Public Petitions Committee, 27 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 27, 2001

Official Report 229KB pdf

---

New Petitions

The first new petition is from Mr Lawrence Fitzpatrick on behalf of Scotland Opposing Opencast. The petition calls on the Parliament to take various steps to protect local communities and the environment from the adverse effects of opencast coal mining in Scotland. Mr Fitzpatrick is here this morning.

We usually give petitioners three minutes to address the committee, after which members ask questions. After two and a half minutes, I will indicate that you have 30 seconds left.

I will start by declaring that I am an elected member of West Lothian Council. However, I have no remit on planning, as I am not on any of those committees. I would like to thank the Public Petitions Committee for hearing this petition and offering me the opportunity to give evidence.

There are three essential components to this petition. First, the Lothian joint structure plan introduces wide search areas. We consider that the modifications to the plan will have serious disadvantageous impacts on local communities, on planning authorities and on inward investment. We are puzzled as to how the Scottish Executive decided on those search areas and we wonder whether any environmental assessments were carried out. We believe that if the modifications are approved, that will indicate that the Scottish Executive gives greater emphasis to an industrial lobby than to democratically elected local authorities.

Our second concern is the failure of national planning policy guideline 16 to provide adequate protection to the environment and to local communities. NPPGs are statements of Government policy on nationally important land use and other issues. This is the central issue of the petition. NPPG 16 is littered with vagueness—such as the phrase "demonstrable harm"—and is full of caveats. In our petition, we have indicated some of the serious weaknesses in the guideline—weaknesses that have been exploited by the opencast industry, as has been evidenced by the rising output and consented tonnage from Scottish opencast fields.

Thirdly, we ask the committee to consider paragraph 59 of NPPG 16. We recommend that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament consider whether to empower planning authorities to charge fees, especially to cover the cost of monitoring and enforcing mineral permissions. Without that safeguard, we believe that the opencast industry will continue to fail to pay adequate regard to existing planning advice notes and other controls. We consider that the existing guidelines in Scotland fail to take properly into consideration the legitimate health concerns of local communities.

Although we recognise that the Scottish Executive has yet to respond to responses to its 2000 consultation paper "Surface Mineral Workings and Dust" it is clear that its approach has major shortcomings when considering the understandable concerns of communities. To the people who have authored NPPG 16 or those who have decided on the search areas for opencast, I ask this question: have you ever handled a mineral planning application? In our view, those people lack professionalism and have not had adequate input from seasoned mineral planners.

We request that these matters be put to the Parliament's Transport and the Environment Committee and that a short-term working group be set up. That group should comprise the chief planners from affected Scottish local authorities and engage in meaningful participation with concerned bodies.

We regret that planning guidelines in Scotland since 1997 have developed to provide an even greater presumption in favour of opencast. We consider it the duty of this Parliament—the Parliament of the people of Scotland—to institute a clear presumption against.

Thank you—that was clear and concise.

Before I open the meeting up for questions, I welcome Dorothy-Grace Elder. We will have to do something about the trains from Glasgow, because they never get you here in time.

I have yet another environmental problem with my local toxic dump.

Do members have any questions for Mr Fitzpatrick?

You have helpfully provided a list for us, Mr Fitzpatrick.

I am sorry, but I am having difficulty hearing.

I am sorry—I will speak up.

In the list of concerns that you have provided, you talk about the replacement, in NPPG 16, of the proposal that mineral extractions

"should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances"

with the idea that they

"are likely to be unacceptable".

Do you know why that change was made? It takes away protection from local communities.

I could only guess, Dr Ewing. I was not the author of the changes or the co-ordinator of all the comments that led to the changes. However, from my experience of consulting on documents on this issue, somewhere along the line, someone draws a line. Someone has decided on this change. As to the reason for it, I can only presume that it demonstrates the power of lobbyists.

Do you know of any specific case where permission has been given under the new wording—"likely to be unacceptable"? Is there an example of opencast mining that would not have satisfied the previous test but satisfies the new test?

It is difficult to say that a decision on opencast has been given on that one particular point. It is the duty of the planning authority and, subsequently, an inquiry reporter, to consider a whole host of evidence. However, planning policy guidelines such as NPPG 16 have a significant effect on the planning officers who write the paper and on the inquiry reporter who gives the decision.

Are you saying that there is now, in effect, a presumption in favour of opencast where before there was not?

There is a much greater presumption in favour of opencast. In the past few years, there has been a great weakening of the position. It is clear that the planning guidelines and the protection of the environment are much tougher in England than in Scotland. That is why opencast operators are concentrating on Scotland so much—as has been evidenced by the massively increased tonnage that has been approved. Those are coal banks that opencast companies build up so that they can exploit them in future years.

Why might they do that?

Politics.

Politics and profits.

Have you had any evidence, facts or assistance from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency?

I have had dealings with SEPA in the past, but the main source of enforcement is through the local planning authorities. They are cash-strapped. There is no additional money for the enforcement measures and monitoring that are required. If it is a planning condition that blasting cannot take place on a Saturday and Sunday and blasting does take place, there is no money to ensure that communities are protected. No one is paid to be on the spot to check.

Some opencast developments, such as one that I have seen in Lanarkshire, are extremely close to housing. Do you know how close they generally are to housing?

It would be wrong to give a general answer, but I remember seeing one in the Morningside area in North Lanarkshire. Huge mounds are formed from earth and stone that is scraped away from mother earth to allow access to coal seams. Although the opencast may be 400m or 500m from someone's back garden, by the time those mounds are piled up they are huge. People look right into them when they get out of bed in the morning. They are very close. Ones that I have seen seemed to be within 100m or so.

But in official terms, even 400m to 500m away is close, because of dust blowing around and so on. Do you have any public health evidence about dust inhalation?

A welter of evidence on the effects on health was given at the Blackridge opencast inquiry and at the one at Greengairs two or three years ago. The problem is that a lot of emphasis has been given to the Newcastle study, which considered the effect of opencast dust on the health of children. It ignored people with cardiorespiratory diseases, the elderly and the stress effects. Opencast often occurs in former mining areas, where there is a large number of elderly people and a high incidence of respiratory and cardiorespiratory problems.

Are those applications the subject of environmental impact assessments? You hinted in your presentation that they are not—I find that hard to believe.

The applications are normally accompanied by an environmental impact assessment which, in my experience, is not very good. In the case of Harthill, when the question of birds was being considered, the so-called expert had walked over the field on certain days and had seen a blackbird, two robins and a crow. We brought in a local ornithologist who, as he was a hawker, had over the years noted in his book the number of hawks and red-listed birds that had the site as their habitat.

I have never placed much credence in the ability of environmental impact assessment studies to establish what is growing and what mammals and birds there are. One such study was carried out in November. I do not know how you can tell in November what grows on the site. The Lothians—especially East Lothian and West Lothian—have been targeted as suitable for opencast, but we do not think that any environmental assessment has been carried out in advance of that.

We are individuals who care about Scotland and its environment. There are declining mammal and bird populations everywhere. For example, the water vole is becoming scarce. We have had to help local communities at inquiry reporter stage. We walk in and there is a £300,000 team in front of the local community. That £300,000 team consists of Queen's counsels from the planning circuits and top experts from here and there. There is a beautiful, glossy report that takes many hours of reading for local people such as Bill Allison from Blackridge, who spends night after night going through it to find errors and things that he can concentrate on. Local people have to pick up the cost of photocopying, postage and so on.

We have the European convention on human rights, but where is the equality of arms? What chance do small, usually poor, former mining communities have when they take on such a team? The system is geared against such communities. If a person was accused of a serious offence and was being prosecuted by a top QC, the state would tell them they were entitled to representation.

I have dealt with people who have had sleepless nights and have lost a lot of money in trying to fight proposals. There is an unequal balance. The whole game is about money and getting tonnage. Scotland does not need the coal. We have overcapacity in energy, but due to commercial interests, companies are pursuing opencast. The coal reserves stretch from East Lothian to the west coast and down to Ayrshire, parts of the Borders, and Dumfries and Galloway. They stretch up through Stirlingshire, out into Fife and Clackmannanshire, and even up into parts of Perthshire. One only needs to see an opencast site to understand the Flower commission in 1980, when it said that this is the most destructive environmental process in the United Kingdom. It has got worse since then.

Appendix A of your petition, which refers to paragraph 66 of the NPPG, says:

"This now permits—

it is clearly another of the changes that have gone against the interests of communities—

an application to be resubmitted 2 years after a previous application had been refused on appeal even when there is no material change in the circumstances. It follows that communities have no protection from having to oppose repeated inappropriate applications".

That seems unjust. You have explained how difficult it is when a decision is reached and two years later they come and do it all again, with the QCs there again.

There was a major opencast inquiry at the Wester Torrance farm at Harthill. The inquiry reporter and the minister found against the opencast application. We have to go through the whole process again in April or May, albeit on a technical appeal about what certain words mean. It is the same huge team, with the QC, against the community.

I am interested in the difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Is the difference largely a result of the fact that the available coal reserves are mainly located in Scotland, or there are different planning regimes north and south of the border?

There is a totally different planning regime south of the border. It is much tougher on mineral workings. I have here the industry's own magazine—I am happy to leave it with you. There are two articles in it that more or less say that the future for opencast is in Scotland, because the planning regime is much easier.

That interests me, because you refer in your petition to the Labour party's 10-point plan before the most recent general election. That presumably was a UK-wide plan, which appears to have been interpreted differently in the Scottish end of the Labour Government—if I can put it that way. You describe the Scottish Office consultation document, the draft planning policy guideline and NPPG 16. Scotland has interpreted the 10-point plan differently from the rest of the UK.

Obviously, there has been much greater emphasis in England and Wales on environmental protection and a whole raft of other issues than there has been in Scotland.

If there are no further questions, we will move to our discussion of the petition. Thank you, Mr Fitzpatrick. If you have any further documentation I would be pleased if you would leave it with the clerks and we will ensure that members have access to it.

Thank you, convener. I leave with you the document for the clerks and the additional petitions from Ayrshire, Clackmannanshire and so on.

Thank you.

It is made clear in the suggested action that it would be inappropriate, not only for the committee but for the Parliament, to interfere in the proposed modifications to the Lothian joint structure plan, which is a statutory process in which the Parliament has no remit to intervene. It is for the Scottish Executive to make any amendments to planning guidelines. However, we could agree to seek a response from the Executive on the issues raised in the petition, especially in relation to the changes in NPPG 16 that have been highlighted by Mr Fitzpatrick this morning and which he claims will be detrimental to the protection of rural communities and the environment. In light of the response from the Executive, we could reconsider the petition. At this stage we can send the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee for its information. We will decide what to do once we get the Executive's response.

I would like the Public Petitions Committee to visit two opencast sites to see them with its own eyes. That should not be too difficult, as they are not far away.

The problem is that if we send the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, it would be for it to make such a visit; that is within its remit rather than ours.

I do not know whether I accept that. It would be better if, before we send the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, we were armed with information about what we want to say about the guidelines. We can ask the Executive to change the guidelines. I am especially concerned about paragraph 66 of NPPG 16. I think that there is a legal problem. We could ask the Justice 1 Committee to consider that paragraph.

We should get the Executive's response first. It will have to respond in detail to all the points in the petition, including the points about paragraph 66. When we get the Executive's response, we may decide that it is worth our while making a visit, but I am wary of jumping into the remits of other committees; they resent our getting involved in their areas.

I agree with you, convener: a site visit is within the remit of the Transport and the Environment Committee. Would you go so far—when we get to that stage—as to recommend that that committee make a site visit? It is necessary to see it to believe it. Parts of Scotland are beginning to look like the ravaged valleys of Poland and Russia, where opencast and similar things are allowed willy-nilly. One wonders why we are importing Polish coal. Where is all the coal that is being extracted going? At the least, this seems to be a dilution of local democracy. I am quite alarmed by the changes to the planning guidelines. Could you emphasise that point in your letter, convener?

Certainly.

In addition to the petition and the supporting documentation, we should send the Executive a copy of the discussion that we are having to draw its attention to the fact that the committee believes that Parliament should be making a site visit, whichever committee of the Parliament eventually does it, and that we believe that the petition raises serious concerns that must be answered by the Executive. We can consider what further action we might take once we get the Executive's response.

When we write to the Executive, could we ask it to address community consultation, which is a huge issue? As has been said, the community has the resources only of the people who are there. Elderly people, who may be retired, often take on a lot of the work in campaigning on behalf of the community—writing letters and so on. I know of cases where elderly people's health has suffered. They are up against people with money and back-up. Small groups of people are trying to fight campaigns. We must consider how we can help communities to stand up for themselves; we must give them a voice and allow it to be heard.

There will be no problem with that. The Executive is forever claiming that it is in favour of community empowerment. If it is, it must empower communities to take on big companies that try to overrun what the community stands for. We will draw the Executive's attention to that in the letter.

Is not this the dichotomy that the Government faces? There is a marked policy movement towards more mining of coal and this change is the consequence of that policy movement. This might be the unacceptable face of that movement, but it is a consequence of the Government's policy of trying to use more coal and less gas. Coal is perhaps more easily accessible in Scotland because of the interpretation of NPPGs here. This is a consequence of Government policy and it is a matter for the Executive, or perhaps the national Government, to address.

I accept that, but from the evidence that we received this morning it would appear that the regime south of the border is much stricter than the one north of the border. That glaring inconsistency needs to be explained. If Scotland is different, the Executive will have to make a case for the difference; if it has not made the case, Parliament will have to do something about it.

It is ironic, given that the deep mines were closed and the miners were treated very badly, that a few years later opencast is exploding all over the place.

When we pass the petition to the Executive and ask it to respond, we will draw its attention to all the factors: community empowerment; the differences between the planning regimes in Scotland and England; and the need for the Parliament to inform itself through a site visit. We will ask the Executive to respond in detail to all the points in the petition and those made by the petitioner when he addressed the committee this morning.

Convener, in your letter can you make the point about communities being legally disadvantaged when they face one of these inquiries and that they may have to face an inquiry every two years?

Yes. That is a very good point.

It would be fair to say that that is a general point when anyone is objecting to a business development. I would have to declare an interest, but we were in a similar situation in relation to electricity transmission in south-west Scotland.

I have been reminded that, as a result of petitions that were previously presented to this committee, the Transport and the Environment Committee is currently examining changing the law to allow third party rights of appeal against planning decisions, which would empower local communities to appeal against a decision to allow these projects to go ahead.

But that would not give people any assistance.

It would not give them assistance, but it would give them a power that they do not currently have.

The petitioner has raised a big issue. We have known for years about the enormous stress that people are put under in these situations. I remember Robert Kemp, the novelist, fighting the inner ring road proposals in Edinburgh. The poor man died within a year or so of it. People's lives are wrecked through trying to fight city hall.

Can we take the stress issue up separately? We touch on it in our discussions on almost every petition.

Let us see what kind of response we get from the Executive. We will consider the petition further when the Executive responds and decide then what to do. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We will move on to the next petition, PE350, from Mr Mike Sutherland. Jamie Stone indicated that he might attend the committee to support the petition, but he is not here so we will go ahead and consider it.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to ensure that implementation of special area of conservation status in the Moray firth will not compromise the livelihoods of people who use the firth by restricting their fishing methods. The arguments are set out in the petition.

The notes on our suggested action point out that interfering in the designation of individual SACs is not within our remit. We will deal with information on the designation of SACs in response to petition PE246, in connection with which we received an answer from the Scottish Executive. We could send that answer to the petitioners and take no further action because, as is pointed out in the Scottish Executive's response, socio-economic factors cannot be raised on SAC designations; they can be considered only after the designation has been awarded.

There is not much we can do about the petition other than tell the petitioners about the situation, give them the Scottish Executive's response and suggest that they approach the Executive directly so that it can consider the issues that are raised in the petition if the area is designated as an SAC. We should also suggest that the petitioners contact the management group that was set up following a previous SAC designation in the area. It includes representatives from Scottish Natural Heritage, fishermen, local authorities and port authorities.

I spoke to SNH about the management group. SNH seems to be keen to work with the fishermen and not cause them hardship. Would it be worthwhile writing to SNH to say that we have received this petition? It might meet the fishermen to allay some of their fears and work with them to find ways round this. It would be helpful to set up a line of communication with the fishermen.

We are already writing to the petitioners to suggest that they contact the management group, which includes SNH, but there would be no harm in writing to SNH to draw its attention to the fact that fishermen have petitioned us about this matter.

Are the fishermen from Avoch? Is Mr Sutherland not here?

He is from Tain.

The fishermen from Avoch are also concerned.

A lot of fishermen are concerned. If two groups work together, it may make a difference.

I am concerned that the interpretation that Sam Galbraith, in his reply on the other petition, is putting on the European judgment that has been handed down is that there is no right of appeal. It appears that no one can challenge the designation. I do not accept that that is the case or should be the case. If it is the case, it is creeping European domination. People object to it everywhere, daily. I do not think that it is to be encouraged. How we change it I do not know, but I find it hard to believe that there is no right of appeal, which is essentially what Sam Galbraith's letter says.

The letter does not necessarily say that there is no right of appeal. It says that, when a decision is made on whether to designate an area as an SAC, only scientific factors can be taken into account. Non-scientific factors are not allowed to influence the decision. Any economic, social or cultural factors have to be considered subsequent to the designation of an area by the Government.

By that time, the designation is de facto and the damage is done to the socio-economic conditions.

Unfortunately, the decision of the European Court of Justice seems to confirm that that is the case.

I accept that, but I cannot say that it cheers me up.

It does not cheer me up. I do not think that the committee can change that at the moment.

We should say to Mr Sutherland that nothing can be done at this stage because of the way in which the European system works, but suggest that he contact the Scottish Executive and the management group. We should write to SNH and ask that it contact the Scottish Executive and the management group to ensure that, if anything can be done, it is done.

Could not we ask the European Community to examine whether the lack of an appeals procedure fits with the European convention on human rights?

That has already been investigated.

Can we wait until we get to the response to petition PE246 to deal with that? With petition PE350, we are not really dealing with Sam Galbraith's letter. We will talk about the letter when we come to it.

Do members agree to the action for petition PE350?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes, but I agree with John Scott that it is unsatisfactory.

The next petition is PE347 from Mr Kenneth Mitchell. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the practice of couping Clydesdale horses and to introduce legislation to make such a style of shoeing illegal unless it is sanctioned for medical reasons by a veterinary surgeon.

The petition points out that the couping of Clydesdale horses is usually practised for shows. It involves the use of shoes that exaggerate the Clydesdale's naturally close-hocked, toe-out stance, which is considered a desirable feature in the show ring. A series of diagrams, which tries to illustrate exactly what couping does, is attached to the petition.

The petitioner also points out that, although couping is sometimes used to correct foot abnormalities, in the majority of cases it actually causes abnormalities, including, in the short term, lameness, interference injuries and puncture wounds and in the long term, degenerative joint diseases.

The petition has a wide range of support from the World Association for Transport Animal Welfare and Studies, the Laminitis Clinic, professors in veterinary science, various farriers, the British Horse Society, the British Equine Veterinary Association, the International League for the Protection of Horses and various veterinary surgeons. Dr Sylvia Jackson and Nick Johnston have lodged motions in the Parliament in support of the petitioner.

It is suggested that, as a first stage, we seek the Scottish Executive's views on the animal welfare issues that the practice raises, along with the views of the Clydesdale Horse Society, which represents owners and breeders of Clydesdale horses. Once we have those responses, we can consider what to do with the petition.

Do members have any other suggestions?

I would be interested to know how long coup shoes are worn for. A great number of practices in showing animals are temporary and do not make the animals suffer in any way.

It is also sensible to record that the people who own Clydesdale horses own them, by and large, as a hobby and not for any commercial reasons. The last thing that they want to do is to hurt or damage the animals. I know that for a fact.

I do not accept the premise of the petition at all.

That is the reason for asking the Clydesdale Horse Society to respond.

Its views should have been sought already.

I find the petition uplifting. It gives me a wee bit of faith in human nature that somebody has cared so much to put so much work into all the beautiful diagrams. Having grown up among Clydesdales and having had to hold their feet while blacksmiths shod them—an easy job, because Clydesdales are so nice and gracious and do not normally kick—I would say that we should pass it on to the cross-party animal welfare group as well as go down the other avenues that the convener has suggested.

The practice of couping is concerning. John Scott asked whether the shoes are fitted temporarily for shows. We do not know. Clydesdale horses are used worldwide—they can be seen pulling drays in Florida. They are a wonderful symbol of Scotland. If couping harms their feet, we must do something about it.

Couping harms more than their feet; it harms their stance. Dr Sylvia Jackson spoke to me at great length about it when she lodged her motion. She has loads of information; it might be worth asking her for it. The people with whom she was dealing were not animal welfare groups as such—if that is a concern for John Scott—but people, such as farriers, who deal with horses and know the effect of the work that they are being asked to carry out. We need to treat the petition seriously. Couping is a big problem.

I accept what Rhoda Grant said, but we must remember that the point of showing the animals is historical and that they are working animals. The way a horse works is to pull things. It cannot do anything other than pull.

Consider the diagrams. The shoes are there to coup the horse. If the straight up-and-down structure of the horse's legs is put under pressure—this is simple engineering—the legs go out. That damages the joints in the legs. If the legs have a natural tilt in, that compensates for the legs going out and allows the animal to pull more strongly. That is why an animal that was naturally tight hocked looked a better bet as a working horse 100 years ago and why couping has become a show point.

I can accept that there is no need for couping these days. Nonetheless, the breed characteristics that made Clydesdales important are still there. If coup shoes are being worn only for temporary, showing purposes, I cannot see that it makes any difference at all to the animal.

For example, do any of the ladies here wear high-heeled shoes?

Often.

Indeed. You do not wear them all the time and you will be well aware that they do you damage, but you still wear them. We should keep a sense of proportion.

High-heeled shoes have ruined my feet.

The difference is that we do it through choice; the horse does not.

We choose to be vain and stupid.

We are anticipating the arguments that we may hear in responses from the Scottish Executive and the Clydesdale Horse Society.

It has been suggested that we contact the cross-party animal welfare group to ask whether it has any comments on the petition and that we contact Dr Sylvia Jackson, who apparently has a lot of information on couping.

As one who goes to dozens of shows in the summer and sees the beautiful creatures, I just want to say that they are beautiful anyway. We do not need to worry too much whether the horses' feet point one way or another, because they are all beautifully decorated and there is plenty to look at.

Oh! We used to have to braid their manes.

We will no doubt return to this debate when we get the responses.

It was not in the least cruel. The horses were quite proud when their manes were being braided.

If we agree to the action, we can move on to the next petition.

Members indicated agreement.

PE348 from Mr James A Grant calls for the Parliament to implement a pilot study of the manner and methods of psychiatric care and treatment in the national health service in Aberdeen during the past 25 years.

The petitioner makes a number of recommendations relating to the Millan committee report on the review of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. He suggests that Parliament might be able to make a better-informed response to the report if it was aware of the experiences of patients and carers under the present legislation. To facilitate that, there should be a study of the methods of psychiatric care and treatment in the national health service in Aberdeen during the past 25 years. Through the care of his daughter, Mr Grant has long experience of the service in Aberdeen.

The Millan committee presented its review of the legislation to the Scottish Executive in January this year. In the report, the Millan committee recommended a new mental health act to replace the 1984 act. It is suggested that it would not be appropriate for the Parliament to conduct the study that the petitioner requests, because the Millan committee report was presented to the Executive, not the Parliament. It is not for the Parliament to consider the report yet, so it is recommended that we suggest to the petitioner that it would be more appropriate for him to direct his request to the Executive, to be taken into account as part of its response to the Millan committee report. Should the Executive accept the Millan report's recommendation that the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 should be replaced, the Parliament would scrutinise any new bill on mental health.

It is suggested that no further action should be taken, other than to inform the petitioner of the best way of pursuing his case for a private study. The Parliament would come into play once any new mental health act had been proposed. At that time, Mr Grant's information will become relevant.

I suggest that we copy the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee for information, so that it knows about those views when a new mental health bill is presented to it. That would allow that committee to contact Mr Grant for further information if necessary.

We will send a copy to the Health and Community Care Committee for its information and suggest that that committee consider the petition when it receives any new mental health legislation. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE349 from Mr Thomas Stevenson has more than 2,200 signatures. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to conduct an urgent investigation into the reasons why cancer rates are statistically higher in East Lothian than they are elsewhere in the Lothian Health board area. The petitioners provide alleged evidence from Dr Van Steenis, who suggests that East Lothian's location in relation to Grangemouth oil refinery and past environmental pollution raise valid concerns.

The petitioners allege that other factors such as the chemical incinerator at a research station near Tranent and the reputed deal between Blue Circle Cement and Michelin to burn tyres in cement kilns add to the increased pollution. They are unhappy with Lothian Health's claim that the increase is due to diet, smoking, lack of exercise, deprivation and the fact that East Lothian has an older population. The petitioners do not think that those factors are significant enough to explain the increased number of cancer cases and they are unhappy with East Lothian Council's response of buying a computer to monitor pollutants, which the petitioners describe as a waste of money. They say that the money would be better spent on testing soil and attic dust in older houses.

It is suggested that, as a first step, we should seek the comments of East Lothian Council and Lothian Health, before responding to the petitioners. John Home Robertson, the local member of the Scottish Parliament, contacted the clerk to say that an East Lothian environmental group had approached him about the problem. That group wrote to him, other MSPs and the health board, and John Home Robertson has taken up the issue. As members may have noticed, yesterday's front page of The Scotsman was taken up with the issue. It called the area around Grangemouth Scotland's corridor of death. The issues are serious enough for us to seek the responses of East Lothian Council and Lothian Health before further considering the petition. Is there anyone else to whom we should talk?

We should talk to the nuclear authority. I notice that the petitioners do not mention Torness. It is unfair to single out one cause at this early stage, but while concentration is on Grangemouth and other factors, the gigantic plant at Torness might make us want to call in its authorities to give evidence.

The convener said that an environmental group had been in touch with John Home Robertson on the issue. Might it be worth our contacting that group for information? It may have information that the petitioners do not have.

We could try to contact that group through John Home Robertson.

We could also ask for a view from the National Radiological Protection Board, because there is a great number of power lines in the areas that are involved. Given the recent study and Sir Richard Doll's change in position, I suggest that it might be worth seeking the board's views, to find out whether they have changed.

Why does the background to the petition say that the petitioners provide "alleged evidence"? Have we some reason for suspecting the evidence? Is it different from other evidence that we receive from other petitioners?

The evidence is the petitioners' claim. We cannot accept it as evidence until we hear the other side of the argument. We are not saying that there is anything wrong with the evidence. We are simply saying that, at this stage, we are not in a position to make a judgment on the evidence.

But we accept evidence or views at face value from everyone else.

The wording is cautionary. It makes no judgment on the evidence. Until we have heard both sides of the argument, we are not coming down one way or the other.

We will seek responses from the NRPB, the East Lothian environmental group, whoever is responsible for Torness—I cannot remember whether it is British Nuclear Fuels or another body—and the Scottish Executive, because it has an interest in the issue. We have already said that we will contact Lothian Health and East Lothian Council.

You said that Blue Circle Cement and Michelin might be burning tyres. It might be politic to ask for their views too. I read somewhere that burning tyres can cause increases in dioxins.

The petitioners refer to the reputed deal between Blue Circle Cement and Michelin, but we do not have evidence of that.

Over the years, there has been a regular story about tyre burning in East Lothian causing a problem. This is not a one-off reference.

The council has a responsibility in relation to such deals, so we will ask it to comment. We will gather all the information then decide how to respond to it. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.