Transport and the Environment Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Official Report 182KB pdf

---

Petitions

Agenda item 2 is petitions. We have circulated the progress report, TE/00/13/1, which sets out all the petitions that have been referred to us and which ones are on-going. Due to our work load of the past few weeks, we have not had much time to consider petitions—we still have a number of out-standing petitions that have been referred to us. I hope that we can deal with them over the next few meetings.

On occasion, we have written to various bodies seeking additional information on petitions. We are still awaiting responses, as you will see from the report. I understand that the clerks will be contacting those bodies to ensure that we get a speedy response.

We are due to consider five petitions today. The first is petition PE23, from Save Wemyss Ancient Caves Society, which is accompanied by covering note TE/00/13/2. The petitioner calls for action to be taken to repair storm damage to the access to Wemyss caves. Members will recall that the last time we considered this petition we agreed to request information from the Executive on the extent of the coastal erosion problem in Scotland. We have received that information and it has been circulated. Do members have a view on the petition? As the report says, a number of options are available.

It might be reasonable for us to raise the matter with Fife Council. The Executive's letter notes that two tranches of capital consent have been made available for coastal protection. It is up to the council to decide its priorities, but we should ask whether it is doing anything about this issue and bring the petition—which I am sure it already knows about—to its attention. That would complete the trail for us.

Does Historic Scotland not have an interest in this area?

We can check that.

I would like to make one observation about the first paragraph of the letter from the Executive on the background to coastal protection. It seems that there is a contradiction between saying that ministers must

"approve schemes that are technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable"

and leaving it to local authorities to deal with coastal erosion. If the appropriate people give evidence to us in future, it may be worth bearing that in mind when we come to consider our line of questioning.

To pick up on Robin Harper's point, I do not think that Historic Scotland would be involved unless the caves were a scheduled ancient monument. It may be worth asking whether Historic Scotland has considered that. If it has, we would like to know what its decision was and the reasons for it. If it has not, perhaps it should.

Those points will be taken on board and reported back on at a future meeting.

The next petition is PE28, from the 999 Clear Road Campaign. It is accompanied by committee covering note TE/00/13/3. The petition calls for the Scottish Parliament to support a law that would force drivers to give way and access to the emergency services in pursuit of their duties during 999 emergency operations. When we last considered this petition, we endorsed the view of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee that the Parliament's scope for legislative action was limited, given that the petitioner was writing on a reserved matter. We decided to refer the petition to the Scottish Executive, requesting that it take up the matter with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and with Westminster. The committee also decided to contact the DETR and Westminster itself.

We have now received responses from the Scottish Executive, the DETR and the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs at Westminster. In addition, the journal office at Westminster has been contacted and staff have confirmed that the issue raised by the petitioner has not been raised in debates, questions or early-day motions at Westminster. Those responses are attached to the covering note. What would members like to do with the information that we have now received? We can request additional information or we can conclude consideration of the petition by forwarding the information to the petitioner.

We should take the latter option.

Do we agree to conclude consideration of the petition by writing to the petitioner setting out the responses that we have received?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE63, from the National Farmers Union of Scotland, calls for the Scottish Parliament to increase resources for agri-environment measures. The petition is accompanied by committee covering note TE/00/13/5. As members can see, the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to

"determine the resources required to meet the objectives in Scotland and, using the devolved powers in agricultural matters, oblige applications of additional funds from United Kingdom resources to these matters."

We are a secondary committee on this petition and are required to report our views to the Rural Affairs Committee. We may want to consider whether we have the necessary specialist expertise and knowledge to determine the resources required for agri-environment measures in Scotland, as requested by the petitioner. We may instead wish to write to the Executive for clarification and further information. This is a fairly technical and complex matter, but we can seek advice from others, if we see fit.

I have two points to make about this petition. We should be asking a broader question than the one that the National Farmers Union is asking. It is asking for additional resources for agri-environment measures. I would like, through this committee, to ask some questions about the way in which existing resources are used in the pursuit of agri-environmental measures. We should consider the demand for additional resources and the use of existing resources.

It would also be helpful to ask for views on modulation proposals from some of the environmental groups that are most closely associated with this matter. While that might happen in the aftermath of the Scottish Executive's consultation, I know that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has views on modulation, in which I would be interested. I think that the issue is broader than it is presented in the petition and it might merit closer consideration in due course.

Some additional information would be useful, such as on the shortfall in agri-environment schemes over the past five years—we need some idea of the scale of the shortfall. It might also be useful to find out whether the rate of conversion to organic farming is increasing or decreasing. We might also ask why the funding comes out of the same pot of money. Because funding is supplied on demand for one of the schemes, there is less available for applications under the other scheme.

I would be concerned if we were to take a skin-deep look at the issue raised in the petition. This is an important matter in agriculture in Scotland and, as Des McNulty said, it is important to many environmental organisations. If we are to do this, we should do it right. I am not keen on spending half an hour on this petition during a committee meeting where we have a lot of paper and taking a not particularly clever or effective look at an important issue. I do not want the matter to come back to the committee as simply an update on a petition—we should set aside a day to deal with it properly.

I would like the petition to be considered in relation to the bill on organic targets that I am preparing. We have held three three-hour meetings with organisations such as the RSPB and the National Farmers Union and with organic gardeners and horticulturists. All are on board and we will have a report to give to all MSPs and, in particular, to the 40 MSPs who have supported my proposal.

We are running up against considerable difficulties, because all the money is in the same pot. If organic schemes are to gain, agri-environment schemes, on which, understandably, the RSPB is very keen, may suffer. That requires careful consideration—just going for more money will not necessarily achieve what needs to be achieved. We must consider carefully how that money is to be dished out.

It would be useful if the committee could spend some time on this petition before the wording for my bill is finalised. We are on our third draft, which we will be putting out for people to examine. It would be useful for a lot more research to be done because, as members will understand, I am keen that what we produce will be debatable and, eventually, acceptable. Therefore, the more work that is done beforehand, the better. As Tavish Scott said, a half-hour discussion on the petition would not serve any useful purpose.

In my opening remarks, I questioned whether the committee had the specialist skills and knowledge to tackle the issue properly. If we wish to access those skills and that knowledge, I suggest that we should bear the petition in mind for our discussion at the end of the meeting on the work programme. We have a number of agreed priorities, which we have discussed and laid down already, and our discussion on the work programme today may colour the view that we have about the petition. If we defer making a decision about this petition until we have discussed our work programme, we may be able to pursue the matter.

Whatever we decide during that discussion, we should bear in mind the points raised by members about information that we can receive in the short term and how to relate such information to a further examination of the issue. Members have raised specific points with which we could start the process, but in our discussion on the work programme we will have to agree whether we have the ability to discuss the subject fully.

I have a procedural reservation about that. If we decide now that we have neither the remit nor the back-up to pursue the matter, which would be more appropriately dealt with in another committee, that decision is on the record. The petitioner will know what we have decided. If we make the decision when we are discussing our work programme confidentially, there will be nothing on the record to show the petitioner the reason for our decision, which would be unfortunate.

We would record any decision taking during discussion of our work programme and relay that back to the petitioner in full.

The rationale behind the decision and the discussion about it would not be on the record, however. That is a procedural matter that I am becoming increasingly aware of as people have raised questions with me about why committees do certain things but not others. Those decisions are being lost in the discussions that take place during the confidential parts of agendas. In this case, I sense that there is a view that this might not be the right committee—at least at this stage—to pursue the matter. If that is the committee's decision, we should put that on the record. If we decide that we are going to conduct a major investigation, that also should be on the record.

I feel that the Transport and the Environment Committee is the right committee, but I am concerned about the depth of investigation of the matter. A number of members have raised questions, which we will put into the system to await responses. This is a big issue that covers a range of problems and on which various pressures are exerted. If we go further into the matter we must, during our work programme discussions, allocate time to it. The question is not whether this is the right committee, but how deeply we investigate the matter. The depth of any investigation will rely on private discussions.

I am a wee bit concerned that we will bat the matter back and forward between this committee and the Rural Affairs Committee. If we decide that we are going to do something—and this is an important issue—we must ensure that there are clear lines of communication. We must also be very clear that what we do is different from what the Rural Affairs Committee does. I notice from the background report that the Rural Affairs Committee is currently awaiting information from the Scottish Executive. I am not sure how, if the Rural Affairs Committee cannot proceed, we would proceed without that information.

I would like to come back to how the matter will link with the progress of the proposed organic food and farming targets bill. Would it be better to do the research before or after the bill has been introduced? My view is that it would be nice to have some of the spadework done before the bill goes to stage 1, so it may be worth while asking the Rural Affairs Committee whether we could deal with a specific part of the research.

A number of members have raised specific issues, which we will pursue. When we discuss the work programme, we will discuss what a fuller investigation would entail. Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

I refer members to petition PE117 from Mr Alexander Donald. The petition calls for the Scottish Parliament to produce a new film on ice-cream van safety. It also asks that ice-cream vans be allowed to use their hazard warning lights and that a safe speed limit of 5 to 10 mph when passing ice-cream vans is ensured. The petition is accompanied by additional information and material that has been provided by the petitioner, who has campaigned on the issue for a number of years.

I also refer members to the covering note on the petition. That note contains extracts from the Official Report of a meeting of the Public Petitions Committee that was addressed by the petitioner. In referring the petition to us, the Public Petitions Committee recommends that we should consider seeking the views of the Executive on the matters that have been raised by the petitioner. It has been suggested that we inquire about the possibility of the petitioner's proposal being incorporated into any future road safety campaigns. I ask members for their views and comments on the petition.

I met Mr Donald when he visited Parliament and he went over some of what happened in the Public Petitions Committee. I was quite shocked by some of his evidence. Having read what the Public Petitions Committee suggests, I think that its advice is eminently sensible. We should inquire about future road safety campaigns and we should write to the Executive to seek its view.

I am supportive of that position. I, too, met Mr Donald. If members have read the documentation, they will have noted that he mentioned being arrested at Victoria Quay. I met him on the day that that happened and attempted to intervene.

Did you nearly get arrested?

No, I did not nearly get arrested, I was being conciliatory.

That incident showed that this man is extremely sincere in his beliefs. He has campaigned on this issue over many years and his primary aim is to ensure that the Executive takes seriously the concerns about road safety. He has suggested some ways forward. This matter was fully aired at the Public Petitions Committee and the suggestion that we ask the Executive to incorporate some of those ideas into future campaigns is a way forward that Mr Donald would be relatively happy with.

I noted the point that Mr Donald raised about school buses being permitted to use hazard warning lights. It seems eminently sensible that ice-cream vans should be permitted to do the same. Should we ask the Executive whether it is within its competence to do that and whether it intends to take the matter forward?

We should raise all the issues. We should forward petition PE177 in its entirety and seek a response from the Executive on the issues raised by Mr Donald. Are members happy that we should raise the issues noted by the petitioner with the Executive and seek a response from it?

Members indicated agreement.

The final petition is PE132, from Mr D W R Whittet. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation streamlining the planning system and to change other aspects of the planning system and associated procedures. It is accompanied by committee covering note TE/00/13/8, which contains an extract from the Official Report of the Public Petitions Committee meeting that the petitioner addressed. The petition was passed to this committee with the suggestion that we could consult the Local Government Committee on issues related to council operations.

Members may want to be aware that we all have the opportunity to consider the issues relating to the planning system in the context of the Executive's forthcoming consultation on the revision of national planning policy guideline 1. A letter from the Executive on the process is attached to the covering note. The matter will come up for further discussion, especially in this committee.

I sat down to read the documents yesterday evening. In the copy that I have received—Des McNulty is in the same position—only every other page has been copied. Therefore, I do not have the full documentation. It would be more appropriate to continue this discussion at a future meeting, when we have all been able to read the paperwork. If one loses half the content, one loses the thread of the argument.

Will we defer discussion on this item to the next meeting?

Members indicated agreement.