With the committee’s agreement, I will defer for a few minutes consideration of PE1098 and PE1223. Stewart Stevenson was hoping to come and, as you know, he has strongly supported those petitions and has a lot of expertise in the area to which they refer. Given that the petitioner is here and that I do not want to delay him, we will obviously start our discussion if Stewart Stevenson does not come within a reasonable time—perhaps we will give it half an hour. In the meantime, we will take the other petitions first. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Renaming Glasgow Prestwick Airport (PE1506)
I think that Mr Brodie wants to reply.
I think that there is a majority in the committee for following Mr Wilson’s suggestion. I will bring in Mr Carlaw and Mr Brodie one more time, but as I have said, I do not want to have a huge debate on this.
On the point that has just been made, those of us who might have been a bit closer than Mr Carlaw to what has been going on will understand why Glasgow airport required to increase its attractiveness by increasing its revenue. I agree that maintenance is a key element at Prestwick airport, but it cannot have escaped Mr Carlaw’s notice that, as well as the two aspects that he mentioned, Prestwick airport has now been nominated as one of the six potential spaceports. We have to look forward at what is likely to happen. I understand the need for continuity in the short term, but interest has already been shown in the freight aspect, the repair and overhaul facility and, indeed, the passenger side at Prestwick. I would therefore prefer to keep the petition open and regularly monitor the position.
I simply make the point that the airport’s commercial future must be secured. The cabinet secretary, together with the people charged with the responsibility of securing that commercial future, have concluded that changing its name will not help.
It is true that other airports have changed their names, but they have usually been already successful commercial airports that changed their name in tribute to someone. People in New York did not change their airport’s name to John F Kennedy because it was failing, and people in Paris did not change their airport’s name to Charles de Gaulle because it was failing. The name change took place in tribute to the individual concerned, not to secure the airport’s commercial future. When those who have been charged with this responsibility have concluded that the airport’s commercial future is best secured by its retaining its name, it is wrong of us to argue to the contrary.
I promise not to develop a dialogue on this, convener, but the slogan “Burns in space” does not altogether sit comfortably with me as a metaphor.
Thank you. As I have said, I will also allow Mr Brodie to comment briefly, but I really do not want to have a huge debate. We could spend hours talking about airports around the world that we know.
Well, given that his works have already been carried there, I would not be surprised if that happened.
I am reluctant to intrude on family grief, but I think that it might be useful for other members of the committee to get involved in this discussion. Mr Wilson, do you have any suggestions for ways forward? You have been very diplomatic today.
The next petition is PE1506, which is by Alison C Tait on behalf of the Robert Burns World Federation Ltd, on renaming Glasgow Prestwick airport Robert Burns international airport. Members will have a note by the clerk and a submission from the petitioner.
I would particularly like Chic Brodie to speak about this petition, because I know that he has taken a very keen interest in it. I realise that other members have as well, but I will start with Mr Brodie.
I will be brief, convener. One of the disappointments around Prestwick has been the lack of marketing and selling of its considerable capabilities. The branding is important. I do not disavow the decision that the cabinet secretary and Deputy First Minister made on the basis of continuity and commercial needs in the short term, but it seems paradoxical then to make the airport’s theme about Burns.
In light of your comment about my being very diplomatic—as I always try to be, particularly with you, convener—I have to say that my view is that Chic Brodie is right in many respects. The cabinet secretary’s decision might not have fully considered the views and aspirations of the people of Ayrshire or of Scotland; after all, this committee is meeting today in a committee room named after Robert Burns. When we as a Parliament decided to name the committee rooms, number 1 on the list of names was Robert Burns. That is why committee room 1 is now known as the Robert Burns committee room.
There is support for naming Prestwick airport after Robert Burns both because of its location and because Robert Burns is renowned worldwide as a poet who espoused certain views about Scotland. His name is well known, and airports in other locations have decided to name their airports after famous sons and daughters of the area.
I think that we should write again to the cabinet secretary, asking whether it would be possible for her to reconsider her decision, enter into dialogue on the issue and seek others’ views—not just commercial views but the views of the people of Prestwick and Scotland—to find out whether naming Prestwick airport after one of Scotland’s most famous sons makes the best commercial sense.
I thank members for an interesting discussion. It is clear that there are different views, but there is a majority in favour of the suggestion that the petition be continued and that we write to the Deputy First Minister in the terms that John Wilson outlined.
Thank you, convener. I take more than a keen interest: I have made my position very clear. Although I understand the position that the cabinet secretary has taken on the name in the short term, we now have the situation, which was predicted by some—me being one—that Glasgow airport, Aberdeen airport and Southampton airport are up for sale, largely because of the investment that Heathrow Airport Holdings hopes to make in its next runway.
That poses a dilemma. I—and I am sure that those who support the petition—would not wish us to get confused with what is going on in Glasgow. The rationale behind the name Glasgow Prestwick—I said some months ago that I would never use that name again—was largely that the major airline that used Prestwick airport believed that using the attendant name of Glasgow would attract more passengers. A similar thing happened in Frankfurt, Sweden, France et cetera.
I have made my view very clear: this airport will, at some stage, be called Robert Burns international airport. Just three weeks ago, I was over in Belfast. I find it iniquitous that the airport there is named after George Best and that there are airports named after John Lennon and Charles de Gaulle, yet here we have not named an airport after the icon of Scottish culture, whose works are translated into 195 languages across the globe.
I understand that the airport is going through some changes, and I have to say that some exciting things are happening, but I will do everything that I can to ensure that this petition comes to fruition and that, ultimately, this successful airport will be named Robert Burns international.
Mr Carlaw has indicated that he wants to come back on that point. I will bring him back in after I have sought other members’ views on John Wilson’s suggestion.
Thank you. Jackson Carlaw, I believe that you have an interest in this.
Yes, convener. I have listened with interest to what Mr Brodie has said, but I note that two things have happened since we last considered the petition. The first is the further commercial announcements that have been made about the airport’s operation and which have been hugely detrimental to the likely success of the business plan that we hope will yet secure the airport’s future. As a result of those announcements, a very significant level of passenger traffic is going to be removed. There are different views about how the airport should proceed, and many feel that its most likely successful route is as a freight hub, in partnership with Glasgow, rather than as a passenger transport hub.
The second thing that has happened is that the management committee charged with the responsibility of securing the airport’s future has considered the very nature of the petition and has concluded that renaming the airport would not be in the best interests of any plan to secure its future. Obviously that decision has been endorsed by the Deputy First Minister, who is not somebody with whom I would normally agree, but I suppose that she, together with the people who have been charged with the responsibility of taking the airport forward, has taken all the information into account and has concluded that renaming the airport is not the way to go. In that case, we should close the petition.
I am happy to go along with that and happy to keep the petition open, too.
I am not right sure. We could write to the cabinet secretary—I am sorry; I mean the Deputy First Minister—but we have already done that and she has made her decision. I am not really sure what will persuade her to overturn it.
I note that in June the Deputy First Minister told the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee that the conclusion had been reached that there were strong commercial reasons for retaining the name Glasgow Prestwick instead of renaming the airport. Taking that on board, I think that it could be argued that we could contact the cabinet secretary again to see whether it would be possible to retain the Glasgow Prestwick name but have a sub-name. Anything is worth a try.
11:00School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)
Thank you, convener. You are correct to refer to the issue as a long-standing one. Mr Beaty’s petition came to the committee 2,037 days ago, and there have been 24 discussions in the committee and 55 occasions on which it has received correspondence. On 26 October 2010, when I appeared before the committee in my then role as minister responsible for the subject, we ended up having a discussion that took up 16 pages in the Official Report.
During that discussion, I referred to the development of a toolkit. I think that that has taken a little longer than we might have hoped. One of the people who appeared before the committee that day, along with Mike Penning, the then United Kingdom transport minister, was Chief Constable Mick Giannasi, from south Wales, who said:
“The legislation is fairly broad and permissive, and local authorities could go much further in specifying what signage they would like to see on vehicles. As Mr Penning said, the legislation is about minimal signing, and local authorities could go much further.”—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 26 October 2010; c 2960.]
A great deal more could be said, but at the heart of this is the need to protect our youngsters in transit to and from school. We have established beyond doubt that there is no legislative barrier to doing more to make signage on school buses more distinctive to ensure that we offer more protection for children. We have heard as much from the UK minister, from chief constables north and south of the border and from the current transport minister in Scotland, as well as from me during my time as transport minister.
We simply have to stay on the case and find a method by which we can place a duty, if not necessarily a legal requirement, on all our local authorities to do more. As I discussed with Mr Beaty this morning—and as will be recognised around the table—there are examples of school buses that do not even carry the school bus sign.
We have to change the culture, and we do not have to spend large amounts of money on doing so. In the present climate, a policy that will deliver improved safety for our youngsters without the need to spend large amounts of money is a policy that should be adopted without further delay. After all, it has been 2,037 days since the petition was lodged.
Thank you, Mr Stevenson. That was helpful.
Three courses of action have been outlined in our papers. Before we consider them, do committee members wish to raise any specific points or suggest any other course of action?
I have made my views known about the length of time that this has taken—it has taken longer than an elephant’s gestation period. I defer to Mr Stevenson’s superior knowledge, and I thank him for the clarity with which he has presented the case for continuing to pursue the issue.
I was encouraged by the letter that we received from Keith Brown, given that the principal point around which we seem to have made no progress with this petition—namely, the agreement between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament—has now been resolved, and the process of allowing the legislative competence to transfer to this place and for the associated actions to proceed has begun. Persistence has eventually resulted in our being able to make progress on the petition’s aims, and we should be pleased that that is the case.
I will summarise briefly the courses of action that are outlined in the papers. In relation to PE1098, it is suggested that we continue to monitor the progress of the devolution of powers relating to seatbelt provision and write again to the Minister for Transport and Veterans to seek confirmation that progress has been made in line with the timetable that was set out in the previous response that Jackson Carlaw has touched on.
In relation to PE1223, it is suggested, first, that we write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers to seek their views on the difficulty in identifying a local authority to take on the pilot scheme outlined in Transport Scotland’s most recent response and, secondly, that we write to the Welsh Government to seek its views on the specific issues of signage and lighting on school transport and to ask what action it has taken in that area.
Do members agree to follow those courses of action?
Members indicated agreement.
I once again thank Mr Stevenson for coming to talk to us. He is now an honorary member of the committee. I also thank Mr Beaty for his work. Although Mr Stevenson is right to say that the process has gone on for a long time, I think that this is not about speed but about direction, and we are going in the right direction.
Thank you, convener. Mr Beaty is an example to all of us and to all petitioners, and I wish him every success. I am sure that he will not leave the case until he has delivered for the people who have led him to this particular cause.
We return to PE1098 by Lynn Merrifield on behalf of Kingseat community council and PE1223 by Ron Beaty, both of which are on school bus safety. Members will have a note by the clerk and submissions.
I welcome to the meeting Stewart Stevenson, who has a long-standing constituency interest in Mr Beaty’s petition, and Mr Beaty himself. Mr Beaty, I must thank you for your great help during the evidence session on an earlier petition, and for your dedication and commitment to your petition. You are a great example to other petitioners in your solid approach to continuing a petition over a number of years.
Mr Stevenson, will you give a brief summary of the issues?
Aberdeen to Inverness Rail Improvement (PE1509)
Our next petition is PE1509, by Lee Wright, on Aberdeen to Inverness rail travel improvement. Members have a note by the clerk, the SPICe briefing on compulsory seat reservation and standing on trains and the submission.
The submission raises the interesting point that a ticket gives someone a right to travel but not a right to a seat, with the exception of a ticket for Eurostar—on high-speed trains, we would not want people to have to stand for any great distance. The regulator does not seem to be particularly concerned about health and safety issues, but I think that the argument is quite interesting.
I understand that there might be some pressure to close the petition and that an improvement plan has been put forward, which I welcome. However, I have a couple of specific points to make. The first is about the lack of doubling of the Inverness end. The main problem on the line comes from the fact that it is the equivalent of a single-track road. Because of that, one train is scheduled to wait for 13 minutes at Nairn, for example. Doubling up the line is an issue. A similar argument applies to the train that goes south. I would like us to clarify that point with the transport minister.
Secondly, the lack of paths for freight is worrying. Getting freight off the road and on to rail is a climate change issue, as that will really help us to achieve some of our climate change targets.
I will give the clerk a bit more detail on those points. Do members agree to our drafting a note with a view to closing the petition later?
Members indicated agreement.
Unmarried Fathers (Equal Rights) (PE1513)
The next petition is PE1513, by Ron Park, on equal rights for unmarried fathers. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. A number of options are outlined in the suggestions from the clerk.
Members will know that I have a social work background from my earlier life. I agree with the point that is made in some of the submissions that the key element of Scots law is that we should focus on the best interests of children. Another important fact that I picked up from the submissions is that the vast majority of fathers in Scotland have parental rights and responsibilities. Some submissions express the view that we should avoid a parent-centred approach, as the approach must be child centred. Those are key points that I picked up from the submissions.
I throw the discussion open to questions and points from committee members.
To summarise, we are continuing the petition and seeking the Scottish Government’s views on the point that Jackson Carlaw raised and the other four points, which are: Families Need Fathers Scotland’s proposal that mothers should provide a reason when registering a birth without providing the father’s name; the Law Society of Scotland’s proposal that courts be given the power to order DNA tests when seeking to determine paternity; the Clan Childlaw suggestion that the question of whether all fathers should automatically have parental rights and responsibilities be referred to the Scottish Law Commission for consideration for inclusion in its future programme; and why the Government considers that the prospect of a mother raising proceedings to remove parental rights and responsibilities from a man with whom she has had a brief, consensual relationship would be unfair.
Is it agreed that we action the petition in that way?
Members indicated agreement.
It is absolutely right that we must consider the children who are involved. It is said that the approach should not be parent-centric, but my concern is that some of the evidence showed that fathers’ rights are less than those of mothers.
Somebody has made the point that it takes two to conceive but only one to deliver. That is true, but a child does not stay a newborn for ever. When the child grows, there will be requirements to protect its rights and I submit that part of that protection is having a relationship with the other parent—the father.
In her submission, Professor Elaine Sutherland refers to empowering
“the court to order DNA testing of the child”,
which would enable the father to be registered should he wish to be. That is in her article. On that basis, the proposal would protect the child’s on-going interests, although in some cases that have been mentioned—such as that of rape—the position would be negated.
Although 97 per cent of fathers are registered, I do not see why we should assume that the other 3 per cent are all involved in cases of domestic abuse or violence. The right should be protected and I support Professor Sutherland’s views in her article, which was most constructive.
A lot of sensitivities as well as practicalities are associated with the petition. I see that a number of actions are recommended to us.
Given the sensitivity of the subject and of the petitioner, I would like us to write to the minister asking whether, with hindsight, there is regret about conflating the position of children who are born as a result of rape with that of children who are born as a result of a brief but consensual relationship. The petitioner is entitled to feel that there was injustice in the conflation of those two categories, which was unwise and unhelpful.
Are members happy with the suggestion that we write to the Scottish Government asking for its views on four points, which I can summarise if members wish, and on the additional point that Jackson Carlaw has raised?
Members indicated agreement.
11:15Time for Reflection (PE1514)
Our next petition is PE1514, by Norman Bonney, on making time for reflection representative of all beliefs. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
I invite suggestions from members, but there is a potential course of action in that standing orders also provide that the committee may refer the petition to any body to take any action that it considers appropriate. I recommend that the committee refer the petition and submissions to the Parliamentary Bureau to take account of in its review of time for reflection. If such a referral is made, the committee should close the petition but, in doing so, should note that any individual or group is able to contact their own MSP or the Presiding Officer directly with suggestions as to who may be invited to lead time for reflection.
Do members agree with that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
Referenda for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles (PE1516)
The next petition is PE1516, by Malcolm Lamont, on referenda for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Members have a note by the clerk and the submission.
I invite contributions from members. A potential option is set out in the note, which is that the committee may wish to defer any further action until the result of the referendum on independence is known.
I ask for the views of the committee on that potential action. Do members agree that we do that?
Yes. We should also recognise the submission from the Scottish Government, which indicates a raft of proposed changes. We should wait and see what happens.
I am prepared to go along with that. I am not altogether clear in my own mind whether the outcome of the referendum on September 18 is relevant as an issue of principle. The issue of principle is whether we believe that the Scottish Government should fund additional referenda for the islands irrespective, I imagine, of the outcome of the referendum that is before us, and I am not altogether clear that the case for that has been made. I would otherwise have been inclined to close the petition.
As Mr Brodie said, the Government has made its position clear. It does not support the petition and outlines a lot of work that has been done with the our islands, our future campaign, which is a positive agenda that has much cross-party support.
We have two options: we can defer the petition until after the referendum or we can take Mr Carlaw’s point and close the petition here and now. I ask for views from the committee on which option to take.
I agree that, on the basis of what has already been done, we should close the petition.
We should close it.
We should close it.
I would prefer that it be left open until after the referendum.
I am content to close the petition. It is unfortunate that the petitioner did not consider lodging it when the Edinburgh agreement was being negotiated. It is rather late in the day now even to discuss it.
By majority, the committee wishes to close the petition. That is the committee’s decision.
Bulk Fuel Storage Safety (PE1522)
The final current petition is PE1522, by Simon Brogan, on improving bulk fuel storage safety. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions.
We had a good submission from Mr Brogan at a previous meeting. I mentioned then that I had met him wearing my regional hat. From discussions that I had in Orkney last week, when the matter was raised directly with me, I know that there are a number of safety issues across island authorities and complicated issues about who is responsible. However, I note that the Scottish Government is looking to review work on that area, which I support. I suggest that we give all the information that we have in relation to the petition to the Scottish Government and reconsider the petition in the future. Do members agree to that?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting closed at 11:20.Previous
New Petitions