Public Petitions Committee, 04 Nov 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Official Report 295KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Specialist Schoolteachers (PE1193)

We return to the published agenda. PE1193, from Paul Tierney, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a parents' contract whereby local authority schools would be legally required to provide that the core skills of each subject incorporated in the school curriculum were taught by a teacher specialising in that subject. The petition has received a fair amount of publicity, given the circumstances that a member of Mr Tierney's family faces. Do members have any comments or observations to make?

Every parent would sympathise with the views expressed in the petition. We want our children to get the best possible education, and having a qualified teacher is the best way of ensuring that. However, I am conscious—as I am sure that everyone else is—of the fact that local authorities have to run schools and face practical problems in getting the right number of teachers with the right qualifications in every school at every point. That will be pretty obvious to the petitioner, too. Therefore, if we are to improve things, it will take some kind of balancing act. I wonder whether we should write to local authorities and the teachers' organisations to see whether they feel that the situation can be improved. I struggle to believe that we could end up with a contract by which people would be absolutely bound; nevertheless, surely, we can try to point people in a better direction. Perhaps we should write to the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and the various teachers' organisations.

I am surprised that there is no legal requirement for teachers to be specialised if they are teaching a specialist subject. I am not sure whether I was aware of that before. Has any research been done into whether children are adversely affected if their teacher is not a specialist in the subject that they are teaching? There are questions around that, and we should perhaps ask the Government whether it knows whether there is any adverse impact on the pupils who are involved.

I have had it from the other side of the fence, when I have been pitched in to teach different subjects. Fortunately, the pupils considered me to be a better teacher than the subject teachers, but these things sometimes happen.

There is always a different perspective. A few of us here are ex-teachers and have experienced such situations. I accept that a specialist teacher would always teach the subject in a better way; however, I would hesitate to lay it down in a contract that every teacher had to be a specialist. The petition talks about only the core skills of each subject needing to be taught by a specialist, which seems to cover that.

I also wonder about learning support teachers, who often teach across the curriculum. I think that such teaching works, as it was part of my job at one point. I should put that on record.

It is worrying, and difficulties can arise if pupils get to exam time and they and their parents feel that they have not had a specialist teacher often enough to be given the basics of the core subject. I welcome the suggestions that have been made.

I will add more of the same. I am uncomfortable with the idea that those who run schools should not have some freedom to employ people who are good teachers to teach subjects in which there is a shortage of specialists. I know of one teacher with no qualifications in science who took over a science department and got the best results that the school had ever had. Primary school teachers teach all subjects across the board and are not expected to be specialists. Obviously, it is better that, where possible, the school employs people who are highly qualified in the subjects that they teach.

Another issue is that the curriculum for excellence will introduce cross-curricular teaching. Given that ethos, it would make things very difficult if there was an absolute injunction that people could teach only their specific bit of the curriculum. Some of the concerns that the petitioner raises need to be addressed, but it would be counterproductive to introduce such a legal obligation in view of what both the educational system and the Parliament have agreed should be the shape of education and the course that it should take in Scotland.

Are we agreed that we should pursue those issues? We might arrive at a different conclusion from the petitioner when we receive that information, but we will seek responses to the range of questions that have been suggested. Are members comfortable with submitting those questions to the suggested agencies, which include the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the local authorities and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education?

We should also write to the General Teaching Council for Scotland and School Leaders Scotland.

I suggest that we also contact the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association.

In addition to writing to the Scottish Government, we should contact HMIE separately to ask what criteria are used in assessing standards of classroom teaching and whether the inspectorate identifies the use of non-specialist teachers. Not all teachers can be like our convener, who was apparently perceived by pupils to be a better teacher than the person for whom he was standing in. We should ask how that is measured. Having just experienced that process with my daughter, who has just sat her exams, I know that the issue is a worry for all parents, who want the best for their children. There is an onus on us as a Parliament and on local authorities to ensure that we deliver the best education possible.

Let us explore those issues. Given the circumstances facing his daughter, the petitioner has already contacted a whole range of agencies—apropos our previous discussion, he has contacted all the various appropriate agencies—so he will clearly want the committee to hear the various agencies' views on the petition. We will explore those issues while taking on board the observations that members have made.

---

Permitted Development Rights <br />(Port Authorities) (PE1202)

PE1202, from Joyce MacDonald, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the general permitted development rights of port authorities.

I am not inclined to close the petition, as it asks some legitimate questions, but that is only my view. Do members have any comment?

I do not think that the current system is causing undue harm. It seems to work well, and I do not think that the authorities are contravening planning regulations to any great extent, if at all. I would be inclined to agree with you, convener, and keep the petition open, perhaps requesting information from the Scottish Government.

It would be appropriate to keep the petition open on the ground that the Scottish Government will amend the system next year. We could ask the Government questions such as whether the current system balances with the rights of residents living next to ports, whether it is desirable to remove the permitted development rights of port authorities, whether the recent changes in planning legislation address the issues raised in the petition, and whether the issues highlighted in the petition will be addressed through the amendments proposed to the system. It would be right and appropriate for us to ask the Government to answer those questions as we progress towards the review and amendments that it says that it will implement.

I agree with Robin Harper. It is important that we receive some clear guidance on how any changes may affect the port authorities, and it might also be useful to write to some of those authorities for their views on any changes that may be perceived to be coming forward and on how they would continue to operate if changes were made to how they could develop.

I had been thinking of suggesting that we suspend the petition until we knew what permitted development amendments were being introduced, but it probably makes sense to contact the other bodies ahead of that.

So we agree with the points on further exploration of the issue. We will do that and then bring the petition back to the committee for further consideration.

---

Ferry Services (Road Equivalent Tariff) (PE1203)

The next petition is PE1203, from Joan Richardson. There has been some coming and going of members: there is almost a revolving door. Jamie McGrigor and David Stewart will speak to the petition.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commence a review of ferry services, to develop a long-term strategy for lifeline services to 2025, and to provide an immediate minimum discount of 40 per cent on ferry fares. I will invite David Stewart and then Jamie McGrigor to speak to the petition, then we will move to questions.

I thank committee members for allowing me to make a few brief comments—I am conscious that you have a busy agenda today.

I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests and to the fact that in the summer I held my own online petition, which also called for a 40 per cent reduction in ferry fares, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, and which received 174 individual signatures.

As members may know, I was a member of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, and I was part of the team, which included Shirley-Anne Somerville and others, that undertook a huge inquiry into ferry services throughout Scotland. We took evidence in Oban and Shetland and videoconferenced with people in the Western Isles. I congratulate the petitioners on their work in bringing the petition together. In particular, Joan Richardson, the community councillor from Jura, has been the principal petitioner.

Members may ask why we are seeking a fare reduction of 40 per cent. I will draw several points to their attention. The first point is the issue of fairness. Social exclusion has been an important part of the social agendas of this and previous Governments. It is important that all islands in Scotland are brought into the discounted fares equation.

The second point is about the economy. As members know, some of our island communities are very marginal economically. Tourism has an important role to play in the Highlands and Islands in particular. Tourists will, of course, vote with their feet. They will consider visiting the cheaper road equivalent tariff pilot areas and avoid islands such as Mull, Arran and Bute and perhaps even Orkney and Shetland, which will have a knock-on effect on their populations. Such effects have been a major problem in the Highlands and Islands for generations, particularly for young people. Some of the populations of marginal island communities may be lost. There may also be effects on inward and indigenous investment. We need action now.

Members will be aware that the current RET pilot scheme is extremely long—it is not due to be completed until 2011. Indeed, someone said to me that it is the pilot study equivalent of "War and Peace", but I will leave others to comment on that. Members will also be aware that fares are frozen within but not outwith the RET areas. We need a long-term, sustainable strategy for all ferry services that takes prices into consideration. We need to consider affordable and equitable ferry services, because those services are, of course, the lifeblood of rural communities.

The next step is, of course, purely a matter for members of the committee, but I will make two brief suggestions. First, members could refer the petition to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, which has a track record of taking on board transport-related petitions from the Public Petitions Committee. Secondly, members will be aware that the Scottish Government is reviewing Scotland's lifeline ferry services as part of its national transport strategy. It seems sensible to include the petition in the discussion of those services.

I thank the committee for its time and again thank the petitioners for their work on the petition.

As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I congratulate Joan Richardson on lodging the petition. The number of signatures that it has attracted demonstrates the strength of feeling about lifeline ferries.

I welcome the announcement that the Scottish Government made in February 2008 on a RET pilot project for the Western Isles, Coll and Tiree. That announcement was exciting for people in those islands, but Joan Richardson represents the many people in the many other islands who did not receive that bonus.

My constituents and I are concerned that the pilot excludes many island communities, including those on Jura, Colonsay, Mull, Bute, Islay and, of course, all the Orkney and Shetland islands, and that it has therefore placed them at a definite economic disadvantage that may be very damaging. People are particularly concerned that the trial is so extended. We argued that if it was to take place in a limited area, it should be for a limited period, but it will last not just for a year, but for 30 years—I beg your pardon, it will last for 30 months.

The minister was angling for 30 years, but did not quite get that idea through.

I apologise for my mistake.

As David Stewart said, fare differences will be made even worse, as the Scottish Government has frozen all fares in the RET pilot area but CalMac Ferries will increase its fares elsewhere by 3.8 per cent in 2009. The Scottish ministers have not ruled out extending the RET scheme to all routes after the pilot study, but that is not much comfort to many of my constituents, who face no reductions in fares for at least three years, and it is little comfort to tourists and to farmers, crofters, business owners and others who fear that their businesses' viability will be put at risk by the relative disadvantage that they face because of ministers' decision.

The Scottish Government's recently announced ferry services review addresses part of my constituent's stated aim in her petition, but I hope that committee members will ask the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change specifically to address the concerns of islanders who have been excluded from the RET project. Ministers have a duty to respond to their legitimate concerns before the review is concluded, because we run the risk of further damage being done to already fragile remote and rural economies in the Highlands and Islands.

Do members of the committee have any comments?

Both attending MSPs have made pretty strong pleas and a fair case. We should contact the Government to ask what it intends to do about the communities that are not getting the benefit of the 40 per cent reduction in fares at the moment. We could also ask why it has decided to limit the pilot study to the Western Isles and not extend it to all the other islands.

I thank both members for their submissions. I fully support their statements.

I cannot understand how the Government could launch the RET project in part of our islands system without including everyone from our island communities. The cost of travelling from Shetland and Orkney to the mainland and on the ferries between the different islands in the far north is considerable. There are plenty opportunities to implement the RET proposals in the Argyll islands as they are being implemented in the Western Isles. I do not think that there is any legal or other impediment to the Government extending the RET programme to cover all those communities. The committee should take a strong view and raise the issue with the Government to see if sense and reason can prevail.

I agree with Nanette Milne's suggestions and add to them the suggestion that we refer the petition to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee as a matter of urgency. As we have heard, for reasons of fairness, social exclusion and economic marginalisation, there is a strong case for extending the pilot. The idea of leaving the issue until the end of the pilot in 2011 is not acceptable.

Okay. Do we accept those observations? Are we happy for the committee to pursue those points?

The clerk is concerned about a technical issue. I often say that clerks always get wound up about these things.

I just want to clarify that the committee's decision is to refer the petition to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Obviously, that committee has recently reviewed ferry services.

I suggest that the petition should go to the Scottish Government, but if the committee's view is that it should go to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, I am quite happy with that.

The main point is that the committee wants to ask the Scottish Government for clarification. The clerk was just concerned about the process, and I wanted to give him his place and the opportunity to reassure me that we were not doing anything really bad. Fergus, are you saying that it would be better if the petition went to the Government rather than the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, because that committee has concluded its ferry services inquiry?

Yes. Obviously, if the committee agrees to write to the Scottish Government it will not refer the petition to a committee—it is one or the other.

So the petition will come back to this committee and then we can refer it to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

Members' opinions differ on the usefulness of the pilot, but there will be an opportunity to debate that in the chamber at some point. However, we need clarification, because the petitioners have asked specific questions, so let us write to the Government on those issues. Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the two members of the Scottish Parliament who have come along this afternoon to speak to the petition.

---

Sports Facilities (PE1205)

Moving on swiftly, we have a petition on behalf of the save Meadowbank campaign, from Chris Gallacher, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify how the commitment to ensure that there is a local, regional and national lasting legacy from the 2014 Commonwealth games and to promote sport and healthy living can be delivered in light of recent decisions by particular local authorities to reduce the provision of local, regional and national-level sports facilities. The petition also calls on the Government to clarify how it will engage with local authorities over the period, including by providing adequate funding to ensure that the existing range and level of sports facilities is not diminished through, for example, their sale for private housing.

I am aware that a number of committee members, particularly Robin Harper, have supported the campaign in their role as list members, and will wish to contribute. Kenny MacAskill, the member for the constituency where Meadowbank stadium is located, is here to speak to the petition in his capacity as an individual MSP—he will not be speaking on behalf of the Scottish Government.

As you have correctly said, convener, I am here as the constituency member, not in a ministerial capacity. I am here to represent those individuals not just in the constituency but in the city of Edinburgh and, indeed, beyond who are concerned about sporting provision.

With the Commonwealth games looming, we have a great opportunity to acknowledge that Meadowbank stadium has a particular resonance in the heart of all Scots. Those of us of a particular age will remember the 1970 Commonwealth games, whether because of Lachie Stewart, Ian Stewart or Ian McCafferty. The 1986 games, which were also hosted in the stadium, might have been less magnificent—and ignominious, in some ways—but we remember Liz Lynch, now McColgan. All Scots have a soft spot for Meadowbank.

The stadium is in the heart of the city of Edinburgh. The benefit of the stadium's site is not just that it is located on the boundary of east and central Edinburgh, but that it is easily accessible by those who wish to participate in sport as well as those who wish to spectate, whether they travel by bus, rail, car or on foot.

The stadium has served not only elite athletes well. Those of us who have had the privilege of attending meetings run by the petitioners are aware of the involvement of the Hastings brothers, Chris Hoy and others, who have spoken up for the stadium's importance.

There are, of course, difficulties. We accept that we live in a time of economic turbulence, with cold winds blowing, but the site needs to be protected. The stadium's facilities require to be of national standard and to cater for a variety of sports. We need to ensure that what is provided is not just for elite athletes, whom we wish to promote and support as they seek to emulate in 2014 the success that was achieved at the Olympic games in 2008; access must be available to all. That has been the strength of Meadowbank stadium, and not just for Edinburgh's citizens—as I said, its central location has afforded opportunities to people elsewhere.

For those reasons, it is a pleasure and a privilege to support the petition.

As a committee member, I should declare an interest as a supporter of the campaign. I do not know how appropriate it is for me to speak about the petition.

The petition should be considered at the highest possible level—the Government should consider the issues that have been raised. I would like the petition to be referred to the Government for its attention. For understandable reasons, reducing the scale, effectiveness and contribution of Meadowbank in years to come, nationally and internationally, is too important for Edinburgh to be left to take the decision.

It would be a big surprise if Margo MacDonald had not expressed an interest in the petition—she is interested in sport-related issues, and she occasionally takes an interest in the future direction of the city of Edinburgh, judging from what I hear in the chamber. She has given us a letter in support of the petition, which focuses on the attempt to ensure that

"the existing range and level of sports facilities is not diminished".

That is the key message of Margo MacDonald's letter.

We have received a series of petitions relating to sports provision recently, and we have referred most of them, if not all, to the Health and Sport Committee for its pathways into sport inquiry. We should refer the petition directly to that committee, although I will be guided by comments from other committee members or from the clerk. These are issues of national importance. Meadowbank has been nationally significant in Scottish sport. There is a broader debate about pathways into sport, but we must remember that a series of stadiums are significant for us as a nation engaging in sport.

If we send the petition to the Health and Sport Committee, can we also raise with the Government the issues in the petition? I will leave that thought for now—we can tidy up at the end of our discussion. Do other members want to comment?

I will elaborate on what you have said, convener. We should take the issue seriously. My question is perhaps for the clerk. Is sending the petition to the Health and Sport Committee the best that we can do, or should we, in parallel, run the petition past the Government? The issue is what will get the best outcome.

Unlike other petitions, there is something particular about this one in relation to decisions that can be made. Clearly, the Government must have discussions about the legacy of the Commonwealth games, and it is seeking consensus in the Parliament on getting resources for that. Ministers will engage in spending rounds in the coming period, which could impact on the availability of facilities and whether existing facilities will be part of that. We must get the Government's view on the petition, but at the same time we must ensure that the Health and Sport Committee has the petition for its inquiry, because it is meaningful. Let us be honest: the petition will involve observations from the wider public, because significant sporting figures, such as Chris Hoy, have views on the matter. We cannot just say that the petition is like any other one. There is something particular about it, so we need to deal with that.

I ask the clerk whether we can refer the petition and write to the Government.

That option is certainly available to the committee.

Thank you—that is all I need to hear. That great option is available to us.

We should also refer the petition to the City of Edinburgh Council for its comments. We can hardly leave it out.

Absolutely.

If the committee refers the petition to the Health and Sport Committee, that committee will have a view on how it wishes to proceed. However, to be helpful, I remind members that the committee has on one or two occasions referred petitions and at the same time invited the Scottish Government and A N Other body to submit written evidence directly to the committee to which the petition was referred. That option could be taken.

I think that we have consensus that we should take that option. Do members agree to take that two-pronged approach to the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Kenny MacAskill for his time.

---

Public Transport (Equal Access) (PE1206)

The next petition is PE1206, from Catriona Black, on behalf of the mums need to use Lothian Buses too campaign. Shirley-Anne Somerville has expressed an interest in the petition and wishes to speak. The petition asks us to encourage public transport operators and appropriate stakeholders to provide parents and carers of babies and young children with equitable access to public buses when using prams, travel systems and buggies. I know that Shirley-Anne Somerville needs to declare an interest, as a result of recent developments.

I declare an interest as a local representative and as a new mum who is currently banned from taking her daughter in her pram on to a Lothian Buses bus.

It gives me great pleasure to speak on behalf of the petitioners. I emphasise that the petition has cross-party support in the Parliament and at council level. The petitioners have sought to find a solution with Lothian Buses, but failed. The petition is not about setting new mums against disabled people; it is about equal opportunities for all. The current Lothian Buses policy discriminates against parents and carers because whether they are allowed to get on a Lothian bus depends on the sort of pram they have. That makes a mockery of the Lothian Buses strapline "Easy Access for all" and it is a mockery of an easy-to-understand policy.

I have a copy of the policy that is given to drivers, which has categories A, B and C of prams. People can get on with some prams, but not with others. For category C, it is mibbes aye, mibbes no, depending on how the driver feels and the bus. That is difficult to understand, even for a new mum who has an obsession with prams, so I am sure that it is difficult for drivers to put into practice. That will lead to problems when drivers have to deal with people at bus stops who do not understand the policy. Lothian Buses insists that the policy has to do with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, but it is the only company that has taken that stance and it has made spurious assumptions in its legal assessments. There is no doubt that the policy isolates new parents.

Committee members who can cast their minds back to when their children were babies, or who have grandchildren who are babies now, will know how difficult it is to get on public transport with a new baby. Very new babies do not have control of their necks and heads, and balancing your baby along with your shopping when getting on a bus can be a real problem, as is folding your pram when the bus is moving. Those problems cannot be reduced simply by buying a new pram, even for people who have the money to do so.

The mums in the group are asking for a commonsense approach. They agree with Lothian Buses that wheelchair users should have priority for the wheelchair space, and they agree that they should vacate the space if a wheelchair user requires it. The mums are asking for a public education campaign to make parents and carers aware of the need to allow wheelchair access.

Statements of support for a commonsense compromise have been made by Edinburgh disability charities and by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has pleaded with Lothian Buses to come up with a compromise. I have been taken aback by the absolute refusal of Lothian Buses to find a way forward. I admit that my parliamentary career has been short, but I have never experienced an organisation that has been so uninterested in finding a solution for the benefit of all.

Lothian Buses seems to be satisfied about leaving a vulnerable group of people without access to public transport. The company said at a recent meeting that I had with the mums that it would change its mind only if it were made to do so by Parliament or a higher authority. That is why we are here today. I ask the committee to view the petition in that light.

A dangerous precedent is being set. One company has taken its decision and I fear that others may follow if the Parliament does not take a stance. We are seeing people being put off buses and banned from using them entirely at the very time when we are encouraging people to use public transport.

I have a lot of sympathy with what has been said, but the question is whether we are in a position to do anything about the problem.

I have to declare an interest. I am involved in a by-election for City of Edinburgh Council and this issue has arisen. The candidate for my party supports the petition, so I do not think that I should comment further.

I understand that regulations have been set out by the UK Department for Transport. Two distinct issues arise. The first is whether the Westminster regulations are adequate to cover the use of prams or other means of transporting babies and children. I hate to say it, but we have to ask whether the UK Government might have made an omission when considering the DDA. Other rights should have been considered at that time.

The second issue is the way in which Lothian Buses interprets its obligations to its passengers—to the people in the Lothians whom it is supposed to serve. Shirley-Anne Somerville spoke about Parliament or a higher authority. I do not know whether the convener is that higher authority, but this issue has to be raised with Lothian Buses through whatever channels possible.

As Shirley-Anne Somerville said, a commonsense approach is required. Many people who rely on bus services live in some of the most deprived areas of the Lothians. It defies belief that Lothian Buses is denying people who are travelling with their children access to what may be their only means of getting from their home to the shops and back again. Lothian Buses is supposed to operate a public transport system.

We should get the clerks to write one of their strongly worded letters to Lothian Buses, asking what its justification is for introducing its policy and ignoring the 2002 regulations. It might also be useful to write to some other public bus operators in Scotland, particularly First Glasgow, to get their views and find out how they interpret the regulations. We might need to consider taking the matter higher, to the UK Government, but we should seek some information from other operators first. In effect, Lothian Buses is placing a diktat on the drivers who operate the buses.

It is unfortunate that a compromise has not been reached. Lothian Buses must have been patting itself on the back for making its buses 100 per cent wheelchair accessible so early. We could ask other bus companies how they are doing, but they might not have come across the problem because they have not managed to make all their buses accessible yet. We ought to congratulate Lothian Buses on doing that. However, other bus operators will come up against the problem too.

People are aware of the idea of a hierarchy of equalities, but it seems ridiculous that a mother with a child should be banned from going on the bus and told, "If you've got a folding pram, that's fine, but if not, you're in trouble." It is probably younger women who do not have any alternatives who will be banned from this method of travel.

Am I correct to say that you seek a compromise whereby prams are allowed on the bus but the person would be willing to get off again—in the rain and the snow with the baby and the shopping—if someone with a wheelchair wished to get on?

The mums said that they would be willing to do that. Various solutions have been proposed to Lothian Buses, one of which is that mothers would get off the bus and wait for the next one. They would be willing to do that. Lothian Buses claims that people refuse to get off, although they have little evidence that that is a problem. The mums are willing to find a compromise, and that is one suggestion, but we are finding it difficult to get Lothian Buses to talk to the mums and find a solution.

I hope that the Public Petitions Committee can facilitate that.

Has anyone asked wheelchair users for their views? I suspect that they would be more sympathetic than has been presumed.

Yes, there have been approaches, including by Lothian Buses. There has been a lot of coverage in the Evening News, and one of the disability groups in Edinburgh, ECAS, has called for a commonsense approach. It does not believe that Lothian Buses' approach is the right way forward and it is agreeable to the running of a public awareness campaign to give parents additional information about the use of wheelchair spaces on buses.

I think that the committee agrees that we should try to move the petition forward. It strikes me as strange that the bus company is following such a strict interpretation. I note with interest the range of people who have expressed support for the petition—in the Parliament and in the local authority. If I was in senior management in the bus company and it was out of kilter with its local elected politicians, I would be reflecting on that. I say that because I want it to be on the record.

There are some options that we think are worth exploring. I will summarise the points that members of the committee made. First, we intend to write to a number of bus operators about their interpretation. I wonder whether we should also write to the UK minister with responsibility for disability issues to find out what he or she thinks of the company's interpretation of the DDA, because I am sure that it does not reflect the intention behind the legislation.

In a written parliamentary answer, Rosie Winterton, the UK Minister of State for Transport, stated:

"Many parents and carers with infants or young children now find it much easier to use public transport. This is largely due to the accessibility improvements introduced by the Department to help people with disabilities."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 10 September 2008; Vol 479, 2006W.]

There seems to be a contradiction between what the minister feels the situation to be at UK level and how Lothian Buses is interpreting the DDA.

That is useful. When you think about some of the characters who are allowed on buses that we wish were not allowed on buses, it is disappointing that mothers with kids cannot get on. With that thoughtful observation from the convener, I assure the petitioners that we want to move things forward on the matter. I thank Shirley-Anne Somerville for her time.

---

Planning Permission (High Flood Risk Areas) (PE1207)

The next petition is PE1207, from Gordon Sinclair, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review Scottish planning policy 7 on planning and flooding to ensure that no new developments are built on areas that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency designates as high flood risk areas and to review all planning approvals for developments in designated high flood risk areas that have not yet commenced, to reflect recent advice from the Association of British Insurers.

Helen Eadie MSP has expressed an interest in the petition and I invite her to speak to it.

I am pleased to support my constituents, who live in St David's Bay, on this issue, which concerns the general principles of planning policy in Scotland. Anyone who has witnessed the television news coverage of the harrowing scenes of flooding that take place from time to time will be aware of how traumatic such events are for all the individuals and families who are affected. The Association of British Insurers has also expressed its concerns about the matter and called on UK and Scottish ministers to undertake a review of all the planning permissions that have been granted in areas that have been designated by SEPA as being at a high risk of flooding.

It is important that we support people throughout Scotland who live in areas where there is a likelihood of flooding. With climate change getting worse as each year goes by, we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to adopt the precautionary principle. We have heard about the use of that principle in the context of telephone masts and many other aspects of parliamentary and local government processes. This is another area in which the precautionary approach should apply. I feel strongly—as do my constituents—that, in the context of planning permissions, no developments should be built in places where a Government agency has said that there is a high risk of flooding. There is no point in people making a deal of fuss and being sorry about things after the event. If the proper approach were taken in the beginning, the harrowing scenes that we see on television could be avoided.

National planning policy guidelines already cover the issue and state that there will be a presumption against developments where there is a risk of flooding, but that seems to be ignored equally at local authority level and by the reporters at the Scottish Government level. There was a case at St David's Bay in which the Scottish Government reporter ignored the presumption against planning and the minister, Mike Russell, signed off the planning application. My constituents feel that it is obscene to allow planning permissions to go ahead in such circumstances.

We appeal to the committee for a number of things. First, we want the petition to be taken into account by the committee that is scrutinising the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill and amendments made to the bill to ensure that nothing like what I have described happens again. Secondly, we want approaches to be made to the minister, saying that planning permission should not be granted in the circumstances that I have outlined and that all current planning permissions should be reviewed and, if necessary, withdrawn if SEPA has designated an area as being at high risk of flooding. Thirdly, we request that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities be asked to undertake, as a matter of urgency, awareness training and a high-visibility campaign to ensure that all planning officers are aware of the issue when planning applications come before them in committee.

Does the committee wish to make any comments or observations on the issue?

This is a serious issue and I have some experience of it in my area. It is of concern to the people involved, including me because of my environment brief. The issue comes up again and again, particularly, as Helen Eadie says, in relation to climate change. My first thought was that we should refer the petition to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee as part of its inquiry. It would also be worth taking up Helen Eadie's suggestions.

There is broad agreement that we want to explore those issues. We will take Nanette Milne's points on board and seek views on the other issues.

Helen Eadie suggested that planning consent be removed from some developments that have already been granted it. If we are going to contact COSLA, it would be useful to get some indication of the implications of that suggestion for local authorities. A decision to withdraw planning consent may have financial implications for local authorities.

I agree with the general thrust of the petition and with ensuring that new developments are free from a high risk of flooding, but I would widen that out. In recent years, not just the traditional flood plains have been flooded; areas that have traditionally been free from high-flowing water have been affected. Over the past couple of years, many river banks and burns in certain areas have burst, which has resulted in much damage to houses in those areas. We need to ensure that the Government gets this right so that people do not have to go through such disasters in their homes, or be moved out only to find that they cannot move in for years after the damage has taken place.

That is a helpful suggestion.

When I was on Dundee City Council, applications for developments that were clearly intended for places that had been subject to a lot of water came to us and they were approved on the condition that mitigating works were carried out and that sustainable urban drainage systems and so on were installed. Although I am not sure what "high flood risk" means in the context of the petition, I ask for caution about which words we use and how those words are interpreted. There may be some schemes that are perfectly reasonable because of the other works that are carried out.

A map produced by SEPA sets out designated areas throughout Scotland. It is continually updated. The areas that I am talking about are designated as being at high risk of flooding by SEPA. The reality, however, is that that does not apply in every instance. Having been a member of a local government planning authority, you will know that although the usual process is that all the agencies are invited to comment, a rigorous check is not always carried out to ensure that every agency has been invited to comment. Where that process has not been 100 per cent, it would be an extreme case for review by ministers. If an agency that was not initially invited to comment comes to the view that the land concerned should not be built on, that would be a case for calling back that planning approval.

While I accept the point about the cost implications of withdrawing consents, there can be far larger financial considerations for society as a whole if the implications of a development are not taken on board right at the beginning. The cost implications for a local authority and a developer might be small, but if tens of thousands of people are displaced from their homes, that could be a huge problem for us all.

Although I am with you, I will extend that argument. I recall that we gave permission to folk to build on a field relatively close to Dundee on the basis that the design of the development raised the ground level by a metre, or something like that. Although the field in which they were building was subject to flooding, the water was never going to be a metre deep. By taking that precaution at foundation level, it was possible to protect the buildings. We just need to be careful.

I accept that mitigation measures—

Given the time, I will abuse my role as convener. Although there might be one or two issues that we could explore on another occasion, we are in broad agreement—I am conscious of what one member said about the language we use—and have a sense of two or three main points. I hope that our discussion—as well as Helen Eadie's engagement with them—satisfies the petitioners. Okay?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Repairing Standard Enforcement Orders (PE1208)

The next petition is PE1208, from Carol Ann Bowmaker, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to amend all relevant legislation to ensure that it is the private rented housing committee and not the private tenant that is cited as respondent or defender in any appeal by a private owner or landlord to discharge a repairing standard enforcement order.

The papers are in front of members. Do you have any comments? We need to explore some factual issues in the petition.

I gather that we might have an update on the petition, but I am not sure that I have it to hand. Where are we on that?

I hope that there is a wee copy of the update underneath the pile of papers on your desk. When I spoke of factual issues, I was referring to the court case at the end of October, which is mentioned in the submission.

It seems a bit strange that the tenant is being pursued through the court for something that is the landlord's responsibility.

The petition raises issues about who should pursue a private landlord to carry out repairs to rented accommodation. If what the petitioner says is right, the onus falls on the tenant to pursue action against the landlord, the cost of which would be prohibitive. The authority that places the repairing standard enforcement order on the landlord should take on the responsibility. It is incumbent on the relative authorities to pursue the court cases rather than leave it to individual tenants, many of whom will never be in a position to challenge a landlord in court. There has to be some other mechanism to ensure that private landlords are duty bound to carry out required repairs and improvements to their houses.

So what do we want to do with the petition?

Refer it to the Scottish Government and ask for clarification of its interpretation of the regulations and how the situation should be pursued.

Are we happy with John Wilson's suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Robert the Bruce's Castle Gardens (PE1209)

The last new petition today is PE1209, from A J Morton, on behalf of the Secret History Project, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take all necessary action to protect Robert the Bruce's castle gardens in Ayrshire. The relevant paper is before us. Are there specific questions or comments?

Issues are raised about whether the site is of historical significance. We should write to a number of organisations, including the Scottish Government, Historic Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland, North Ayrshire Council and the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, to find out whether there is any record of its historical significance.

The review of local plans for the area, in which I live, threw up sites of historical interest that were not included in the 1994-95 local plan outline. We need to gather information to find out whether the site that we are discussing has the historical significance that the petitioner claims for it. We can take the petition forward from there.

We will explore the issues that have been raised.