I welcome John Home Robertson, the MSP for East Lothian, and Jackie Baillie, MSP for Dumbarton, who are here to give their views on particular petitions.The first petition is PE59, from Mr Frank Harvey, which is about passenger safety on public transport and the issue of taking dangerous dogs on trains. We have twice corresponded with the Scottish Executive on the subject. That correspondence is attached to the covering note on the petition. Members will see from the covering note that the issue of passenger safety on public transport is a reserved matter. The petition has been on-going for almost two years. We would wish to try to bring the issue to a conclusion and to respond to the petitioner with our views on the petition.The suggested option for action, as set out in the covering note, is to conclude the petition by writing to the petitioner, informing him which areas of his petition refer to reserved matters; to draw his attention to members' comments on the petition, as set out in the Official Report; and to forward him copies of the responses from the Scottish Executive. I seek views from members on the progress of the petition.
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
Public Transport (Passenger Safety) (PE59)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Bristow Muldoon Lab 9
- Angus MacKay Lab 5
- Adam Ingram SNP 4
- Fiona McLeod SNP 2
- John Scott Con 1
- Maureen Macmillan Lab 1
- Robin Harper Green 1
The record
23 contributionsI am sorry, but you are not going to like this. In the most recent letter that we received from the Scottish Executive, the final bullet point is entitled:"Passengers in Excess of Capacity (PIXC)".The letter goes on to state that the "PIXC regime in Scotland applies to the Fife commuter lines to Edinburgh only"in recognition that it is a "near-monopoly of ScotRail". I would contend that the Glasgow to Edinburgh route is also a near-monopoly of ScotRail. I know that it will delay a response to the petition, but I wonder whether we can write yet again to ask why PIXC is not applied to the Glasgow to Edinburgh route. PIXC applies only when 3 per cent of passengers have to stand.
I suggest that we should address that broader issue in any review of the ScotRail franchise. I have no problem with our writing to the Executive on that issue, but it is not necessarily specifically related to Mr Harvey's petition, which was on safety. Safety on public transport is a reserved issue and a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.
It might be helpful to Fiona McLeod to point out that the last sentence in the next paragraph might, in a way, address her question. It states:"Apart from additional capacity negotiated through the franchise replacement process, the options to control overcrowding include altered stopping patterns through timetable changes, and longer or additional trains."That is a pragmatic and commonsense way of addressing overcrowding, which I would expect the rail companies to use.
The only question is one of the effectiveness of the procedures. I would be interested to get information on what action has been taken with regard to overcrowding, on the basis of the surveys that the Strategic Rail Authority and so on were undertaking. I note that there is a members' business motion from Sylvia Jackson on overcrowding. We seem to have on-going problems with it. It would be useful to obtain that information on what action has been taken under the franchising arrangements.
That is not directly related to Mr Harvey's petition. It is my intention as convener that we consider the broader aspects of the railway industry, in particular Scotland's passenger franchise. Those issues might be better addressed in that way rather than by way of the petition. The petition is specifically about safety on passenger services, which is clearly a reserved matter. That should form the basis of our response.
I agree with that, convener; the issue is one of health and safety and is therefore not within our remit. However, we should write to the petitioner to say that the committee intends to examine railways in Scotland and that his concerns might be dealt with in some way. The petitioner's concern is"especially about overcrowding on trains"and he thinks that"there is no limit to standing passengers".For the reasons that we have mentioned, it would be worth pursuing those questions—whether or not they are reserved—on behalf of the petitioner. We all must get on the trains every morning.
My point was that the committee's remit does not extend to reserved issues. I did not say that the quality of public transport services is not an important issue. Overcrowding is an aspect of the quality of service. However, it would be unhelpful and improper of us to delve into reserved issues when an appropriate mechanism exists by which the petitioner's concerns could be considered further.
Will you clarify the reserved nature of the issue? I do not dispute what you said, but I am new to the committee and I would like to understand the matter better.
Regulation of the railway industry falls under the remit of the Health and Safety Executive, which is a United Kingdom body and is responsible to the UK Government and the Westminster Parliament. That is why the matter is reserved.
Does that mean that the content of the petition is a matter for Westminster?
Yes.
So why are we discussing it?
Are we not in the realms of the franchise agreement, which is not reserved? When we review the franchise agreement, we will consider whether measures to prevent overcrowding are being implemented. Therefore, it is relevant for the committee to consider the matter.
The subject of the petition is:"Passenger safety on public transport in Scotland."Therefore, I take the petition to be about passenger safety, which undoubtedly is a reserved issue.
In so far as the franchise agreement is connected with those matters, they are a legitimate concern for the committee.
The franchise might be connected to the issue of capacity on the rail network and, as I said, I am happy for us to come back to that. The Parliament can discuss the definition of the franchise, the extent of public support for the franchise and the effect that the franchise has on capacity. However, the petition is not about that.
I want to be clear on the matter. The franchise negotiation has no locus in addressing public safety on public transport.
It does.
No, it does not. The franchise replacement process can deal with overcrowding by considering matters such as stopping patterns and timetable changes, but that is different from public safety on transport. A regime for public safety operates at Westminster, so, frankly, we are wasting our time by discussing it here.
I subscribe to that.
Given the response that we had from the Executive on capacity considerations, the petition is of interest to the committee. As Maureen Macmillan said, we should write to the petitioner to say that we will consider the matter in due course.
I have no problem with saying that we will consider capacity, but given that the petition has been in the system for some time, I wish to bring it to a conclusion. I do not wish to give the petitioner the idea that we will continue with it. We will deal with the broader issues of the franchise in due course.Does the committee agree that we should respond to the petitioner in the manner that is suggested in the report?Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 12 Dec 2001 →- Scottish Parliament Transport and the Environment Committee Wednesday 12 December 2001 (Morning) Committee business · 2
- Interests Procedure · 5
- Convener Procedure · 12
- Aquaculture Inquiry Committee business · 104
- Petitions Petitions · 23
- Petitions Petitions · 25
- Petitions Petitions · 9
- Petitions Petitions · 15
- Item in Private Procedure · 5
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.