Contents
- Attendance
- Interests
- Continued Petition
- New Petitions
New Petitions
Pre-1989 Scottish Secure Tenants (Rights) (PE1743)
The first new petition for consideration today is PE1743. The petition was lodged by John Foster, on behalf of Govan Community Council and others, and is on amending the law to protect the rights of pre-1989 Scottish secure tenants. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 to prevent disproportionate rent increases from being set for Scottish secure tenants.
Our briefing explains that, from September 2002, all registered tenancies with social landlords, except for short assured tenancies, were automatically converted into Scottish secure tenancies by section 11 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. The determination of fair rents is governed by section 48 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984. According to our paper, rents are deemed fair through comparison with rents from comparable properties in the area. However, this does not differentiate between private and social housing rents, which can vary considerably.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Pauline McNeill sends her apologies; unfortunately, she has been delayed. She supports the petition and her view, which she very much wanted to express to the committee in person, is that the method used to calculate rents gives out a false figure because private rents are in many cases very high, and that therefore we should look to set rents based on social rents. That is the view that Pauline McNeill asked me to express to the committee, and it is one that I share.
Thank you. Anyone else?
If I recall correctly, there is a system within local authorities to which tenants can take their observations—I will call it a rent tribunal, but something is already in place. That is what was ringing in my head when I read the papers yesterday. It may be worth writing to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to find out exactly what the policy is on that. I have heard people say that they do not agree with their rent, particularly when they are renewing a lease or moving into a different form of housing. We need to establish what councils have set up at the local level.
We should also write to the Scottish Government and the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland to seek their views, but we need to drive this at a local level as well. I recall that there is something there.
I reiterate what Maurice Corry said about writing to the Scottish Government and the First-tier Tribunal. Those should be the first ports of call.
We should also write to COSLA to find out what happens at the local level.
I think so, because undoubtedly the Government will refer to that.
Okay. We will write to COSLA, to ask about the local level, and to the Scottish Government and the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland, to seek their views on the action that the petition calls for.
To add to what I just said, there is also the question of the registration of landlords. That is an active thing that is going on at present. Several cases have gone to court of unregistered landlords who have set ridiculous rents, which have caught tenants out. Pauline McNeill might be referring to that.
All right. Are we agreed on the action that we will take?
Members indicated agreement.
Psychiatric Service Dogs (PE1744)
Our next petition is PE1744, which was lodged by Karen Mercedes Greer. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to recognise the valuable role that psychiatric service dogs can play in helping people to recover from trauma and mental ill health; it also calls on the Scottish Government to fund a pilot programme of accredited psychiatric service dogs in Scotland.
Our paper highlights a distinction between service dogs and therapy dogs. The former are trained to carry out specific practical tasks to make the lives of those with a disability easier. They are trained to work with one particular person and their position as a companion is secondary. Therapy dogs are chosen for their temperament, the training is less exacting, and they can work with a range of people.
Currently, there appears to be no prescribed training of dogs, nor any legislation about the supply of such dogs.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
If I may say so, paragraph 4 of our paper is wrong. I am talking now from the armed forces veterans’ side. A lot of what the petitioner is calling for is in place, particularly through an organisation called Bravehound. I would refer the petitioner to that organisation. It is based at the Erskine Home in Bishopton, on the west coast. A lot of study is going on, with 17 dogs currently in operation. Therefore, there is an active organisation in place in Scotland—I believe that there are others in the United Kingdom—which does exactly what the petitioner is asking for. Through its work it prevents problems for veterans who have post-traumatic stress disorder and identifies what the problems are. The dogs are given general training and they are monitored and properly looked after by Bravehound. Bravehound is funded through the Armed Forces Covenant Fund’s LIBOR funding. I would refer the petitioner to the chief executive of Bravehound, Fiona MacDonald, so that she can see exactly what the organisation does. There is a model in this country.
The petitioner is asking for a pilot programme to be instituted. If there is a programme already going on, it would be reasonable to write to that programme to see how it compares to what the petitioner is asking for. If the programme has been going for three years, you would imagine that there would be some sort of feedback on its success or otherwise. I would certainly suggest that we write to Bravehound.
I would also be interested to know what the Scottish Government has to say.
I agree with Brian Whittle about the Scottish Government. There is also a programme in Fife. My neighbour three doors down has a therapy dog—a retriever—that goes out into communities, hospitals and so on. It has been trained. There are projects going on across Scotland. It would be nice to find out what is happening.
That is right—there are things going on in different areas.
What the petitioner is asking for might be slightly different. We need to get a clearer picture of what is going on.
Bravehound is interesting.
We could write to it.
It has been operating for three years. I would like to know what its outcomes have been and, if those are the sorts of things that the petitioner is looking for, whether its programme could be extended and cover not just veterans but other issues.
Bravehound has positive evidence about preventing suicide.
Okay. Are there any other animal organisations that we could write to?
There is also the horses for forces programme, which is in the Borders. People do not keep a horse in their home; they go to horses for forces and go through various courses. Another is HorseBack UK in Aberdeenshire. That is about riding horses as compared to working with horses, which is what horses for forces does. There is a plethora of organisations.
Do we just want to stick with dogs?
I am just saying that there is a link with animals.
Absolutely. There are other organisations: Assistance Dogs UK, the International Guide Dog Federation, the Society for Companion Animal Studies, Dogs for Good, Dogs for Depression, the Psychiatric Assistance Dogs Foundation and the Mental Health Foundation. It would be good to get their overview.
Absolutely.
There are lot of organisations. My next question would be to ask why they are not working together, but that is for another day.
There is an organisation that works with autistic people very successfully.
It would be interesting to find out what all those organisations do. They might do slightly different things and reach out to different people.
Are we agreed on those actions?
Members indicated agreement.
Fatal Accident Inquiries (Statutory Right) (PE1745)
Our next petition is PE1745, which was lodged by James Jones. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that families have a statutory right to request a fatal accident inquiry.
A fatal accident inquiry can be mandatory, typically where someone dies in legal custody or in an accident that is related to their work, or discretionary, where a death is sudden, suspicious, unexplained or gives rise to serious public concern.
The Lord Advocate, under certain circumstances, can use their discretion to hold or not hold a fatal accident inquiry. Legislation contains no formal right of appeal against a decision by the Lord Advocate in relation to an inquiry. However, it is notionally possible to challenge a decision using a legal process called judicial review.
During parliamentary scrutiny of the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016, the Law Society of Scotland commented that family members could have the right to seek a fatal accident inquiry. The right that is proposed does not appear to be absolute. Instead, a sheriff would decide whether the request should proceed.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
10:00
I am quite sympathetic to the petition. I have done a bit of work on adverse event reviews, which are specifically about accidents and problems in hospitals. The approach is not consistent around the country. The Crown Office does not automatically investigate such incidents in Scotland, although I am pretty sure that they would be investigated down south. I would be quite interested to see the differences in approach.
It worries me that there is, or seems to be, no redress for families in such circumstances who are looking for an answer. I am certainly very interested in the petition. I know that the Government is doing some work on adverse event reviews. That is not the specific issue that the petition raises, although it sits within the same remit. I would be interested in the Government’s view on the petition.
I would also like the views of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and maybe even the Law Society, on the action that is called for. I would probably also ask the Scottish Parliament information centre if it could do a comparison between what happens down south and what happens up here, because there is a difference in approach. I am not saying that one is right and one is wrong, but it would be interesting to see how they compare.
I am looking at paragraph 21 on page 3 of our paper on the petition, which relates to Scottish Parliament action. A number of petitions have come forward since 2000. It may be worth SPICe summarising the conclusions from those petitions; that would be helpful. That historical information would be useful.
Is everyone agreed that we get those extra pieces of information about the results of the other petitions, see what happens elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and write to stakeholders, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Law Society?
Members indicated agreement.
Space Sector (Non-departmental Public Body) (PE1746)
The next petition is PE1746 on the creation of a Scottish space non-departmental public body lodged by Andrew Paliwoda. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to create a non-departmental public body with responsibility for space technology and to work in partnership with other relevant organisations to ensure that Scotland’s space sector potential is fulfilled.
According to our paper, Scotland has a growing space sector, which includes a number of high-tech, high-skill jobs as well as research and development businesses. The space industry in Scotland has more than 130 companies, with 7,600 employees, backed by strong relationships with researchers in Scotland’s universities. Nearly one fifth of all jobs in the UK space sector are based in Scotland.
As the creation of a non-departmental public body is the main action that is called for in the petition, our paper makes the distinction between executive and advisory NDPBs. An executive body carries out administrative, commercial, executive or regulatory functions on behalf of the Government, and is normally established by statute. An advisory body provides expert advice to ministers and others, or input to the policy-making process in relation to a particular subject, and typically does not require legislation.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
We should write to the Scottish Government asking for its views on what the petition is calling for.
As is highlighted in the paper, Scotland is particularly strong in space exploration, especially in the west of Scotland—Glasgow is particularly good. With regard to the development of spaceports, I have to mention the development around Prestwick. With the investment that is going into Prestwick through the Ayrshire growth deals, that development can only grow. This is an important petition in terms of making sure that we maximise our potential. It is certainly an area that is going to grow and grow.
I agree with David Torrance that we should write to the Scottish Government to seek its view. There are also other key stakeholders in this area that we could write to: Scottish Enterprise, Space Network Scotland—who knew that that existed?—and the UK Space Agency. Our paper suggests that we contact Highland and Islands Enterprise, as it is proposed that a spaceport be situated in that area. It would be interesting to hear from people who are involved in the UK industrial strategy, too. Other people might think of other organisations.
The city-region partnerships are relevant. I think that some of them are looking at this area.
With regard to the Ayrshire growth deal, there is about £80 million specifically going into Prestwick airport around the development of it as a spaceport, which will link into all the space technology manufacturers in Glasgow. There are also a lot of engineering works around Prestwick that will benefit. It is certainly a sector that we should be going after.
It would be worth writing to the local authorities that have the possibility of having a spaceport: Highland Council—because of Caithness and Sutherland—Argyll and Bute Council and North Ayrshire Council. Those are the ones that have been identified.
There is a lot of potential in this industry, therefore it is worth looking to see how best to proceed to harness that potential.
We just have to be aware of where the businesses that are involved in space exploration are. A lot of them are in Glasgow. When we are looking at where the spaceports might be placed, we should remember that Glasgow is a hub for this technology.
The issue covers the whole of Scotland. It would be remiss of me not to mention the Sutherland space hub, obviously.
Given that the sector is growing at such a pace, we could be firing off letters left, right and centre, but we have to remember that the point of the petition is the creation of an NDPB. We should certainly write to the Scottish Government and the local authorities that are currently involved in the creation of spaceports, of which I believe that there are several. We should also write to the other stakeholders that Brian Whittle mentioned—I will not repeat them all because he did it so well, but we have a note of those. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Additional Support Needs (Funding) (PE1747)
Our next petition is PE1747, on adequate funding to support children with additional support needs in all Scottish schools, which was lodged by Alison Thomson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide adequate funding to support children with additional support needs in all Scottish schools including primary, secondary and special schools.
The majority of funding for school education comes from the Scottish Government through local authority budget settlements. In addition to that, there is the attainment Scotland fund, which provides direct funding of £10.5 million to support learning provision for children and young people with complex additional support needs and £15 million to support learners with additional support needs.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Probably all of us have been approached in our surgeries with cases—which we will have then picked up—in which the special needs and special support services in schools have not met needs. We would all recognise that.
The fact that the issue involves a local authority decision about how it spends its budget makes this petition quite a difficult one to address, because the Scottish Government does not dictate to local authorities how they spend their budgets. It is a particularly difficult petition to address, but I would like to understand the views of COSLA, Enable Scotland and Education Scotland, and we should write to them. Of course, we already know what is going to come back: that budgets are tight and the issue involves a local authority decision about how they spend their budgets.
I agree with Brian Whittle that we already know what is going to come back from the local authorities—that they decide where their budget goes. However, we still have to write to COSLA and those other groups.
I agree with what Brian Whittle and David Torrance have said, but there is a cause-and-effect situation here. We are seeing an increase in cases of children with learning support needs. I must declare an interest in that regard, as my wife works in special educational needs and is involved in the sector in Argyll and Bute. I also know from the armed forces sector that we are seeing more children requiring learning support. In my area, there is a Royal Navy element. Do not get me wrong—it is because of parents being away at sea or on operations and things like that.
We need to make the Government aware that this requirement is not something that will go down—I think it will probably go up—and that, therefore, there needs to be more resource put in and a consideration of how education authorities might plan for additional support needs assistants and classroom assistants, because that was certainly a good move, originally. If the Government could persuade local authorities not to consider making cuts in that sector, that would be something to be grateful for.
There is another element to the issue, which is mainstreaming. Issues arise in that regard partly from parents understandably wanting the best for their child, but also from parents sometimes not accepting that there is an issue with their child, who needs that little bit of extra help. I sometimes see children in schools in my area who really should be in another organisation, class or school. I am involved in such a case at the moment. I spoke to the mother the other day and the child is thriving because he has been moved to a special school, which is brilliant.
There has been a push from parents, and indeed from the system—the collective national system—towards mainstreaming. I think that we have to be very careful about it. The more we push mainstreaming, the more we are going to have issues. It comes back to the getting it right for every child policy. We need to put the policy into place. We have to take that whole issue up.
Yes, there is the issue that, at the end of the day, the parents and the pupils are the people who should be able to reach decisions on what is best for the children. I was educated in a period when mainstreaming was not the norm—quite the reverse. Section 15 of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 says that mainstreaming should be the presumption unless it
“would result in unreasonable public expenditure being incurred which would not ordinarily be incurred”,
However, the truth is that, if you do not put extra resource and support into situations in which you have children with learning difficulties or behavioural issues, one of the other criteria will come into play, such as the one around mainstreaming being incompatible with the provision of efficient education for the children with whom the child would be educated. We have all seen that. We have all had parents come to us saying that their children are not getting enough support, and we have all had other parents comes to us—I certainly have, over the years—to say a child with behavioural problems or special education needs is causing disruption that is interfering with the education of the other kids.
Given what is in legislation with regard to the presumption towards mainstreaming, the issue is not simply one for local authorities; there is also a role for Government. However, the right step, in the first instance, would be to have a discussion with COSLA to see what the local authority position is.
Being a list MSP, I work across several local authorities, and the difference in approach from one to the next is stark. I have constituents who move house to get into the adjacent authority so they can access services. That disparity in delivery of services is a big issue and is something that Government wrestles with.
As Alex Rowley says, the legislation takes a position on mainstreaming. Although I do not think that we should be prescriptive with local authority spend, there has to be some sort of framework that allows that disparity to close.
10:15
I agree. Coming back to my point, I am probably looking at the macro issue. Social media is definitely having an effect now on kids. Even younger children aged four or five feel peer group pressure about not having a mobile phone. I am getting feedback from teachers and headteachers about issues that are obviously down to parents in the home allowing the child to have a mobile phone or to use social media. It is a bigger problem, and that is why I come back to national Government. There needs to be a rethink at that level in relation to the funding, because we are in another era. We really have an issue here. I am dealing with two cases that involve the parent and the kid appearing in court over their behaviour in relation to the effects of social media, games stations and goodness knows what.
It is important to get COSLA’s views because, as Brian Whittle says, there are huge differences between local authorities. I have an excellent campus in my constituency, thanks to Fife Council—Alex Rowley was one of the people who were involved in that. It does absolutely fantastic work and is integrated with the whole high school. I think that we have to get the opinion of COSLA.
It is worth stating that the Education and Skills Committee has done a fair bit of work on this and it is keeping a watching brief on it. We should keep an eye on what it is doing as well.
Brian Whittle is absolutely right; it seems that there are disparities between local authorities, and not everybody has the luxury of being able to move into another local authority to get the assistance that they believe they need.
It is suggested that we write to the Scottish Government, COSLA, Education Scotland and Enable Scotland seeking views on what is contained in the petition. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Planning Policy (Small Communities) (PE1748)
I welcome Fulton MacGregor MSP to the committee. Good morning.
Good morning.
PE1748 is on providing protection for small communities in Scottish planning policy. It has been lodged by Isobel Kelly on behalf of Gartcosh Tenants and Residents Association. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to develop, in national planning framework 3 and the Scottish planning policy, specific provision for small communities on pre-development community assets and infrastructure audits when an area is identified as being able to accommodate large-scale urban growth, and for protection of areas that are considered by the community to be high-value scenic assets that would be at risk from coalescence of communities.
The Scottish Government is currently leading a planning reform programme, with the legislative change that is required to support that programme having been set out in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, which received royal assent in the summer. The act includes several provisions relating to the NPF, but the specific suggestions that have been made by the petitioners were not raised during the planning reform process or the passage of the Planning (Scotland) Bill.
Would it be okay to make some opening remarks?
Yes.
I thank the deputy convener and the committee for allowing me time to speak to PE1748. I also thank my colleagues in the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, which I have just come from. With members’ indulgence, I will return to it after consideration of the petition.
I also record my thanks to Isobel Kelly of Gartcosh Tenants and Residents Association, Liz Ward and others for lodging the petition. As Mrs Kelly has pointed out, she has had several discussions with me as planning applications for sites in Gartcosh have progressed. She has also had discussions with local councillor Greg Lennon, who I am sure the committee would wish me to mention for his hard work in highlighting the issue.
I am sure that no one here will argue against the need for house building. We have a growing population, and 500,000 new homes will be built in Scotland over the next 10 to 15 years. The Scottish Government has made impressive progress on that.
Very few people would deny the desirability of the more rural locations within the central belt—where my constituency is—to developers and to people who are seeking to purchase new homes. A few months ago, I lodged a motion celebrating the results of a study that found that Glenboig is the fifth-healthiest place to live in the UK, which perhaps illustrates that desirability.
I am certain that the advantages of village living that are attractive to the existing communities are similarly attractive to people who are seeking to become part of those expanding communities. However, as the petition states, that expansion could, in time, eliminate the advantages almost entirely, through decimation of green space, loss of the sense of community, infrastructure being unable to cope with the rates of expansion, and the inevitable coalescence of distinct village communities with the mass commuter belt. Those are the issues that the petition is trying to bring to the fore.
At this point it might, for members’ benefit, be appropriate for me to describe the geographical make-up of my constituency of Coatbridge and Chryston. The larger part of my constituency—perhaps two-thirds—is Coatbridge, which is a typical large post-industrial Lanarkshire town that is very much in need of new housing and development on some of its brownfield sites. The remaining third of my constituency comprises a number of small towns and villages to the north of Coatbridge: Stepps, Muirhead, Chryston, Moodiesburn, Glenboig and, of course, Gartcosh, which we are discussing today. They are collectively referred to as the northern corridor and are encompassed by the “Chryston” part of the constituency name.
Throughout the northern corridor, every one of those unique small post-industrial former coal mining communities have witnessed extensive development. I have heard in the past week about two more large-scale proposals for Gartcosh and Stepps. Developments have led to loss of assets in green space, woodland and the wider natural environment. They have also led to transport difficulties and rapidly increasing populations that have taken schools alarmingly over capacity and left health services struggling to cope. The petitioners and others know that I have taken up those issues with some degree of success; for example, a new health centre has been designed for the northern corridor, which is long overdue.
Such scenarios are not unique to Gartcosh or to my constituency. I know that they are replicated throughout the northern corridor. I have had many discussions with community groups and individual constituents about the issues that are raised in the petition.
I recently met representatives of the “Save Stepps green belt” campaign—which is similar to the campaign of the Gartcosh Tenants and Residents Association—who have campaigned vigorously, and continue to do so, against development on the green belt, and are fighting to protect the village community. It is also worth our while to pay particular tribute to Frank and Alice Morton, Ken Maxwell and others who have campaigned so hard. After my previous meeting with them, I am pulling together, for the group, a round-table event to discuss the issue. I hope that today’s consideration of the petition can form part of the Government’s eventual thinking on the issue.
Nobody is arguing against development. I would be one of the last people to do so—I have already mentioned the need for development in the large urban part of my constituency. However, there is a feeling that development has, with little to no consultation, been imposed on the smaller communities that are attractive to developers. I know that the Government and the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning—to whom I have spoken about this—are trying to address the issue through the provisions of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, to which the deputy convener referred. The voices of the people who live in, and who are invested in, the communities are not being heard, which is why the petition has garnered traction.
I apologise for my voice. I have the cold that is going round.
The specific issues that are raised in PE1748 were not considered during scrutiny of the Planning (Scotland) Bill, or during the planning reform process. Given that the Government is doing extensive work on the subject, it seems that it is something that should be focused on. I recommend that the committee keep the petition open and that it ask for a response from the Scottish Government, and perhaps other stakeholders, on the issues that are raised in it.
On my comment about a round-table discussion, I also ask that the Scottish Government be asked to consider facilitating that or some other sort of discussion, at which communities from across Scotland—including those in my community such as Stepps, Gartcosh and others—can find common ground and have their concerns heard. Communities and MSPs of all parties could get round the table to try to find the common ground between the desperate need for new housing and minimising of the impact on unique and small communities such as Gartcosh.
I will leave it at that, deputy convener. Thank you very much.
I support the petition. I disagree with Fulton MacGregor about the passage of the Planning (Scotland) Bill: I certainly lodged amendments to it to try to address such issues, as did others.
There is absolutely a need for communities to have a greater say and to be able to plan in relation to assets, infrastructure and so on. I look forward to hearing what the planning minister has to say about it.
I, too, am very supportive of this worthwhile petition. In the development of new housing, how we use open space, how we develop local assets and how we give access to shopping and play parks are often secondary considerations.
I am reminded that we on the Health and Sport Committee are doing an inquiry into primary care. We went out to communities, gave them blank sheets of paper and wee sticky notes, and said, “Plan your town.” It was amazing to see how much open space there was in their plans, and where they want community assets to be. We should be much more cognisant of communities’ wishes for what they want their communities to look like.
I am very supportive of this worthwhile petition. I agree that we should, as Fulton MacGregor suggested, seek the Scottish Government’s views. I know that it is already doing work on the subject. That will certainly be about town planning, so we should write to town planners to ask what the rules are when we are building what are, to me, concrete jungles. Where are the local community assets within them? What consideration is given to the people who already live in the area? I support Fulton MacGregor’s suggestions.
I certainly agree with all that has been said. Funnily enough, I have looked at the Gartcosh example. Among the points that I raised were the number of amenities that are not there but should be, and the fact that the housing is rather condensed. Similar developments have happened in my area in East Dunbartonshire, over towards Bishopbriggs.
From my experience as a councillor, I know how important it is that local development plans are clearly cognisant of the views of the local community. Local planning partnership consultations are very important because they are how you get the local input and all the local nuances.
I would be very much in favour of getting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on board and communicating with it about the policies. We could also write to North Lanarkshire Council for its views, if we continue the petition, with which I have a lot of sympathy and empathy. It is a classic example of balance and healthy living. We need only look at Glasgow, way back when the high-rise blocks were built. What has happened? A lot have been demolished. Why? It is because we had to create our communities again. That is so important, so let us learn the history lessons.
Isobel Kelly’s petition talks about preventing
“coalescence of communities with a mechanism for small communities to halt development if masterplanning is not creating a sustainable community.”
My point is that the LDP needs to be built on solid ground that reflects the demands of the community, although we still need to house people.
We will write to the Scottish Government, and we will write to COSLA to ask about local development plans. We will also write to North Lanarkshire Council, the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland, the Built Environment Forum Scotland and Scotland’s Towns Partnership.
I thank Fulton MacGregor for coming and providing us with some very useful background.
Satellite Tags on Raptors (Monitoring) (PE1750)
The next petition is PE1750, on the independent monitoring of satellite tags fitted to raptors, lodged by Alex Hogg on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to introduce independent monitoring of satellite tags fitted to raptor species, to assist the police and courts in potential wildlife crime cases and to provide data transparency.
Satellite transmitters, or tags, are used to monitor the movements of many birds of prey in Scotland, with much of that work being carried out in the voluntary sector. The Scottish Government has published a “Collection of Evidence Protocol for Incidents of Raptor Crime”, which provides guidance for people involved in the satellite tracking of raptors, including in what circumstances to contact the police, what information to provide, and in what circumstances incidents should be publicised.
The petitioner argues that there are issues with a lack of transparency around how satellite tag data is collected and shared and that the variability in technology and practices results in challenges when people seek to use the data as evidence of wildlife crime. The petitioner is advocating for satellite tags to be monitored by the Government or a Government-approved body that could provide the police with instant data access and independent resources to interpret the data.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
This is not the first time that a petition on this subject has come to the committee. We had one on the protection of raptors. What it comes down to is that any crime committed against raptors tends to happen in very rural settings and it is, therefore, difficult to gather evidence, whether what happened was the result of shooting or poisoning or whatever. The petition is worth while, obviously, but my worry is that it comes down to exactly the same issue that we saw in the last petition, which is how we police such crime.
In this instance, we should write to quite a number of stakeholders to ask for their views. For example, there is RSPB Scotland, Raptor Persecution UK, Police Scotland, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, Scottish Land & Estates, Scottish Natural Heritage, and the Scottish Raptor Study Group. There are loads of them. We can write to them and see what they say, but my concern is how we implement justice in this situation.
Is it the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s brief to look at wildlife crime? That is where the wildlife crime reports go. I wonder whether that committee—
That is where we sent the last petition.
What did they do with it?
We gathered evidence and passed it on to that committee.
I do not want to pre-empt a decision, but we should gather evidence in this committee and then refer it on to the ECCLR Committee, which is doing a more in-depth study of the area. We should certainly pursue the issue just now.
I know the previous petition well, because we discussed it when I first joined this committee. We should ask SPICe to summarise the two previous petitions, PE1705 and PE1615, and where they got to in the ECCLR Committee, as well as, obviously, the outcomes of the petitions. That needs to be addressed and then we can put the information together with what we get from writing to the other stakeholders, as Brian Whittle says. We should gather that information.
I saw recently that a golden eagle went missing in Scotland.
Its name was Fred.
The level of wildlife crime really is an issue. We perhaps do not have the answer, but the petition suggests something specific to do. Are you saying that this has already happened, Brian?
The evidence that we took about two or three weeks ago about countryside rangers and cutting down on the number of rangers we have out there all has an impact on this petition. There are a lot of interconnecting issues, which is why I think that we should write to Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and so on to gather information. They will come back and say, “We need more people to police it”, at a time when we are cutting back.
I am minded, given that the matter came up very recently and was referred to the ECCLR Committee, to just refer this petition on as well.
I agree. If we have already worked on the issue, and if another committee is working on it, why the duplication? Just pass it on and let them get on with it.
I am happy with that. I agree that there is no point in reinventing the wheel.
The ECCLR Committee is the best place for the petition to go if they are already working on the issue. They were working on it as recently as March 2019. Do members agree to that?
Members indicated agreement.
No-wild-camping Zones (PE1751)
I declare an interest in PE1751 because it has been lodged by a member of my staff team. I will not participate in the discussion; I will leave it to other members.
The next petition is PE1751, on creating no-wild-camping zones in Scotland, lodged by Kirsteen Currie. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legislate to enable local authorities to create no-wild-camping zones in Scotland.
Our briefing paper explains that wild camping involves pitching a portable shelter for one or two nights on unenclosed land, not using a formal, managed campsite. The briefing paper also states that, with the development of tourist routes such as the north coast 500, as well as increasingly cheap tents and camping equipment, the prevalence of irresponsible camping appears to be increasing.
Section 12 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 provides powers for local authorities to make byelaws providing for the preservation of public order and safety, the prevention of damage, the prevention of nuisance or danger and the conservation or enhancement of natural or cultural heritage.
National park authorities also have similar powers to make byelaws under schedule 2 to the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000.
Does any member have comments or suggestions for action?
This is an interesting petition. On the face of it, the idea that people can just pitch up anywhere they like might be something that we would want to look at. It clashes, though, with the idea of the right to roam that we have in Scotland. The petition is asking for local authorities to be given powers and I would be fairly supportive of that, although I can see where all the potential problems might come.
I would be interested to see what the Scottish Government’s perspective is on this, especially in relation to the right to roam in Scotland, which is the law. How does the petition’s proposal clash with that? On the face of it, I can see what the petitioner is trying to do.
We should follow up as you have said: write to the appropriate people, get some information back and take it from there.
I would certainly write to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority. The park is in my area and I know quite a lot about the issue. We had an awful problem trying to get the wild camping situation sorted and, in fact, effected a byelaw, which has been quite successful. Of course, it has created a problem with Ramblers Scotland and Mountaineering Scotland, but in the main it is accepted as a way of managing the issue that we had and that we still have from time to time.
I would certainly get some experiential research from the park as to how things have worked out since they have had the byelaw in place. What was happening was appalling and it had to be corrected. I am not on the board or anything; I am simply the regional MSP. I would say that the approach has come with some success and it might be worth looking at the results of it so far and asking the chief executive to send us an update.
We could widen that out to the national parks authority.
That is what I was saying, yes. The issue also affects Ramblers Scotland and Mountaineering Scotland.
You have identified specific areas—Highland region and Argyll and Bute. Those areas clearly have specific issues, so it would be worth checking with them as well.
I agree. Cairngorms national park is another one.
We will write to the Scottish Government and to the national park authorities. We should probably also write to North Coast 500, given that the route is specifically mentioned in our briefing pack. Mountaineering Scotland and Ramblers Scotland were also mentioned, and we should probably include Parkswatch, too.
We should also write to the appropriate local authorities.
We will write to the appropriate local authorities that are involved, yes.
May I suggest that we write to the Lake District National Park Authority? It has been going for many years and I know that Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park referred to it as an authority that has had a lot of experience. It would be quite interesting if we wrote to them because that would give us some information—this is going back several years—on how it got over the problem.
Does everyone agree on those actions?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Government (Management and Time Recording Systems) (PE1752)
The final new petition for consideration is PE1752 on management and time recording systems in the Scottish Government, lodged by Bill Alexander.
The petition calls for the Scottish Government to introduce suitable workforce management and time recording systems to monitor the work activities of civil servants to ensure that reasonable standards of efficiency and value for money are being met.
In our briefing for the petition, the current management systems and policies used by the Scottish Government are outlined, as well as how tasks are managed by Government staff. The briefing also confirms that Audit Scotland employees are required to complete timesheets showing how long they have spent on various tasks, and that there do not appear to be any documents in the public domain showing how Audit Scotland staff spend their time, nor how efficient they are.
The briefing goes on to outline the challenges of measuring the efficiency of an organisation such as the Scottish Government through the action called for in the petition.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I propose that we close the petition. It is an operational matter and I see no benefit in pursuing it.
Yes. I do not want to put words in the petitioner’s mouth, but it seems to me that a bit of personal experience has particularly excited the petition. I understand where they are trying to go with the proposal, but it would be difficult to achieve in practice. That is the key thing. It is not that the petition is not worth while, but I think that it would be very difficult to get to any outcomes.
I am not sure that the petition is how to go about this. People can rightly ask politicians whether the Government is efficient and effective and there are ways for politicians and others to ask those questions, but I am not sure that what is proposed is the right way to do it. I am not sure that the trade unions that represent civil servants would be too happy if we went down this route. It is right that politicians can hold the Government to account for the effectiveness and efficiency of its services, but this is not the way to do that.
I agree with Alex Rowley. Politicians can ask any Government department questions on how efficient it is. It is up to us to play that key scrutiny role. I am quite happy to close the petition.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Okay. We thank the petitioner, but we agree to close the petition under standing order rule 15.7 on the basis, as Brian Whittle said, that the action called for in the petition is considered difficult to achieve in practice.
Thank you very much.
Meeting closed at 10:44.Previous
Continued Petition