Transport Strategies (PE1115)
There are seven current petitions for consideration today. The first is PE1115, on national and regional transport strategies. Members have received a note from the clerk. I invite comments on the petition.
As the committee will be aware, we have considered the petition at a number of meetings. Given that, in the light of Transport Scotland’s response, we have taken the petition as far as we can, I propose that we take up the petitioner’s suggestion and refer it to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee to allow that committee to look at it in the light of the wider rail network investment strategies that Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government are developing.
I was not on the committee in 2008 when the petition first came to it but, looking at the amount of work that has been done on the petition, I do not particularly agree with John Wilson. However, perhaps he can explain his position more fully. I am minded to close the petition, because Transport Scotland has said that its preferred option is to enhance existing stations rather than to reopen other stations. It has also offered to work with stakeholders, including the petitioner, in developing its plans. From 2008 to 2011, we have taken lots of evidence on the petition. Transport Scotland will certainly not move in the direction of reopening Blackford station and I would not like to give the petitioner false hope by sending the petition to another committee. I recommend that we close the petition but, obviously, the committee will make the decision.
I would like us to proceed as John Wilson has suggested. In doing so, we would not necessarily be giving false hope; we would be allowing the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee to be aware of the issue when it considers the overall rail utilisation strategy. For those of us in areas where there are campaigns to bring old railway stations back into use or people are lobbying for new railway stations, such issues need to be looked at when the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee considers the overall strategy. It might come to nothing, but it is important that we at least pass the petition on to that committee and allow it to consider the issue within the overall rail utilisation strategy. I therefore support the approach that John Wilson suggests.
I agree with Mark McDonald and John Wilson. A lot of work has gone into the petition and this is our last shot at it. The petition should be kept open long enough for the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee to look at it.
I agree, too. I understand that this committee has to call it a day on certain petitions, but this one should be passed on. I am a great fan of reopening stations and I would like the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee to look at the matter.
I am happy to go along with the majority. I hope that the matter goes further on the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. I do not want to give the petitioner false hope, but I am happy to drop my suggestion that we close the petition.
It seems that consensus has broken out. We will refer the petition to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee under rule 15.6.2.
Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (Snares) (PE1124)
PE1124 is on banning the manufacture, sale, possession and use of snares. Members have received a note from the clerk. I remind the committee that, in an additional paper that has been circulated, the petitioner has set out another proposal.
Although the petition has come before the committee a number of times and although a lot of work has been done on it, the petitioner has made two fairly valid points. Given that, for some time now, we have been awaiting the results of research commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we should keep the petition open until we hear about that. Moreover, I could not find out when the snaring provisions in the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 come into force, and it would be helpful if the Government could tell us when that is going to happen.
In summary, do members agree to keep the petition open until we get the results of the DEFRA research and to write to the Scottish Government about the snaring provisions in the 2011 act?
I agree with asking the Scottish Government when the provisions in the 2011 act will come into force. However, I have difficulty with the proposal to wait for the DEFRA report, which we were advised would be available in 2011. I suggest that we ask DEFRA when the report is likely to be published, because my fear is that, if we continue the petition simply because we are awaiting a report from DEFRA, we will have a long wait. After all, we have been waiting for the report for 18 months now. Once we get a response from DEFRA, we can decide whether to keep the petition open.
The clerk has been in touch with DEFRA, which has confirmed that it is actively working on completing the report. Nevertheless, we are happy to write to it again for confirmation.
Clostridium Difficile (Public Inquiry) (PE1225)
PE1225 relates to the outbreak of clostridium difficile. Members will have the clerk’s note and I understand that the petitioner has advised that she is content for the petition to be closed. Do members agree with the petitioner?
Wallace Safe Conduct (PE1350)
PE1350 is on the return of the Wallace safe conduct. Again, members will have the clerk’s note. I invite members’ comments, but the committee should note that the petitioner has advised that he is content that the petition be closed.
I should declare an interest as a member of the Society of William Wallace—indeed, many years ago, I was its press officer. I have to say that I am very pleased for Nick Brand and the others, who have sent the committee a very nice letter of congratulation.
Such letters are always gladly accepted by the committee.
I endorse Sandra White’s comments and, for those who might go and check my entry in the register of interests, put on record my membership of the society.
I am happy to endorse your safe conduct out of the meeting.
Access to Justice (Environment) (PE1372)
PE1372 is on access to justice in environment matters. The convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee has contacted me individually to say that she is enthusiastic for the petition to be referred to that committee. I stress, though, that the proposal has not been put to the whole committee.
I am happy to take the convener’s advice and look forward to referring the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee.
Is that agreed?
Education (Qualified Teachers’ Contact Hours) (PE1391)
PE1391 is on protecting children’s right to be taught by qualified teachers for 25 hours a week. Again, members will have the clerk’s note. The committee will also recall that we took oral evidence on the petition some months ago and therefore have direct experience of it. I invite members’ comments.
I declare an interest as a Renfrewshire councillor and as someone who knows members of the Renfrewshire parent council forum.
Mr Bibby, did you mean the McCormac review?
I apologise—I am getting my teacher employment reviews mixed up. I meant the McCormac review.
It tends to become confusing when you have McCrone, McCormac and the crossover in what are called McCrone hours, which is the period of time that teachers have to be in the classroom.
I agree. I noted down a number of recommendations that could be made and actions that could be taken. Given that legislation will be needed to clarify the situation, any proposal to change legislation or introduce a bill would have to go before a committee. I also draw members’ attention to the recommendation in the McCormac review that the use of external experts be facilitated, which is an issue that should also be raised with the Education and Culture Committee.
I agree with the previous two speakers. Having been exposed to teaching and tutoring in schools and colleges, I want other people to be able to help in teaching. Many valuable people act as instructors and trainers, particularly in vocational areas. I do not want to cut teachers out, but we have to sort out some approach that involves other professionals. As a result, I think that it would be good to refer it to the Education and Culture Committee.
As the Education and Culture Committee will be looking at the McCormac review over the next period, I do not think that there is any danger of the petition being dropped, which would have been my worry about referring it. In the circumstances, I am happy to go with that suggestion.
Are members content to refer the petition to the Education and Culture Committee under rule 15.6.2?
City Status (Ancient Prescriptive Usage) (PE1392)
PE1392 is on city status by right of ancient prescriptive usage. Members will have the clerk’s note and I invite comments.
Bill, did you want to comment on this?
No.
Basically, we should close the petition and not give false hope to people. After all, the Scottish Government has made it clear that it is not going to take the matter any further.
Actually, I will make a comment. I should declare an interest in that I know Robert McEwan. With regret, I agree with Sandra White that we should close the petition because it has probably—and unfortunately, as far as I am concerned—gone as far as it can. It is probably best to close it now.
Do members agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 on the basis that, for a number of years now, the petitioners and others have made direct and unsuccessful representations to the UK Government? There are other reasons in the clerk’s note that we can highlight.
Previous
New Petition