Transport and the Environment Committee, 29 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 29, 2000

Official Report 130KB pdf

---

Petitions

I refer members to petition PE51, from Friends of the Earth, on the release of genetically modified crops into the environment and to the covering note, paper TE/00/6/8. Members will recall that we sought the views of the Rural Affairs Committee and the Health and Community Care Committee on the petition. The Rural Affairs Committee deferred further consideration until advice had been received from the parliamentary solicitor and until the parliamentary debate on the subject had taken place. The Health and Community Care Committee also supported the holding of a debate on the subject. As members know, that debate took place last Thursday.

We have also received a written response from the Scottish Executive; a copy of that response is attached to TE/00/6/8. The paper suggests that we

"Consider the response of the Scottish Executive and Parliamentary Committees and what further action may be required."

The only outstanding aspect is the solicitor's report that was requested by the Rural Affairs Committee. It may be appropriate to wait until that report is available. That option is open to members.

My motion, although modest—it suggested that the committees take evidence and report on the matter—was defeated in the chamber on Thursday. Does that mean that we are now prevented from taking evidence, or can we go ahead? My view is that we should, and can, go ahead but I wanted to check that that was the case.

The committee is the committee and the chamber is the chamber.

That is fine.

I notice that the petition says

"that there should be no release of GM crops into the Scottish environment".

If the test sites have been agreed and the tests are going ahead, perhaps that part of the petition no longer applies.

That was my question too, but I will broaden it a bit. The background report seems to suggest that commercial planting is much less a British matter than a European matter. If the trials have, in effect, been commissioned by the London Government, what is our role? It is not clear whether we have any powers in terms of the petition; clarification on that would be useful.

Okay. We will get clarification on those issues and await the report from the Rural Affairs Committee.

I support Robin Harper. Matters may have moved on, but it could still be argued that it is the duty of the committee to look into such matters. If there is concern in Aberdeenshire, and elsewhere in Scotland, about the possible impact of crop trial testing, we should investigate that concern. We should make space on our agenda to take evidence from the appropriate bodies, whether that means the Government in London or outside agencies such as Friends of the Earth and others who have an interest in or special knowledge of the matter. We should set aside space to take evidence on the merits or demerits of crop testing.

We are due to discuss our work programme later. It is right that discussion of this matter should take place. I have no difficulty with what is being said, but we must agree our course of action on the petition that is before us. Questions have been raised about points (1) and (2) on the petition. We also await the further report from the Rural Affairs Committee.

I have no problem with our going ahead with an inquiry. We have a duty to scrutinise, but whether we have competence to legislate on this is another matter. The Parliament has the right to express a view and we have a responsibility to the people whom we represent to be satisfied that everything possible is being done to ensure that safety is paramount. That has always been our message. I would like us to fit this into our work programme. Given the seriousness of the issue, it merits an inquiry of equal depth to our telecommunications inquiry.

I endorse that. Such an inquiry would perhaps go some way towards addressing point (2) in the petition, which calls for "a mechanism in Scotland". We are a mechanism for having a close look at such issues.

Are there any further comments? No.

We will seek the clarifications that have been requested on petition PE51 and, during our discussion of our work programme, we will consider the priority of any investigation that we decide to undertake.

Petition PE60, from the Scottish Green party, calls on the Parliament to hold a debate on GM crops and foods. Again, we sought the views of the Rural Affairs Committee and the Health and Community Care Committee and, as members know, both committees supported the call for a debate.

Is any further response required on PE60?

If we go ahead with the previous—

Yes. If we go ahead with that, we do not need to progress this one. Thank you.

The next petition, PE91, is from Mr Frank Harvey and calls for the restoration of Scottish water authorities to local authority control. The Public Petitions Committee referred the petition to us and requested only that we note it. In other words, no further consideration is required unless we think it necessary. Are members content that we note the petition, as requested, or do we want to take further action?

I am happy to note the petition, but I subscribe to the point that Murray Tosh raised earlier. Perhaps we could say in response that the committee is looking into the water situation. It may be more polite to say that we are taking cognisance of the matter, to some extent, and to leave it at that. We would not have to elaborate on that, but I would be happier to say that we are doing something, as opposed to saying simply, "Thanks for your letter, Mr Harvey."

Once we have discussed, and agreed the parameters of, our work programme we will be better able to give a fuller response. There is no problem with that.

I support that. I do not want to get too political, but the first statement on the petition contains inaccuracies and the facts ought to be clarified. For the record, we have just done away with a major quango in housing, and we have done away with half the quangos in the health service trusts.

There were two political points there.

We have a proposed investigation into water, so the petition will be addressed in the course of our work. I hope that Mr Harvey will be satisfied with that response.

Petition PE108 is also from Mr Harvey; it concerns the safety of children using public transport during school activities. Again, the Public Petitions Committee referred the petition to us, requesting only that we note it. Are members content to do that, or is further action required?

Why do we not copy the petition to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents?

Yes—why not? That is an action point. Well done, Kenny.

I am a member of the Public Petitions Committee; we deal with several petitions from Mr Harvey at every meeting. Other members may not be aware that any one member of the public can present a petition to the Public Petitions Committee; the Parliament might want to think about that. I am not saying that an individual should not have that right, but it is something to reflect upon.

Okay. Thank you for that. We will take the action that Kenny MacAskill suggested.

Our final petition, again from Mr Harvey, is PE112, on the Government's

"planned sell-off of Britain's air-traffic control system."

As our covering note points out, that matter is reserved to Westminster. Again, the Public Petitions Committee referred the petition to us, requesting only that we note it.

Perhaps Mr Harvey should be advised that his petition concerns a reserved matter that he may wish to raise with his MP.

I had a meeting with air traffic control people, during which two issues arose that I think should be noted, in particular by members who represent the Highlands. First, the committee ought to be aware that there is no air traffic control command in the area north of Pitlochry. Secondly, alternative methods such as forming an independent publicly owned company were never researched or discussed by any of the parliamentarians. The air traffic control people gave us an example of such a company being established in Canada.

I mention that for members to note and reflect upon. We may simply note the petition today, but wish to revisit the concerns that it raises later.

Yes.

There is much in that debate. As with all such matters, there are arguments for and against.

If we want to investigate the matter, it is within our power to do so; the question is whether that should be a priority. Further, the petition is based on an article in The Mirror that perhaps does not paint the full picture. It would be difficult for us to go into the matter in any great detail other than simply noting the petition and advising the petitioner that it is a matter for Westminster.

Members indicated agreement.