Official Report 231KB pdf
The first petition is PE216 from Ronald McLeay on behalf of Staffin community council. The petition calls for the Scottish Executive to investigate the possibility of funding being made available to Highland Council to carry out essential upgrading of the road link, the A855, between Staffin and Portree.
I am the chairperson of Staffin community council.
You can take a minute or two to make a presentation to the committee.
Good morning. I thank you for this opportunity to speak to this petition.
Thank you very much for making such a clear presentation.
Have you, as the community council, written to Sarah Boyack?
Yes, and we also met various MSPs in Staffin. They have seen the state of the road.
What was the response from Sarah Boyack?
We are still waiting for her reply.
I see.
You mentioned the large number of tourists, who are obviously important for the community. The single-track section of road is only four miles, which is nothing compared to some other roads, but how does that influx affect the local community and its way of life with regard, for example, to deliveries or to your own journeys?
The road is in such a poor state of repair at the moment that we imagine that, in six to 10 months, it will completely deteriorate, and it will no longer even be possible to deliver feedingstuffs for our local crofters or to transport animals. We are also greatly concerned that the fire tender, when it is completely full of water, has a heavy axle weight. Our community would be cut off from the fire service, from the ambulance service and from all medical services.
Thank you very much. We will now discuss the petition to decide what action we will take.
I think that there is a wider issue regarding other transport links. I think that this is also a community matter, and I would like the matter to be brought to the attention of the Rural Affairs Committee. Staffin is a small community. The A855 is its arterial link, and is very important for its daily business and its tourism development. I think that this is more than just a transport matter.
Could you clarify that, Christine? Are you recommending that the information be passed to the Rural Affairs Committee?
I think that we should bring the petition to the attention of the Rural Affairs Committee. I also wish to draw attention to the ancillary material, which we do not have, in the presentation about the impact on the community of the failure to attend to the road. I am asking for the petition to be referred in full.
To the Rural Affairs Committee?
Yes, because of the impact on the economy and on the community.
The recommendation is to write to the Minister for Transport and the Environment. I would like the petition to go to her as well as to the Rural Affairs Committee. The Transport and the Environment Committee and Sarah Boyack should have the petition.
Should we not wait until after we get Sarah Boyack's response, rather than burdening the Transport and the Environment Committee with this petition at this time? Sarah may come up with a response.
I do not see any harm in writing to Sarah Boyack, even for information. It would be ideal for the petition to go to the Transport and the Environment Committee, to start the ball rolling, and to the Rural Affairs Committee. We could pass on any information that returns to us to the Transport and the Environment Committee.
We have to designate the committee that we think should take the lead on this matter. It has to be either the Rural Affairs Committee or the Transport and the Environment Committee. I think that it would be useful to write to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, saying that we note that the petitioners have already sent her a letter and asking her to give due attention to that.
I think that it is a matter of rural affairs: it is about a rural community, its survival and how it thrives. The road is a priority for it. The issue is the impact of the state of the road on the committee. I would say that it is a matter for the Rural Affairs Committee.
I do not have a problem with the petition being referred to the Rural Affairs Committee. Pauline McNeill has spoken about the need to designate a lead committee. If anyone is going to come up with the money for improving the situation, it is the Minister for Transport and the Environment, Sarah Boyack. If we are writing to Sarah to ask her to reply to the petitioners' letter, the matter should go to the Transport and the Environment Committee. I would prefer it to go to both committees, but my preference is for it to be treated as a transport matter.
I will try to make sense of this and make everybody reasonably happy. I think that we are agreed that we will write to the minister.
Yes.
In that letter, we should make the minister aware that we note that a letter has already been sent to her, to which we intend to add our weight. Would it be useful to wait and see what Sarah Boyack's reply is?
Yes.
Albeit our stated intention is to let the Rural Affairs Committee have a look at the petition.
That is how I would proceed. We should wait and see what the minister's response is. She has had no opportunity to respond. Thereafter, if the response is not satisfactory, I would pass the petition to one or other or both of the committees, and let them put pressure on their respective ministers.
Is that all right with you, Christine?
The Rural Affairs Committee will not meet until September. I do not see the harm in proposing that the petition come on to their agenda in September.
Are we agreed that we will write to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, saying that we are aware of the existence of the letter that has been sent to her, that we will consider further action and that there is a sense of urgency? We will be able to make the right decision as to what to do next when we meet again.
If you are not willing to send the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, convener, I will go along with Christine Grahame's preference, to send it to the Rural Affairs Committee, as it is not meeting until September.
We could ask the Rural Affairs Committee simply to note that we have discussed this. Ultimately, the committee will make its decision, on the record, when we return after the recess.
Presumably, if there is no action from the minister after the recess, we could pass the petitions on to the relevant committees then, with a sense of urgency.
That is a fair point. If we had not received a reply by the next time that we met, that would influence what we did next.
Thank you, convener and members, for the opportunity to come here today and state our case in favour of St Vigeans Primary School which, as we have already heard, is under threat of closure by Angus Council. The two-teacher school is a cost-effective, fully subscribed, successful rural school in an historical village with a distinctive character. The standard of education that it provides is very high.
Have you seen the report that the council made on 27 June?
The report that was presented to the education committee?
It is the one that deals with community factors on page 6.
Yes, we have seen that.
There is an educational argument for maintaining rural schools, but people also make a strong community argument. However, the council contends that
There are a number of issues. The school participates fully in the village open day and the village hall, which works on a tight budget, relies heavily on the income that it gets when the school uses it. People in the area identify strongly with St Vigeans.
Is the main argument against its closure the fact that the community, rather than the children's education, will suffer if it closes?
St Vigeans provides an excellent education. People elect to send their children to the school and the school has to refuse applications because it is at its capacity.
Is there also a community-based argument?
Yes.
With regard to the cost of upgrading the school, why is there a discrepancy between the council's figure of £250,000 and the figure that you give of £40,000 to £50,000?
We have asked the council for details of the costings. I believe that the breakdown of the council's figures adds up to only £190,000. The cost includes the replacement of doors, windows and partitions, which the parents do not think are essential elements of the upgrading. We do not understand how the council arrived at the figure of £250,000.
The report says that the school considers placement requests and that 28 pupils from outwith its catchment area have enrolled, which brings the school roll up to 42. I know that the council is in consultation on the matter and I would not want to jeopardise that process, but is that factor perhaps why the council has said that the school is not viable in your area?
An important issue is that the school receives a large number of placement requests because of the high standard of education that its pupils receive. A number of pupils who had difficulty coping with the pressures in larger urban schools have moved to St Vigeans, where they have settled in well. I can think of two children in particular who have thrived in the environment of St Vigeans and whose personalities have changed.
What stage of the consultation exercise has been reached?
Our submissions must be sent to the council by the end of August.
Has the council said when it intends to make a decision?
We have not been told when a decision will be made.
Thank you for making your presentation.
There have been previous petitions on rural schools. Where did they go to?
They went to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee as that is where the rural schools report is being developed.
This one should go there too, unless this issue is different.
It should go to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. You are right, John. This will probably not be the last petition that we get on school closures, so it is important that we are absolutely consistent. It would seem right to take advantage of the fact that Jamie Stone is producing a report on rural schools at the moment.
I understand that more than 5,000 signatures have been gathered in support of retaining the school. However, our briefing paper tells us that there are only seven signatures and I would like the clerk to clarify that.
We think that the original petition was submitted directly to the council.
It has not been submitted yet.
I would like that matter clarified. It would help the petition if it carried 5,000 signatures.
We will note that in the correspondence.
If we are writing to Angus Council, we should bear in mind the interesting points that were raised by the petitioner. There is a need for clarification on the question of the difference between the cost suggested by the council and the cost suggested by the petitioner. I note also that there are questions about the distance between the school and the gym facilities and about the average maintenance cost. There are many points on which the petitioners take issue with the factual basis of the council's argument. We could raise that point, particularly on the fundamental issue of cost. There is a big jump between the parents' estimate that the cost will be £40,000 to £50,000 and the council's estimate that it will be £250,000.
That point will be made as part of the consultation process. There is no reason why we cannot ask Angus Council to note that point. If we get a response on that, it would be appropriate to let the Education, Culture and Sport Committee have a look at it.
As part of the consultation process, could we ask the council to explain why it thinks the discrepancies have arisen? The petitioners have had an opportunity to say what they think.
I am always worried about asking questions during a consultation process. It is a matter of opinion, is it not? I am aware that Andrew Welsh has written questions to the Executive regarding capital costs of upgrading the school. The information is available. Given the fact that the result of the consultation process will be known by August, I do not think that we should ask detailed questions about individual costs.
I have a general concern and would like the matter clarified. In consultation periods, the wee guy is up against a bombardment of official figures from bodies such as education authorities and health boards. If the wee guy sees that there are discrepancies in the figures, that is important, because decisions will be made on the basis of those figures.
That is a useful point on which to end before we summarise what action we will take. Obviously, we have no powers to intervene, and we must allow the consultation exercise to take its natural course. We will refer the matter to a committee of the Parliament, so Margaret Smith is right to say that we could play a role in drawing out the issues to ensure that, at the very least, the decision that is taken is transparent to everyone. If there is no level playing field in the figures over which people are arguing, perhaps we could ask the council to make those figures a bit clearer. We could also refer the matter to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.
The next petition, PE227, from Alistair MacDonald, calls on the Scottish Parliament to approve an investigation into the actions of the public agencies and National Trust for Scotland as architects of the current proposals and policies for Glencoe. In particular, the petition asks that the Parliament examine public consultation and the future role of the National Trust for Scotland as a landowner.
Have we gone forward in the order of petitions we are dealing with?
We are dealing with the petitions in a slightly different order than was planned. We have received additional papers on this petition.
My name is Alistair Sutherland, and I am a member of the Glencoe action group. Mr MacDonald is here today, but we agreed that I would present the paper on behalf of the action group, if that is in order.
Indeed. Thank you. I will let Fergus Ewing address the issue.
Mr Sutherland has presented his case moderately and effectively. There are two issues of substance. One is the local concern that the scale of the development, involving a 66-seat restaurant and substantial shops, will displace local businesses. Of course, substantial public money is being sought by the National Trust for Scotland. The second is the effect on the environment, as has been mentioned, which raises the issue of the role and influence of local people in rural and Highland Scotland. As Margaret Smith said earlier, this is a case of the wee guy against officialdom. Those are serious concerns.
Thank you, Fergus. It is important that members have seen the additional paper and the response from the National Trust for Scotland. I invite committee members to ask questions.
I second what Fergus Ewing said. This is a serious issue, not just for the people of Glencoe, but for the whole of Scotland. I am concerned by what is in our papers and by the reply from the National Trust for Scotland on 3 July. Have you seen it, Mr Sutherland?
No I have not.
Perhaps it is just as well, because you would be incandescent if you read it. The last paragraph is presumptuous:
On behalf of members of the action group, and anyone else with an interest, I am sure that that would be the right thing to do.
Can I clarify a point? If the Public Petitions Committee goes to Glencoe, will we be able to hear from the National Trust for Scotland, or will we be able to hear only from the petitioner?
We will consider that point when we have finished questioning. For Mr Sutherland's benefit, I should clarify that we have conflicting information from him and the National Trust for Scotland, so we have to work our way through it.
Can you tell me about the siting of the visitor centre? Were alternative sites proposed, or has it just been put down in the middle of Glencoe?
The background is that the present centre was built for the trust in the 1970s by the Countryside Commission for Scotland on land that the trust already owned. After it was built, there was a lot of opposition from the climbing community, whose members disliked looking down from the hills to see a great slab of tarmac and buildings in an area that they thought should have been left unspoilt. So, for many years, the trust was considering where to place the centre. I do not know of any other site in its ownership on which it considered siting the centre. I know that it considered siting it on someone else's land at one stage.
So the new building is being put at a different site from the old one.
Yes. The old one will be demolished and the site will be grassed over.
In your view, which is the more appropriate site? Why would you not build a new building on the site of the old one?
My understanding is that the climbing community placed considerable pressure on the trust to remove the building from the current site.
Now the local community is objecting to the new site, whereas the locals did not object to the siting of the first centre.
That is right.
You have not seen the comments from the National Trust for Scotland. We will ensure that you get a copy before you leave today, but I am sure that you will be able to respond to a couple of points. The trust's first point is:
I cannot comment on what people were thinking about when they signed the petition, but most signatures were obtained in the River Coe Restaurant, where the owner is in severe danger of having his business wrecked. He would not obtain signatures without signatories understanding what they were signing.
It is important to get this on the record so that you get a chance to respond on the record. The trust also says:
I do not think that the petition presents an unbalanced picture. Mr Campbell is a member of the National Trust for Scotland and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, and is regarded by the trust as the Mountaineering Council of Scotland's voice in the trust. Mr Campbell was 100 per cent in favour of the trust's proposals, as far as the woodland regeneration side was concerned. The balance of the meeting was not too bad. The majority of speakers were against the proposals, but there was one in favour.
Thank you. There are a number of issues that we have to consider, the first of which is the fact that it is not clear what powers or authority we have over the National Trust for Scotland. We need to obtain an opinion on that. The trust receives some public money indirectly, but we need a legal opinion on the authority that that gives the Parliament over the National Trust for Scotland.
Where do we stand in terms of the timetable for action? We have a recess soon, which means that taking action at Public Petitions Committee meetings or at subject committee meetings will be a problem. I would be interested to know whether the clerk has any indication about the timetable.
Before we consider whether the committee should go to Glencoe, I insist that we examine the issues to make absolutely sure that we have jurisdiction and consider what kind of action we can take.
Why are we asking whether we have jurisdiction? As I understand it, the National Trust for Scotland is publicly funded. The Scottish Parliament has jurisdiction over the funds that are expended by the Executive in Scotland. I would have thought that it is obvious that we have jurisdiction to investigate the actions of any public body. For what it is worth, my view is that we would not be entitled to hear people other than the petitioners, but that is a matter for discussion. We went to the Borders to hear from people in the community there about a range of issues and to get a feel for how they felt. The issues that arose then went to other committees. That set a perfectly legitimate precedent. My only problem is with the time scale. We need to know how we will fit a visit in, but I think that it would be valuable to go there.
For clarification, our next meeting will be on 12 September. There is nothing stopping us going to Glencoe, but we need to try to be balanced and fair about the evidence that we have in front of us. We have conflicting information, so we have to sort that out somehow. We could refer the matter to a subject committee, but first and foremost we must establish how we deal with the conflicting views.
Am I right in thinking that the proposed new building will be built on what is arguably a war grave—a site of enormous significance?
Yes.
That is happening at the behest of the National Trust and of mountaineers. The local people, who should be taken into account, are perfectly happy for a building to be built to replace the existing building on a different site. Is that correct, Fergus?
There are a number of concerns about the proposed new building. One is that it is being built with public money. The effect of a 66-seater restaurant—as opposed to a hole in the wall with a few bench seats as there is at the moment—will be to terminate existing businesses. Local enterprise companies accept and implement the principle of displacement, which prevents them from supporting businesses where there are existing businesses in the same field. I have had clarification from the Executive that the displacement policy should apply to all bodies, whether they are charities or other businesses.
I know that you have not had a chance to read the papers, Fergus, but they say:
The National Trust has said that that is true, but local opinion is that the National Trust's initial plans did not include a 66-seater restaurant and that the plans were not effectively communicated to the local community. I accept that there are two sides to any case. The community expresses one view and the National Trust expresses another. Surely an investigation is required where there is a difference of opinion.
Lots has been said about the validity of the case, about how we go forward and about whether we should invite the National Trust to come along to a public meeting if we decide to go to Glencoe. Natural justice would require that we contact the National Trust to invite it to a meeting.
Is this ultimately a planning issue? Should not we refer the matter to the committee that deals with such issues?
The agenda is bigger than that. The matter is not just about planning permission for a restaurant; it is about forestry and so on.
We have to come to a decision. The advice that we have been given is that we should establish whether we have jurisdiction to investigate, albeit that we wish we did. We have to seek an opinion on whether we have powers to investigate the funding of the National Trust.
I would like clarification on who we will seek an opinion from.
We will seek an opinion from the Scottish Parliament's legal team. We need to establish whether the Parliament has the right to investigate the matter. If we can, someone will have to address the issue of the conflicting information. I agree with John Scott's suggestion that we should refer the matter to the relevant subject committee.
What purpose will be served by visiting the site? I would like to find out more about the issue for my own information, but it will not be up to us to make a decision; it will be up to the relevant committee.
There are an awful lot of assumptions going about. The assumption that I would make—and the assumption of most MSPs and the Scottish people—is that the Parliament can investigate whoever it likes, particularly a body such as the National Trust. We are elected to serve the people of Scotland. It is not right to say that the Parliament has to check who it can investigate. We should have the power to investigate whoever we like. If the National Trust decides that it does not want to come along, fine, but at least we will have made the initial move. I do not think that it can be said that we cannot investigate them.
It is rather demeaning to talk about Glencoe as a planning issue. Glencoe is a national and international sacred site—it is an historic area. This is a major issue. What causes me the most concern is the lack of consultation and consideration. With respect to the deputy convener and the clerk, I do not think that we need to get an opinion from anybody.
I agree with what other members have said. My understanding is that we have the power to investigate any public body that spends public funds. I urge the committee to take a decision today based on that assumption. If the decision is found to be incorrect, we can think again after the recess. However, if we work on the basis that we do not have such a power and we go to Glencoe, we will not be able to take any action until after the recess.
There is no intention to hang about. The information that we have been given by the Scottish Parliament's legal department is that it has not established whether the NTS is a public body. The committee can make that assumption if it so wishes.
If we assume that it is, we can hit the ground running if we get the go-ahead. If we do not do that, we will have to revisit the matter. Our timetable, however, means that that would probably be the best option.
We have been advised to take an opinion. Let us act on the assumption that the Parliament has the power to investigate what is going on. The next decision is how the committee intends to pursue that investigation. My feeling is that the matter should go to a subject committee. There is conflicting information and going to Glencoe will not sort that out—we will still be faced with a conflict between the National Trust and the community. The matter needs more time. I know that the subject committees are overworked, but more time would produce more detail, which is, ultimately, what the petitioners are asking us for. We must make a decision on the matter quite soon.
I take on board what Pauline McNeill is saying. It is difficult to convene a meeting and to express one's own opinions. The matter should eventually go to a subject committee. However, the Public Petitions Committee should go to Glencoe. We should write to the National Trust, inviting it to a public meeting.
It has been proposed that the petition goes before a subject committee and that we go to Glencoe prior to doing that.
I agree with Fergus Ewing that we should go to Glencoe. It is important that people see that the Public Petitions Committee is accessible, that the Parliament is listening and that we gather information. A precedent was set when we went to Galashiels for a meeting on the Borders rail petition. It was useful to the Public Petitions Committee and to the petitioners that the petitioners had the opportunity to speak to members of the Scottish Parliament and to the MPs who attended. It did not prevent other committees considering the petition thoroughly.
Can Fergus Ewing clarify the time scale? Is there one?
The time scale for what, convener?
For dealing with the matter.
For visiting Glencoe?
For the planning issue, in particular.
I could not speak for the NTS, but the sooner we visit after the end of the recess, the better. If the committee is minded to hear the local community's case, a visit would send a strong message.
I am not asking for your opinion. It is an important point. We need to clarify that—
It would be wrong for me to speak for the National Trust for Scotland.
Let us clarify the time scale.
It has not been made abundantly clear that the National Trust and the National Trust for Scotland are two separate entities.
I just say National Trust—it is obvious that we are speaking about the National Trust for Scotland.
We need to know the time scale. I am not clear whether the committee should decide now. There is a difference of opinion about what we should do.
I have a proposal on the table—someone else might have another—that we go to Glencoe for a public meeting and that we inform the National Trust of that meeting.
There are two proposals on the table. How soon do we have to make a decision? Can we discuss in our meeting on 12 September whether to go to Glencoe?
I would like the letter to be sent out as soon as possible and to have a date set before we meet on 12 September.
If the National Trust for Scotland has planning permission, it is either considering action or is in the process of taking it—it will not be telling us that it is taking no action. In either case, it would be to the benefit of all sides for us to act as quickly as possible. That allows us to do exactly what Pauline McNeill suggested. There is a need for clarification on points of information. We would be doing a service to the subject committees—which might have the petition put before them in due course—if we gathered information as early as possible.
Is it the feeling of the committee that, before we send the petition to a subject committee, the Public Petitions Committee should visit Glencoe?
Taking into consideration all that has been said about the petition being dealt with timeously, shall we leave it to the clerk to sort out when that visit should take place?
I warn members that I shall now speed through the rest of the agenda, as it is 12.10 pm.
Thank you, convener and members of the committee. I am the convener of the unions at North Lanarkshire Council and this is Graham McNab, the vice-convener.
Thank you, Michael.
Thank you for inviting me to the Public Petitions Committee. I will underline what the petition calls for.
Thank you, Alex. Do members have questions—not statements, please—for Michael Farrell?
What is a 19(b) notice? In whose name was it served?
A 19(b) notice states that the department will no longer continue. Donald Dewar issued it, when he was the Secretary of State for Scotland. Now he is the First Minister.
So, is the situation the responsibility of the Scottish Executive now?
We are having a little difficulty trying to find out who is responsible. When we asked the Scottish Executive who could change the notice, it replied, the council. When we asked the council, it said the Scottish Executive. Perhaps the committee could clarify that point for us.
What are the accumulated losses of the DLO? Is that information in the business plan? What does the business plan cover—one year, five years or 10 years?
We lost £4.7 million in 1998, for which a lot of people blamed the work force and the bonus system that was in operation. However, as members can see, surpluses were put back into the council and the bonus system was examined. The management was changed drastically—new management was brought in to turn around the system. The same workers using the same bonus system made a surplus two years running. Therefore, the previous deficit was not the fault of the workers or of the bonus system.
Are you saying that in all other years, apart from 1998, the DLO made a profit?
Before 1998, we were in different authorities. Then we were brought in to the new North Lanarkshire Council. I am not aware of any council that made a loss in the area before then. My previous authority—Motherwell District Council—had made surpluses and had upgraded all its buildings with those surpluses. Therefore, there was plenty of money available—the business that moved to North Lanarkshire Council was healthy and so there should not have been a problem. Perhaps the deficit was the fault of the management.
You mention in the letter that you sent to the Public Petitions Committee that you were concerned that
That is to do with the window factory. The workers at that factory are part of the first major transfer to the public sector—it happened just last week, after a long argument about pension rights and whether or not those rights were transferred under TUPE. We argued that the transfers should have gone through with the workers' pension rights intact. Admitted body status is due to be signed by the end of July and that will allow companies to buy in to the local government pension schemes, which would have made the transfer of pension rights easier. At the time of transfer, the workers were still carrying out work for North Lanarkshire Council. We argued, therefore, that they were entitled to be part of that pension scheme. The council said, "No. There is no need for that." James Walker (Leith) Ltd took on the business and offered the guys a pension scheme that was worth less than the scheme that they were in before. That company expected them to just accept the new scheme.
Are you aware of any other DLOs in Scotland that have transferred to the private sector?
So far, North Lanarkshire DLO is the first to transfer. I know that Glasgow City Council is talking about transferring its housing stock, which will also be a TUPE transfer. However, North Lanarkshire DLO seems to be the guinea pig.
Would I be right to say that workers in North Lanarkshire would be excluded, if they were to be transferred to the private sector from the national agreement on—
All the workers' conditions of service are supposed to transfer with them—the national agreement is supposed to ensure that. However, once they are employed by a private company, they have no protection in law. The TUPE regulations are supposed to ensure that employees have the same conditions after a transfer, but once the new contractor has a small group of people, it is easy to split them up and erode their conditions. If that happens in North Lanarkshire, it will happen in DLOs throughout Scotland and there will be a lot of very unhappy people.
Thank you for your presentation—it was excellent.
I will leave these documents for you.
We will have to clarify where the 19(b) notice came from, specifically whether it came from the Scottish Executive.
Have we received a reply from North Lanarkshire Council?
No, we have not.
I suggest that we should write to them again.
Once again, we are in the odd situation of hearing only one side of the argument. We have not heard from the council and we have not heard from the Executive, both of which should be asked for their comments.
We should certainly let North Lanarkshire Council comment on the petition. We should also write to the Executive and ask it to clarify its position on where the notice came from. We can then have a look at the answer and take further action.
We should ask Frank McAveety.
We should ask him for his reasons—or ask them for their joint reasons—for issuing the notice. Somebody has to take responsibility and that person should be asked the reason for issuing the notice. That would give us the other side of the argument to set against the argument of the petitioner.
John has made an important point. I would add that, when we ask for the reason, we should ask for it to be given in the light of the profit margin that we have just heard about.
The time scale is important. With the recess coming, we need to know how quickly we will get the answers and how much is already in train. I should have asked the petitioner, or perhaps Alex—
This is a matter of urgency. As Michael Farrell said, the window factory was transferred last week. We cannot wait till the end of the recess—we have to get answers from ministers now, and urge them to take appropriate action.
Okay—we will treat this as a matter of urgency.
I was going to ask about the Local Government Committee, but we will wait—
There will not be meeting but we will treat this as a matter of urgency and make a decision on 12 September when we meet. We should be ready then. John's points about asking for reasons may help to draw out some of the information that the petitioners want.
We would like to thank the Public Petitions Committee for allowing us to address it on the issues in our petition. I will introduce my two colleagues—Mr Jim Johnston, who is the vice-president of the TTA, and Mr Robert Geddes, who is the immediate past-president. Any questions on our petition may be addressed to any of us.
I have to declare an interest—I was once a secondary teacher and I was once married to a technical teacher. Do you agree that technical studies, or technology as you call it, is often seen as the cinderella of secondary school subjects and of lesser status than, say, physics or chemistry?
Yes.
I found the comments in your paper about the skills deficit interesting. Do you think that we should remit this petition at some stage to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, rather than just to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee?
Yes.
The suggested course of action is to send the petition to the Deputy Minister for Children and Education and seek his views. I think that we should do that. As Christine Grahame suggested, it would be a good idea for the petition to go to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
The skills deficit and the lack of status for this subject are real issues.
Should we wait until we have had a response from the minister?
No.
Should we refer the petition to both the committee and the minister at the same time?
Yes.
We should refer it to both at the same time.
Convener, what is your view?
I think that it would be an interesting issue for the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to discuss. I am always wary about adding to that committee's work load, but it might be useful for it at least to note the issue. In the light of the reply that we get from the minister, we can pursue matters further.
If we send this petition to the members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and say that we are seeking a response from the Deputy Minister for Children and Education, that would give them advance notice and perhaps allow them to slot it in. It is a busy committee.
We will move on to petition PE237, which is from Mr David Bryce on behalf of Calton Athletic Recovery Group. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate alleged discrimination in terms of the public funding of Calton Athletic and to facilitate a meeting with the relevant Scottish Executive ministers to allow Calton Athletic to outline its concerns.
I am the director of Calton Athletic Recovery Group, on behalf of which I am presenting the petition to the committee. As it would take a lot more than two minutes to explain fully the discrimination against the group, I will stick to the main issue of discrimination in public funds.
Thank you very much; that was very clear. Do members have any questions for David Bryce?
Why has this discrimination taken place?
That is a good question. A high-ranking police officer asked me the same question before we took part in the "Choices for Life" anti-drugs event at the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre. We had to fight like mad to get on that agenda; we were successful through the co-operation of Jim Orr of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. However, we were let down, because we thought that we were getting evaluated on the day that we were at the event; indeed, that evaluation would have told a story. Although the initiative did not get evaluated, 20 different schools—10 from Edinburgh and 10 from Glasgow—approached us after the event. The impact was tremendous.
You have been going for a long time and I know the work that you do. You never really received funding before so-called big companies allowed you to access it. One of your papers states that you have proof that, during the past couple of years, your particulars have been removed from the national drugs helpline. If you were to be granted a meeting with a minister or the committee, would you be able to provide that proof?
Sure thing. We sent the documentation to the Scottish Executive more than a year ago when the discrimination first happened, and were reassured that it would never happen again. Lo and behold, exactly the same thing happened a couple of months ago. Such an action does not discredit just Calton Athletic; it discredits people and families who want to get their kids off drugs and schools that want our services. The proof is available in black and white for everyone to read. The Scottish Drugs Forum asked the national drugs helpline to replace our particulars with a blank piece of paper. Although that is hardly credible in this day and age, that is exactly what happened. The national helpline sent us copies of the Scottish Drugs Forum's letter.
The petitioners are asking for a meeting with the relevant minister and for our assistance. We should write to the Deputy Minister for Justice and ask him to meet them urgently on the basis of their petition.
Perhaps he can also write to us about why this apparent discrimination has taken place. He must have a view as well.
I would like to hear the Deputy Minister for Justice's comments on both the petition and the evidence that will be on record today.
Okay. We will ask for the relevant minister's response to the comments on the record today about the apparent discrimination. We will also urge the Deputy Minister for Justice to meet Calton Athletic Recovery Group. Are members agreed?
I now call Alasdair Russell to speak to petition PE234, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to create a regulation to ensure that all councils publish an annual one-page summary of councils' allowances and expenses in the respective council magazine. I apologise for skipping past you, Alasdair; please take a couple of minutes to present your petition.
Everybody knows that councils are public bodies and deal in public money. Anyone who wants to know how much money a councillor has earned over the financial year has to look out for a small advertisement that appears once in the local paper. Under the Local Authorities etc (Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations 1995, anyone can visit the council offices and inspect those figures. However, my proposal, which is simple, straightforward and reasonable, will cost little or no money and will involve amending the regulations or introducing new ones. Councils throughout Scotland produce council magazines—such as this one from Renfrewshire Council—that include miscellaneous items such as, for example, information on councillors and their photographs.
Thank you. I invite brief questions to Alasdair Russell on the petition.
You mentioned Renfrewshire Council. You obviously know that certain members of that council would need more than a wee page devoted to them—their allowances would take up about three or four pages. Have you approached any individual councillors with this idea or have you come straight to the Parliament?
I have come straight to the Public Petitions Committee, after picking up a leaflet in the library.
It is helpful for us to know that. You are the first person of whom we have asked that question. Perhaps we should ask more people that.
Are we allowed to endorse it?
No, but members can attend the Local Government Committee meeting.
Petition PE225 is from William Ackland, on noise and environmental pollution. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to take steps, including the introduction of legislation if necessary, to protect the human rights of residents in homes that are adjacent to quarrying from vibration, noise and environmental threats. It is suggested that we write to the Minister for Transport and the Environment and ask for her comments on the protection that is currently available for residents. Depending on her response, we may refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee. Are we agreed?
Do not local councils have an involvement in granting planning permission for quarrying?
I think that they must follow national guidance, but we can ask for that information from the minister.
Petition PE229 is from Lawrence Stewart and calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation to require financial institutions to place investors' money in the highest-bearing account when account types are changed by financial institutions. You will know that such issues are reserved matters, so we do not have any powers to legislate, but we could send the letter to the relevant UK Government minister so that the point is not lost.
I think that we should send it with our endorsement. This is a good idea, but there are complications in relation to traceability if one moves accounts around. A huge difficulty is bound to arise when someone thinks that they have an account only to discover—perhaps 20 years later—that the account has been moved.
We will write to the UK minister and we will add in the letter that we think that it is a good point for them to address. Is that agreed?
The next petition, PE231, is from Desmond Divers and is on car parking charges in Dunoon. We have an additional paper on that, which contains comments received from Argyll and Bute Council on the issues raised in the petition. We have written to Argyll and Bute Council, which is why we got that reply. We can now decide what we want to do with the petition.
The final sentence in the letter mentions
I am sure that they will pick that up with this committee if they feel that the matter is not finished. Is it agreed that we follow the suggested course of action?
Petition PE236 is from the Solway Shellfish Hand Operator's Federation and is on suction dredging in the Solway. It calls for the Scottish Parliament to consider the employment and environmental implications of permitting the reinstatement of suction dredging for shellfish in the Solway.
I spoke to Alasdair Morgan, the MSP for the area, who has concerns about this. He cannot be here today because the Rural Affairs Committee is meeting. It might be worth remitting this to the Rural Affairs Committee pro tem. This method has been used before and there will be great problems if it is reinstated.
I am not against that.
If it is done now, it will not reach the Rural Affairs Committee until September.
We should send it for information to both Alasdair Morgan, as the MSP for that area, and to the Rural Affairs Committee.
Is there a time scale for considering this?
A consultation is under way.
I do not know what the time scale is. Alex Fergusson has lobbied me on this; he is very much in favour of the petition as well. It would appear that those who are connected with the area are in favour of the petition.
We will ensure that all the MSPs for the area get a note of what we have done at this committee, so that they can pick up on it.
Will we send it to the Rural Affairs Committee as well?
We will send it for noting to the Rural Affairs Committee.
We should send it to Jamie McGrigor as well, since he seems to know more about fish than anyone.
No, we would be sending it to everybody.
We will send it to the MSPs in the locality, as we know that Alex Fergusson and Alasdair Morgan have an interest in this. Other members can come to the next committee meeting, if we are picking it up.
Petition PE238 is from Mr James A Mackie on behalf of the Forth Fishery Conservation Trust and is on environmental issues in relation to salmon and sea trout.
I think that the official report is having difficulty keeping up with you, convener.
There is smoke coming out of the reporter's ears.
I am sorry for interrupting you, convener, but I could see that they were having difficulties.
My apologies to the official report.
They have to keep up with those west-coast folk who rattle on.
I am sorry. That was my impersonation of someone whom I cannot mention on record.
It should also be passed to the Rural Affairs Committee, because there are many issues surrounding fisheries. Why has that not been suggested?
The Rural Affairs Committee has already passed it on to the Transport and the Environment Committee. I do not think that the Rural Affairs Committee asked us whether it could do that, but that is what has happened.
The petition is all about fish.
The subject of the petition is the way in which the environment affects fish.
We have a commitment from the Transport and the Environment Committee to keep the Rural Affairs Committee informed of any developments.
Should the petition also be passed to the minister?
The Transport and the Environment Committee is conducting an inquiry and it might not be appropriate to ask the minister for comments at this stage. Is that agreed?
PE239 comes from Donald Easton and is on the subject of the NHS pay review body. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to direct the Scottish Executive to take action to include bio-medical scientists working in the NHS in that pay review body.
Why are they not included already?
Some lab technicians and scientists are dealt with at a UK level. For historical reasons, some groups are not included in the pay review body. Everyone wants to be part of the pay review body because it is the only one to which the Government pays any attention.
I suggest that we send the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee for noting. It is part of that committee's remit to keep an eye on what the Minister for Health and Community Care is doing.
I hope that Christine Grahame is not making a political point.
Not at all. That is what all the committees should be doing, in a cross-party fashion, in the spirit of the new politics.
Perhaps we could ask the health department why bio-medical scientists are not included in the NHS pay review body, so that we are clear on that. John Scott is right, we should do a bit of work before we pass the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee—I know that that committee is rather overloaded. I, too, would like the reason why bio-medical scientists are not included to be put on record.
There must be some reason; it will have cost those people money in terms of lost salaries.
An individual member could put that as part of a written question.
There is nothing to stop you, Sandra.
I know, we have done it before.
Yes. I have done it before.
In the spirit of the written answer procedure, we can ask the minister for a speedy response to allow us to act on the petition. We could also ask the minister to specify any other health service groups that are not included in the pay review body. Is that agreed?
George Lyon MSP and Ray Michie MP have submitted a petition on rural sub-post offices, calling on the Scottish Parliament to do everything in its power to secure a viable future for Argyll and Bute's rural sub-post offices.
It should certainly go to the Rural Affairs Committee, but I cannot see why we are sending it to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. My instinct is that it is a social inclusion matter for people in that area.
To whom have previous petitions on rural post offices been sent?
The Rural Affairs Committee, because it is conducting an inquiry into the matter.
In that case, it would be consistent to send it to the Rural Affairs Committee.
Yes. We have done that with about six of them already. Is that agreed?
Petition PE241 is from Jim Douglass, on behalf of Better Government for Older People in the Scottish Borders, calling for the Scottish Parliament to ensure that rural fuel suppliers in Scotland are able to offer a pricing structure similar to that in urban areas and to urge the UK Government to take action to ensure that fuel duty policy does not discriminate against rural populations and older people.
There are special issues for rural areas and special issues for older people who rely on cars to get them about rural areas. I would like the petition to be sent to the Rural Affairs Committee to note because of the difference in fuel prices in rural areas and in urban areas and the necessity of cars in rural areas.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is driving this issue forward.
I will not press my point.
Are we agreed to send the petition to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee?
Petition PE242 is from Action of Churches Together in Scotland, the Scottish Refugee Council and Amnesty International and calls for the Scottish Parliament to give asylum seekers rights of access to various support services and to amend legislation to restore the entitlement of asylum seekers to accommodation and cash-based support.
Perhaps it should be sent to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, as interpreters are few and far between.
Perhaps the best thing would be to ask the Minister for Communities to deal with all the aspects of support and indicate that we would be grateful if she spoke to other departments.
Can we mention education, housing and health specifically in our letter?
Yes. That concludes our consideration of the petitions. Do we want to finish off the agenda? How do members feel?
Will it take longer than 10 minutes?
Less than.
Let us blast on, then.
Are we all agreed?
Next
Current Petitions