Official Report 299KB pdf
Scottish Airports (Access to Public Roads) (PE528)
Agenda item 3 is current petitions. We will deal first with the ninth such petition, because we agreed an 11.30 slot for the minister to speak to the committee.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the petition with the committee. I understand that the provision of substantive responses to the committee has been delayed. The delays have been regrettable and I apologise to the committee for them. Members may have been given the impression that the Executive was being unhelpful about keeping the committee advised of the action that was being taken, but—as is often the case in relation to such issues—the delays in responding were not intentional. They were due to the nature of the issue, which is technically and legally complex.
Thank you.
Most of the minister's comments were about the byelaws but, as far as I can see, the byelaws are totally irrelevant to the petition. Airports have special development rights, which I presume are built into the act that the minister mentioned.
Glasgow airport is important to the development of the whole of the city and the whole of the west of Scotland. As was referred to in the aviation white paper, there are plans for significant growth. We plan to invest a very significant sum of money in a Glasgow airport rail link and BAA is co-operating with us on that. Strathclyde Passenger Transport is in the lead and a consultation is under way on the exact route and the exact technical and engineering specifications for the link. We believe that we can get it in place quickly. Of the major public transport projects that we are investing in, the rail link will be one of the first to be ready to open.
I thank the minister for sticking to the issues that are raised in PE528. We are here to discuss not transport policy but a request from a petitioner on whether the minister can take forward an issue that relates to airport car parking. We must remember to be specific in our questioning.
I went round the houses on the issue because the petitioners asked us to ensure that they have a place where they can park their buses and pick up passengers at Glasgow airport. The minister referred to park and ride, yet that is often the service that is offered by those operators. From my reading of the petition, I am concerned that BAA does not provide facilities for buses to stop and pick up passengers. I may have got that wrong, but that is my interpretation of what the petitioners asked us to do.
PE528 calls for an inquiry into how such situations are operated. Although that gives us a bit of latitude, the petition specifically relates to the provision of car parking by car park operators either on site at the airports or off site in adjacent areas. We must be clear on the issue: we are discussing not wider transport policy areas such as how people get to an airport, but what happens when people get to an airport and who provides airport car parking facilities.
If we look at the issue in those terms, it is clear that BAA can do whatever it likes at its airports; there are no ministerial controls over whether other companies can operate on BAA land. What is the benefit of the Parliament debating or examining the issue further?
To be fair to BAA and, indeed, to the petitioner, reference has been made to other airports that BAA does not own. Glasgow Prestwick airport was mentioned, for example—Phil Gallie knows directly about the issues there.
My remarks would be the same in relation to Prestwick.
There will always be a difference of view between the airport operators and the people who seek to bring people to the airports or who seek to do work associated with the airports, as the operators of off-site car parks do. Inevitably, those people have to enter into commercial arrangements with the airport operator.
I think that Phil Gallie understands that.
I will go on to specifics and perhaps pick you up on the issue of the Transport (Scotland) Bill and what can be done through that. You mentioned in your opening remarks that amendments and modifications had been made to the draft byelaws. Can you enlighten us as to what they are? Will the byelaws enable Glasgow airport to deny operators access to airport roads? You said that you had no control over the passing of the byelaws, which will come into effect in June. What modifications were made to the draft byelaws and will Glasgow airport be able to deny access to airport roads or charge for access to the public parts of the airport?
I am pleased that Sandra White has raised the issue of the byelaws. I talked about the tension that can exist between the operators of an airport and those who make commercial use of its facilities. One aspect of that to which I did not refer is the important role of the operator in ensuring that there are good-quality passenger facilities at the airport and that there is investment in public transport links, such as the new airport rail links that we propose to establish for both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. The plane operators that use the airside facilities make a contribution to future investment in our airports and, indirectly, to the new drive that we all support for better public transport access to our airports. A central part of ministers' scrutiny of the byelaws is that we ensure that the byelaws are in place for the reasons that I have just described—to ensure that the airport is well managed, safe and appropriately developed—rather than to impose any unfair duties or burdens on the commercial companies that enter into contracts with BAA and others.
Two principal modifications were made to definitions to ensure that the operation of the byelaws was as tight as possible. First, the definition of airport was modified to pick up a definition that is contained in the Airports Act 1986 and the Civil Aviation Act 1982, in order to ensure that the operation of the byelaws was restricted to the land, building and works of the aerodrome and not to anything that might be connected to its operation. The second modification was to the definition of private hire car, in order to be consistent with other definitions in the byelaws and with the definition of taxi in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
What about the question of restricting or charging for access to particular roads?
The proposed byelaws do not make any amendments to the existing byelaws in that respect. Under byelaw 3/27, anyone who operates a private hire car needs an authorisation from the airport. However, BAA is already using that byelaw. In confirming the byelaws, we felt that such an approach was entirely reasonable; anyone can apply for an authorisation and the byelaws do not say that any charge can or must be imposed for such an application.
So no charges can be imposed under those byelaws.
That is correct.
Charges might be imposed as a result of a commercial negotiation between the airport operator and the taxi or private hire company. However, I believe that the byelaws that we are considering today do not affect that situation or any charging or commercial arrangements with regard to buses moving to and from off-site parking. Is that correct?
That is correct.
Thank you for clarifying that point. Prestwick airport, which is not operated by BAA, is considering charging people to come into the airport. As that is a major worry with the byelaws, I am pleased to hear that there will be no charging.
The member is talking about what I understand to be a contractual arrangement that GAPA members and BAA have entered into freely. According to evidence that was given at the Enterprise and Culture Committee—by, I believe, a representative of the Scottish association—people in such situations would hope to pay less or hope for a better outcome for their organisation or association.
I point out that it was the Scottish Independent Airport Park and Ride Association that provided information to the Enterprise and Culture Committee.
I agree with the points that the minister made at the outset that the issue is enormously complex and difficult for us to get a handle on.
I agree with all your concerns. The issues are complex. I know that the airport operators would argue that the arrangements and contracts that they have in place guarantee a high level of service throughout the airport's opening hours and that they have airport taxis available at a guaranteed level, which would not necessarily be the case if matters were left to the free market. They ensure that taxis are there into the evening when there are not so many flights. It is hugely frustrating for everyone—the taxi companies concerned, the airport operator and passengers—when there is a big queue outside an airport, yet empty taxis are going back into the centre of Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen. The byelaws that we are about to approve will not tackle that situation directly but will bring in regulation of private hire cars in a way that has not happened before. I do not know whether Caroline Lyon would like to comment on the legal implications or the consequences of the byelaws.
I will press you on that point. You have opened an important door in respect of the way in which we might take the petition forward. You are right to say that the petitioner is talking about what it perceives as unfair competition, but in all the correspondence that I have had—in e-mails and other forms of communication—the service to the public has been at the heart of the matter.
I am happy to correspond with BAA and the other airport operators on the issue and to copy the responses to the Public Petitions Committee and to the Local Government and Transport Committee.
I am pleased to hear you say that that will be part of your emphasis and that you will correspond on the matter. However, given that we are approaching one of the major times of the year for tourists coming to Scotland, I ask that as well as corresponding you perhaps hold a summit meeting, because this is an urgent issue that must be addressed.
I am very conscious that the air route development fund has significantly increased the number of direct flights from Scotland and the number of people who want to come to Scotland. Many of those people are tourists, a point that is reflected in the tourism figures on people coming to Scotland, which have significantly improved over recent months. At the same time, many people come to Scotland for business purposes, and it gives completely the wrong impression of Scotland if there are lengthy queues and delays in moving from the airport to the city centre. I will discuss with officials the best way to pull together individuals from appropriate airports so that we get a meeting that is as high level as possible. I take on board Helen Eadie's suggestion.
The public perception, insofar as there is one, of airport byelaws is that they relate to safety and the security of aircraft and passengers. One of the issues that lie behind this petition is that the petitioner feels that, in this instance, BAA saw an opportunity to use byelaws to strengthen its own commercial position. Why were you persuaded that that was not the case?
I will ask Caroline Lyon to respond on that issue. However, the simple and central reason is that the relevant byelaws do not in any way affect the ability of the airport operators to charge—they do not empower charging and do not affect the level of charges. The byelaws are quite technical in nature and most of them relate to the issue of airside facilities in the more private, secure part of the airport. We have been very careful in our scrutiny of the byelaws and believe that they are fair and appropriate. They could not be used to increase or introduce charges in the way that has been suggested.
The byelaws are made under the Airports Act 1986, which provides the vires or powers for them. It is clear that the purpose of the byelaws is to regulate the use and operation of the airport and the conduct of all persons within the airport. There is an illustrative list of the type of things that may be included in the byelaws. As was said, they concern securing the safety of aircraft, controlling the operation of aircraft and preventing obstruction. There are also provisions related to the regulation of vehicular traffic.
One of the reasons that this petition is before us is to do with the petitioner's fears in that regard. However, I am grateful for the reassurance that the byelaws do not benefit BAA's commercial interests.
What do members think that we should do with the petition? The minister has given his very detailed response to the specifics in relation to the byelaws. The Enterprise and Culture Committee looked at the issue during its consideration of the Transport (Scotland) Bill that is before Parliament and stated that it was not appropriate for it to be addressed in the bill. Do members think that the Local Government and Transport Committee should consider some aspects of the issue?
I recognise the arguments on the byelaws. However, when I read the petition initially, the main problem identified by the petitioner was that Glasgow Airport Limited had reached an agreement with Flightpath NCP, which effectively took over a monopoly on off-site airport parking. It did that simply by limiting the ability of other people to pick up passengers in a reasonably convenient way from alternative off-site car parks.
I am trying to get to a point at which we can discuss what we will do with the petition.
From what I have heard, I am not sure that we have addressed the original point of the petition.
I do not know whether the Public Petitions Committee can address that; that is why I asked whether it would be appropriate for us to send the petition to a committee that can address it.
Okay.
I appreciate very much the clarification that the minister has given us this morning; it has been really helpful. I applaud the Scottish Executive for developing the air routes that we now have. It is wonderful that we have great new air routes to parts of the world that we did not have routes to before—although that is bringing its own problems.
We should send the petition to the Local Government and Transport Committee. I was pleased with what the minister said about the byelaws, because that covered the basis of the petition. I am also pleased with what he said about GAPA and the facilities that are available for £5,000. It will be up to GAPA and others to write to BAA and try to organise a forum of sorts. The Local Government and Transport Committee should consider the issue in the long term.
We could ask the Local Government and Transport Committee to consider the issues that Helen Eadie has raised. If members agree, we will—
I am sorry, convener; I will try not to divert the discussion this time. When I consider the base requirement of the petition, I feel that the Enterprise and Culture Committee should be involved. We have talked about economic development at airports. The petitioner wanted to operate off-site businesses but was prevented from doing so. I wonder whether the Enterprise and Culture Committee would take a view on that.
We could certainly send the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee for information and ask it whether it is interested enough to look into the matter.
Thank you.
Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 (PE721)
PE721, from Alan McLauchlan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to produce authoritative guidelines in relation to provisions contained in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, and to ensure that those guidelines and adequate advice on the act are available to all tenants subletting, assigning or exercising the right of other provisions contained in the act.
Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (Equine Industry Team) (PE723)
PE723, which was lodged by Muriel Colquhoun, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to appoint a dedicated equine industry team in the Environment and Rural Affairs Department, which would have responsibility for co-ordinating equine-related policy decisions.
That seems to be a good-news story. We should close the petition.
The industry seems to have made progress. Do members agree?
Rural Schools (Proposed Closures) (PE725)<br />School Closures (Revised Guidance) (PE753)
Petitions PE725 and PE753 address the same issue. PE725 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to restore the presumption against closure of rural schools and asks that any departure from the presumption in individual cases be made on the ground that the balance of educational advantage to the children has been clearly and independently demonstrated. PE725 was linked with PE753, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to reopen without delay discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on revised guidance for local authorities on proposed school closures. It also urges the Executive to introduce a presumption against the closure of rural schools and, pending the issuing of new guidance, to call in any decision to close a rural school, regardless of whether that is required under current legislation and guidance.
I have not yet seen the response from the Scottish Executive.
Do members of the committee, who have seen the response, want to open up the discussion, while we supply Christine Grahame with a copy?
I read Peter Peacock's letter, which refers to the guidance that was issued last September. I think that he says that it is for individual councils and not the Executive to make decisions and that there is no presumption in favour of closing schools or keeping them open—correct me if I am wrong.
That is my understanding of the letter, too. Although guidance is provided, the decision is for the local authority. Whether the decision is acceptable is a different matter, which we need to discuss, but the Executive is clear that, although it has issued guidance on the circumstances in which a school can be closed, it is for the local authority to make the judgment.
I hope that Christine Grahame can answer my question. I understand that currently if a local authority wants to close a rural school it must give reasons for its decision. Even if there was a presumption against the closure of rural schools, the local authority would have to justify its decision, so how would that presumption help?
I understand that, when a local authority votes for a closure, the decision must go before the minister. Given that in England there is a presumption against the closure of rural schools, I am saddened that the minister has turned his back on a matter that can have a devastating impact on small communities. The closure of a rural school can change the nature of the community in the decades that follow, by leading to further depopulation or an increasingly aging population. I have to say that I am rather saddened that we are going to remain in that position, which I believe we should change.
I am not sure, either. Our previous discussions were about who was going to go first—I think that the Executive had said that it was waiting for COSLA to make suggestions and COSLA had been in discussion with the Executive, but no one seemed to be making a move. There were petitions about that aspect of the issue. The guidance came out on 30 September 2004.
The problem, convener, is that politicians do not usually stand on a manifesto promise that says, "We're going to close your local school." That tends to be something that happens in the interim and then the school is gone and cannot be retrieved. There is a distinction between a presumption against closure and a neutral position. A presumption against closure obviously makes it far harder for a local authority to justify a closure, which is why such presumptions have been so successful. Highland Council, for instance, which has no political party in power and just works on a consensual basis, has a presumption against rural school closures. I had hoped that we had moved the argument on. I appreciate the limitations of public petitions, but I am disappointed by the minister's failure to see the wider issues for communities.
The question now becomes what the committee should do. The issue has been to the Education Committee and the Minister for Education and Young People has issued guidance as recently as September 2004. Decisions are being made, and will be made, for which local authorities will be held accountable. We must ask whether there is anything that we can still do with the petition that will change that.
I have looked through the papers and I think that the committee has done all that it can. We have received an answer that the petitioners will not like, but the decision has been taken by the Executive. I feel that the Public Petitions Committee has done as much as it can at this point.
Do members agree that we should now close the petitions, even though we may not have satisfied the petitioners?
Is it the normal practice to inform the petitioners of that decision, so that they can come back to us if they so desire?
Yes, the petitioners will receive an explanation of why the decision was made.
I thank the Public Petitions Committee for giving consideration to that serious matter, which I intend to continue to pursue.
Judicial Proceedings (PE759)
Petition PE759 is by Robbie the Pict, on behalf of the Scottish People's Mission, calling for the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that the names of judges serving on a judicial bench are displayed and that a full tape recording or shorthand record is kept of court proceedings and made available to any party involved.
Perhaps we could also write to the Lord President of the Court of Session about the response from the Law Society.
Are members happy for us to do that and to continue to pursue the issue?
Methadone Prescriptions (PE789)
Petition PE789, by Eric Brown, calls for the Scottish Parliament to take a view on the need for regulation to ensure that methadone prescriptions are taken by the patient while supervised by a suitably qualified medical practitioner.
I remember the petition because the petitioner made a strong case when he spoke to the committee. Because the responses that we have received to the questions that we asked take a different position from Mr Brown's, it may be appropriate for us to return to Mr Brown and ask him to comment on those responses.
I have nothing substantially different to say. The minister states that the decision whether consumption would be supervised
We can do both. We can ask Mr Brown for his views and we can ask the Scottish Executive about the general principle.
Campbell Martin's suggestion is sensible. I would like to hear Mr Brown's views. I am disappointed with the responses from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the BMA. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society says that supervision can create a secondary dependency and talks about take-home privileges, but the problem is that people are not getting supervision for whole weeks and months. I am disappointed with both those responses, which seem to pay lip service to supervision and do not take it seriously. They call the fact that somebody can take home methadone for a whole week an enhanced service, but I would not call it that. I agree with Campbell Martin that we should seek a response from Mr Brown.
Okay. We will write to Mr Brown and ask the Executive to answer Mike Watson's question for clarification and reassurance. Is that agreed?
Cycling (Recognition for Ian Steel) (PE797)
Petition PE797, from Neville Barrett, on behalf of the British League of Racing Cyclists Association, calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that Ian Steel receives a suitable award and public recognition.
I note the suggestion that the Scottish sports hall of fame might be an option for recognising and acknowledging the feats of Ian Steel. That could be the way forward, although I am not sure about the technicalities of how that could be achieved. The clerks might get information on the Scottish sports hall of fame and we can urge that a nomination be made.
I am told that any member of the public can submit a nomination. We can pass on to the British League of Racing Cyclists Association the address to write to. We will let the petitioner know that that course is still open to him. Is that agreed?
Angling (Border Esk Rod Licence System) (PE810)
Our final current petition this morning, PE810, by Aeneas Nicolson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to reject proposals by the United Kingdom Environment Agency to introduce a rod licence system on the Border Esk river.
Clarification has been given. Perhaps we ought to write to the petitioner to advise him of that clarification and to say that the committee can do nothing more. We should close consideration of the petition with that.
There is no doubt about what the Environment Agency can legally do, but I am still not clear about the situation. I was at the meeting when the petition was discussed and I am not clear how the Environment Agency intends to enforce the system. Will it be enforced by bailiffs whom the agency employs and who operate from south of the border, or by Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, Lothian and Borders police or whomever? Enforcement seems to be at the minister of the Crown's discretion, but I would like a little more clarification about who will enforce the system.
I am reading the responses to find out whether I can answer that. The Environment Agency states:
We can presume that it does, but will it use bailiffs who will come across the border?
That is the implication.
What court would people go to? Would they go to a court in Scotland or England? There are still questions that must be answered.
I do not know whether we must answer them.
People would have to go to court in Scotland. Any offence that is deemed to have taken place in Scotland must go to a Scottish court, but the Environment Agency would still be involved.
I will try again to clarify the situation. There is a hint in the agency's response, which states:
We should tell the petitioner that we have taken the petition as far as we can and that—perhaps regrettably from the point of view of Scottish anglers—the proposals are legal as far as we can see.
I am disappointed that we cannot do anything more. I hate always using Westminster but, as I whispered to Mike Watson, perhaps we could advise Westminster to introduce a reverse Sewel motion so that we can control the situation. The committee cannot advise, but I presume that the petitioner could contact his local representative and advise them to take the matter to Westminster to get the position overturned.
A Scottish National Party member is advocating the use of a Sewel motion, which must be a first.
I think that I have requested reverse Sewel motions four or five times.
It would not be the first time that such a motion had been used. Transport powers came to Scotland from Westminster through a Sewel motion. A precedent would therefore not be set. Such motions can be used.
We will get independence by the gradual introduction of reverse Sewel motions. However, I wonder whether we should advise the petitioner to contact his MP.
There would be no harm in doing so. When we write back to the petitioner, we could advise that other courses of action may be open to him, but that it is not in our power to deal with the issue. When I read the petition, it seemed clear to me where responsibility lay, but we could not understand why it lay there. The fact that everyone knows their responsibilities has now been made clear, but the question whether things should remain as they are must be addressed elsewhere.
There seems to be an anomaly in that the Border Esk will be the only river in Scotland for which there will be charges for rod licences—there will not be charges anywhere else.
That seemed bizarre, but it is how things are.
Meeting continued in private until 12:53.
Previous
New Petitions