Executive provides details of a consultation that is being carried out on a revision of the building standards regulations that deal with the conservation of fuel and power. Its proposals include measures to raise significantly the standards for thermal insulation and heating system efficiency for new buildings, which are expected to reduce energy consumption by 25 to 30 per cent. The Executive claims that that will make solar water heating even less cost effective. Technical information on the matter is attached to the Executive's letter at annexe A.
It is suggested that the Executive's response should be passed to the petitioner for information and that no further action be taken.
I am slightly disappointed by the Executive's response. Only a couple of weeks ago, I discussed solar energy with a professor from Heriot-Watt University. I found what he had to say so compelling that I intend to visit the university in the near future.
That does not change the Scottish Executive's response, to which we must pay attention. However, in the fullness of time, I hope to be able to bring back enough information and evidence to encourage more of my MSP colleagues to hold similar meetings with the professor. I would like to change the climate of opinion to one that is much more supportive of solar energy. We must consider solar energy as part of the bigger equation, and I am sorry that the Executive's view is so negative.
None of us is qualified to come to a decision on solar energy. Submitting a petition is a process rather than an event—the petitioner will be able to resubmit his petition to the committee if he is not satisfied with the Executive's response.
I agree with Helen Eadie and I would be happy to accompany her to Heriot-Watt University.
We must encourage those who are in a position to develop more cost-effective ways of using solar energy. I was once a civil engineering student, and I know how they are always scratching about for final year projects. Perhaps people in our universities could consider such projects as a way of developing more cost-effective solar heating.
Absolutely.
Do members agree to pass the Executive's response to the petitioner and to take no further action on the petition at this stage?
Perhaps we could include a copy of the Official Report of today's meeting, so that the petitioner knows that he is not on his own.
Members indicated agreement.