Public Petitions Committee, 05 Oct 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 5, 2005

Official Report 224KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

We had estimated that we would reach this agenda item no earlier than 11.30, but we have dealt with the new petitions more quickly than we thought we would. We are due to discuss the first of our current petitions with the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. We will take a few minutes to find out when the minister can arrive. If she is not here after that, we will continue with the other current petitions. Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

---

Home Safety Officers (PE758)

The minister will be here as soon as possible. We will proceed with some of the current petitions on our agenda and return to the Burns petitions at the appropriate time.

The first of our current petitions is PE758, by Jim Black, on behalf of the home safety committee of the Scottish Accident Prevention Council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to place a statutory requirement on all local authorities to employ home safety officers and to provide the necessary funding to achieve that.

At its meeting on 8 December 2004, the committee considered responses from the Minister for Health and Community Care and COSLA, and agreed to write to each local authority seeking its views on the petition. The committee has received submissions from 15 local authorities, which have been circulated to members. Having had a chance to look at the submissions, what do members think we should do?

It is interesting to note the range of opinion that is contained in the responses. For example, North Lanarkshire Council says that there ought to be

"a statutory duty on all local authorities to carry out the Home Safety function, rather than create a statutory appointment of a home safety officer".

Orkney Council says that it would prefer that

"each authority should be given the flexibility to tackle issues at a local level".

Clackmannanshire Council gives an outright no to the proposal and says that it

"would not … support the use of statutory requirements"

in the area. Aberdeenshire Council also says that it does not support the proposal. Other councils take a slightly more qualified view and say that they welcome the main thrust of the petition. However, all councils say that, if the proposal goes ahead, it must have additional support or funding from the Scottish Executive and must not impose another burden on local authorities.

The committee may want to refer all the responses that it has received to the Local Government and Transport Committee, which could give further consideration to the issues that have been raised. Along with other party-political representatives, I attended a conference that was organised by the council, which was really worth while. Some important issues were raised at the meeting, and I was able to acquaint myself with the petitioners and the objectors. The council's work is to be commended. The point has been made that there are many more accidents in the home than there are even on the roads. The issue is how the Parliament tackles that problem, rather than whether the proposal is a good idea. It is a good idea, but we need to consider how it can be implemented in a way that allows local authorities to have flexibility and to maintain their resources.

I echo Helen Eadie's comments. There seem to be more yesses than nos among the responses, but the yesses highlight the issue of funding. I am disappointed that 17 local authorities did not reply to us but, on the whole, the 15 that did so are positive about the proposal, if the necessary funding is made available. I second Helen Eadie's recommendation that the petition be referred to the Local Government and Transport Committee for consideration. I would not like the petition to be closed at this stage, because there is a definite need for the proposal and councils support it. The issue is the extra moneys that would be necessary. We should not let the matter rest here.

Are members happy for the petition to be referred to the Local Government and Transport Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Opera (Funding)<br />(PE715 and PE777)

The next current petitions for consideration are PE715 and PE777. The first calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that Scottish Opera has adequate resources to maintain a full range of operatic provision. The second, which is from Lorne Boswell, on behalf of Equity, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to safeguard the future of Scottish Opera by ensuring adequate funding that allows for the maintenance of a full-time chorus.

At its meeting on 11 May 2005, the committee considered responses from the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union and Scottish Opera, and agreed to seek the views of the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport on those responses. The minister's response has been circulated to members. Would members like to comment on it?

The minister's response is comprehensive. In my view, it gives sound reasons for the action that has been taken. We should support the Scottish Executive's response and close the petition.

A couple of days ago, there was a newspaper story about Scottish Opera amalgamating with English National Opera. We are in real danger of losing Scottish Opera altogether. Regardless of whether we are fans of opera, we would not like that to happen. The company has been in great difficulty. I know that it has been given funding, but people in the orchestra, in particular, have been paid off. I would not like to close the petition, but the big problem is that, for the life of me, I do not know where else we could send it. Could we refer it to the Enterprise and Culture Committee for perusal? Could we write to the minister? She was very supportive in her original letter, but she now says that there are no moneys. I would not like to leave the issue so black and white.

I tend to agree with you. I do not know what else the committee can do with the petition, and I think that we will have to close it. However, we could do so by referring it for information to the Enterprise and Culture Committee, which can decide whether to take further action on the petition.

That is straightforward.

We will leave the matter there.

---

Trust Law (PE817)

The next petition for consideration is PE817, from Elaine Black and Ewan Kennedy, on reform of the law of trust. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to reform the law of trust to ensure that, where a trust has been set up for the benefit of a local community, that community is formally consulted by any party that seeks to change the operation of the trust and the view of each member of the community is accountably considered before any change is made.

At its meeting on 2 March 2003, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, sportscotland and the Scottish Law Commission. Responses have been received and circulated to members.

We have received helpful responses; I suggest that we invite the petitioner to consider them and give us feedback.

That is a sound suggestion. It is interesting to note that both the Scottish Law Commission and the Executive do not consider there to be a gap in the law. We have also received a robust response from sportscotland. I hope that the petitioners take some comfort from that, but no doubt we will hear from them.

Are members happy that we take the suggested approach?

Members indicated agreement.

---

National Burns Heritage Trail (PE861)<br />Robert Burns<br />(Culture and Tourism Policies) (PE824)

We now come to the petitions on Robert Burns. The first is PE861 by Bob Leitch, on behalf of the board of directors of the Ayrshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to act immediately to create a task force to integrate and develop all Burns assets, properties and locations throughout Scotland, which would result in a national Burns heritage trail being ready for the year of the homecoming in 2009 and available for promotion internationally by the end of 2006.

The other petition is PE824 by Peter Watson, on behalf of Alloway and Doonfoot community council. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the policy and commitment of the Scottish Executive to place Robert Burns and his legacy at the heart of its culture and tourism policies and to urge the Scottish Executive to assume responsibility for bringing together all interested parties to ensure that the flagship assets of our Burns heritage are properly restored and developed in good time for the major events planned for the 2009 homecoming year, which marks the 250th anniversary of the birth of the national bard.

Given that we have had a series of petitions on Burns, the committee felt it appropriate to invite the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport to discuss the issues with us more fully. I am delighted that the minister accepted our invitation and is with us this morning. She is accompanied by Dr Carolyn Ferguson. I offer the minister the opportunity to comment on the petitions and Robert Burns generally. We will then discuss the points that you make to us. I thank you for coming this morning.

I am happy to make some remarks and I thank the committee for inviting me.

As the committee knows, Scotland's tourism industry benefits greatly from our cultural history and Burns is one of our best-known figures. He has attained, at least in some countries, the status of cultural icon. The legacy of his work is well known and is enjoyed far and wide.

As I think committee members will be aware, the Scottish Executive is committed to using the 250th anniversary in 2009 of Robert Burns's birth as one means of encouraging people of Scots ancestry worldwide and people without that background to see this as an opportunity to come to Scotland. It is an opportunity for us to showcase our country generally. I have taken a close personal interest in the development of the celebration. We have been working to ensure that we address as a matter of urgency the poor state of the Burns cottage and the museum and the difficulties that face the heritage park. Those issues should be of concern to everyone in Scotland, but I reassure committee members that I believe that we are moving in the right direction to secure their future. I have been encouraged by recent positive developments.

The Executive took the initiative and brought together relevant interested parties to secure a positive outcome for the long-term future of the national heritage park and the Burns collection. Proposals for a significant redevelopment of the heritage park, including a new museum, are being taken forward by the Scottish Executive through the National Trust for Scotland. The Executive expects, in the fullness of time, to be asked to make a capital contribution to the project. As we speak, the National Trust for Scotland is in the process of taking over ownership of the national heritage park from the current Burns trustees and is preparing a proposal for lottery funding, which is aimed at meeting the remainder of the expected cost of fully redeveloping the Burns assets at Alloway. Of course, we are also assisting with that.

The management and redevelopment of the park by the National Trust for Scotland appears to present the best way of securing the long-term future of the park. In addition to the infrastructure measures, in the past month, I announced that the Executive is to give the Robert Burns World Federation a grant of £20,000 a year for the next five years to help fund its operation. We see the federation as being vital to our work for 2009. We have also awarded £150,000 through the Scottish Arts Council to support Burns initiatives, including Burnsong, which is a unique biannual project that has been created by Dumfries and Galloway Arts Association to inspire a new era of song writing in Scotland, which will culminate in 2009.

Our plans to recruit a project director and to create an advisory board with experience of both public and private sectors to work for 2009 are going ahead well. In line with advice that we received from the University of Glasgow, the advisory board will provide direction and guidance during the development of the programme of events for 2009. Allan Burns, a director of Diageo, has been appointed chair of the board.

I hope that the committee agrees that the Burns legacy is alive and well and that we are acting now to secure a longer-term future for it.

I invite members to make points or ask questions, after which we will decide what to do with the petitions.

I welcome the minister's positive response. While the Burns areas that she mentioned are not in my constituency, the matter has a direct bearing on it. I acknowledge her interest and the fact that she has taken the problem by the scruff of the neck to sort it out, which is vital. I welcome the pragmatic approach, including the creation of a business plan and consultancy reports, which is having an effect. All power to your elbow, minister.

I have one specific question. What progress, if any, have you made with the development of a heritage trail, as suggested in Bob Leitch's petition?

A heritage trail in some parts of the country was established some time ago by, I think, Dumfries and Galloway Council. However, the fact that people who are involved in the Burns heritage and who live in that locality do not know about it tells us that the trail is not as successful as we would like it to be. We will ask the advisory board to work on a heritage trail so that something will be in place by 2009. We want it particularly to consider matters such as joint ticketing so that people can buy one ticket that will give them access at least to the most memorable, impressive or significant parts of the heritage. One problem that we will undoubtedly face is that because the Burns collection is widely scattered throughout the country, we must identify a meaningful trail. That is important; there is no point in saying that there is a trail if people cannot follow it. We will ask the advisory group to work on a trail in its early work. We think that the matter is important and we want a trail to be created.

On the Burns artefacts, I trust that you are seeking a long-term solution for them in Ayrshire rather than anywhere else.

There are parts of the distributed Burns collection that belong elsewhere—some were created outwith Ayrshire or Dumfries and Galloway and some have gone abroad and are in private or institutional hands. However, John Scott is probably referring to items that were taken from the museum in Ayrshire because of the conditions in which they were stored. One of the ways in which we have helped is through the national collections providing curatorial support and taking into safekeeping for conservation items that were under threat because of the conditions in which they were kept in Ayrshire. The plan is to return them when the new facilities are in place.

I, too, welcome the additional commitment that the minister outlined on behalf of the Executive to ensure that we maintain a focus on the Burns heritage, not just in the run-up to 2009, but beyond. I must mention the considerable and quite astonishing cross-party support that my colleague John Scott demonstrated. That is some feat, minister.

The rationalisation and clarification of the ownership issues are also welcome, because that was a recipe for confusion. I note that the Executive is likely to commit capital to the project, so my question is about revenue support. I am clear that a lottery funding application is being made, which we all hope will be successful. If it is not, how will the project be taken forward as intended?

It is fair to say that the various partners in the project are highly committed to it and that a great deal of work has already been done to ensure that it will attract lottery funding. I know that there is much good will among Heritage Lottery Fund members towards the application having a positive outcome. Obviously we cannot prejudge the decision, but we have as favourable a set of circumstances as it is possible to have. The Heritage Lottery Fund well understands the importance of the work that we are trying to do in Ayrshire and is supportive of it. I have every reason to be hopeful that we will get a satisfactory outcome.

One of the reasons why the heritage park is in the situation that it is in is that the revenue stream has not been able to keep pace with outgoings. We are mindful of that and are working with the partners to identify how that should be dealt with in the future. It is in everyone's interests for the park to be as self-sufficient as possible and if matters are handled properly, that can be achieved. We will consider how to go about that as part of the formulation of business plans and forward working for the project.

I welcome the commitment that the minister displayed in the letter that she wrote to us. She said that the issue was of great importance to her and she has reiterated that today.

Jackie Baillie asked the question about funding that I was going to ask, so I will ask about the task force and the need to get everyone together, which the petitions mentioned. Has everyone been able to feed into the advisory group that you have created? The petitioners made the point that they were not being listened to and that various groups all over the place were doing different things. Have you managed to get all the groups together? Will they feed into the advisory group? How will it work?

I do not think that we could ever have accommodated in the advisory group everyone who had an interest in Burns, but we had to put together a group that involved everyone who had a responsibility for the heritage so that they could make progress together. The advisory group will include people from VisitScotland, the National Archives of Scotland, South Ayrshire Council, the enterprise companies, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the universities that have an interest in Burns. In addition, I feel that it is important to have a representative of the Robert Burns World Federation to represent the pure Burns interest. I know that the woman who has been chosen will be an active member of the group. That does not mean to say that other people who have ideas or suggestions cannot put them forward. As we run up to 2009, the Burns advisory group will be entrusted with the task of communicating widely with communities, in the same way that the advisory group for the Highland year of culture in 2007 has been doing.

I will ask a few supplementary questions, if I may. Is the future of the Executive's input into the Burns festival as we have known it for the past three or four years secure? If the project is successful, will you put on your tourism cap to promote 2009 as a dedicated event? Will there be dedicated budgets, perhaps from VisitScotland, to promote Burns in Scotland, particularly in the south-west?

The Burns festival—Burns an' a' that—has been very successful. It has been increasingly impressive over the past three or four years. The funding partners are all committed to taking it forward and it will be an integral part of the 2009 celebrations, as will the humanitarian award, which is part and parcel of the Burns an' a' that festival.

The importance to tourism of the forthcoming anniversary cannot be overestimated. Last night, I was speaking about Burns and 2009 to some American tourism agents, who were here on an orientation visit and who were enthusiastic about it. Burns is someone whom they know and understand and with whom they feel affinity. 2009 is an important marker for us, and we will be looking to market it as strongly as we can, both in Scotland and externally. We will ensure that non-departmental public bodies and agencies around Scotland all have input to the event.

One of my personal hobby-horses—particularly given the focus on Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway—is the idea of some sort of golf competition around the name of Burns in 2009. We want to find ways to encourage everyone who has an interest—or everyone who can be persuaded that they should have an interest—to use the opportunity to put Burns on the map, to encourage people to come to Scotland and to encourage Scots to understand more about their heritage, particularly the literary heritage that Burns has bequeathed us.

This is not meant to be a frivolous comment, even if it appears to be so. I noticed the involvement of Diageo, and I welcome its commitment to the event. You might be interested to note—this might have escaped your notice—that 2009 will also be the 250th anniversary of the foundation of Guinness. There might or might not be some sort of Celtic connection there in terms of sponsorship, but I draw that to your attention. Guinness's foundation year was also 1759.

I am perhaps not as familiar with the history of Guinness as I am with that of Burns. However, it is fair to say that Allan Burns will not be there representing Diageo Scotland, but will be there because of his experience, his contacts and his ability to chair a group such as the one that we want to set up. I am sure that that other anniversary will not be lost on him or on anyone else.

We have had a series of petitions relating to specific Burns matters, including statues, as well as to the general question of how best to promote Burns. Will the working group that you have set up to ensure that the heritage of Burns is properly appreciated have authority to address concerns that are held by people who have an interest in Burns? I mean, for example, concerns that statues and places of interest will be maintained and positioned as prominently in society as they should be?

The advisory group's aim is largely to organise the events and activities that will take place around 2009. I hope that they will be national, regional and community events and that they will take place not just in Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway, but around Scotland. The group does not have a specific remit on the artefacts and structures that commemorate Burns. However, I hope that the fact that we are going to put the spotlight on Burns and his heritage will mean that people might take the responsibilities very seriously.

I would not want the committee to think that there is not already a lot of good work going on in areas where there is a Burns heritage. In Mauchline and Alloway, for example, some very good work has been done by people who have an interest in Burns, sometimes in conjunction with national agencies. I have in mind money that has gone to Alloway kirkyard to preserve the family graves there and to carry out conservation work on the old kirk. There is already work going on that has been inspired by local community interests and activities.

I would not want the committee to think that nothing had happened until it became clear that we were involved. We hope that we will add to what is happening and, crucially, we will work to safeguard the cottage, the museum, and the national heritage park in Alloway. However, there is no specific remit for other matters.

The committee was pleased with the positive responses that it heard to earlier petitions. We wanted to give you an opportunity to give us more information on what is—judging by the number of petitions that we have received on it—becoming an important consideration for anyone who has an interest in Robert Burns as his 250th anniversary approaches.

We have heard some very positive information this morning from the minister. I suggest that the committee provide the information that the minister has given us this morning to all the petitioners who contacted us so that they are aware of exactly what the Executive is doing. We would welcome the minister's comments on that.

On behalf of the committee, I thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss the matter with you and for accepting our invitation to put the Executive's position.

I will be happy to do as you suggest. If the committee receives feedback on our discussions, I would be happy to discuss it with you and to take forward any ideas. One of our aims is to make the information on the work that is going on more widely accessible. We have been trying to do that through the Executive's website until now. However, we are looking for new ways of doing it, so we will be more than happy to assist the committee in getting the message out about the importance of 2009 and the Burns heritage.

---

Speech and Language Therapy<br />(Agenda for Change) (PE768)

We return to the agenda that we envisaged for this morning. The next petition is from Susan Bannatyne and Nicola Orr, calling on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the implications for the proposed agenda for change legislation for speech and language therapy services and service users in the national health service. At its meeting on 20 April 2005, the committee agreed to write to the petitioners. A response has been received and circulated to members. Do members have any comments on it?

I suggest that we seek an update from Amicus on where we are in the implementation of the agenda for change.

We could progress the petition that way.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Judicial Proceedings (PE759)

The next petition is from Robbie the Pict on behalf of the Scottish People's Mission calling on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that the names of judges who serve on a judicial bench are displayed and that a full tape recording or shorthand record, which would be available to any party involved, is kept of court proceedings.

At its meeting on 27th April 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive and the Lord President. Responses, which have been circulated to members, have been received from the Lord President and from the Scottish Court Service. Do members have any views on the responses?

It strikes me that all the responses suggest that there should be no difficulty in displaying the names of judges serving on a judicial bench and that that will proceed. However, the Law Society of Scotland raised the issue—which was confirmed in the response from the Lord President—of keeping records of court proceedings not in all cases but specifically in summary criminal proceedings. Should we write to the Executive on that narrow point?

I note that the response from the Scottish Court Service simply repeats the present arrangements and does not reflect on the petitioner's suggestion, which is quite an appropriate one.

The responses seem favourable, anyway.

They do, but, as Jackie Baillie said, there is still a point outstanding on which we could get clarification before we decide to go any further. That point was well made.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Building Regulations<br />(Thermostatic Mixing Valves) (PE786)

PE786, which is by Alan Masterton on behalf of the Scottish Burned Children's Club, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to include in Scottish building regulations a mandatory requirement for thermostatic mixing valves to be installed in the hot water systems of all new build and renovated properties. At its meeting on 11 May 2005, the committee agreed to write again to the Scottish Building Standards Agency to seek an update on the working group that is reviewing section 4 of the technical handbooks for the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004. A response has been received.

The response is extremely welcome. I know that the Deputy Minister for Communities was involved and I am pleased that the Executive and the Scottish Building Standards Agency have acknowledged the problem and acted on it. We might want to encourage the petitioner to respond directly to the consultation, but the petition has served its purpose.

I agree; the petition was very successful and it achieved the desired outcome.

Congratulations are due to the petitioners. A simple solution has been taken on board and, as Jackie Baillie said, the petition achieved the desired effect. That is another success for petitioners and the petitions system.

---

Seagulls (Health and Safety Hazards) (PE616)

Petition PE616 calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate and assess the health and safety hazards that are caused by seagulls in urban areas. At its meeting on 24 November 2004, the committee agreed to seek clarification about whether the Executive still plans to issue guidance together with details of a timescale for that. Despite a number of reminders, no response has been received.

I suggest that we write to the Executive again in the strongest possible terms. Perhaps the convener might be minded to have a quiet word in the minister's ear to encourage a response before the end of this year.

I was going to say the same. We must write to the minister. I have been following up the issue; I represent people in Glasgow and there is a real seagull menace there as well, particularly in the summer, and nothing has been done. I urge the committee to contact the Minister for Environment and Rural Development.

I agree—there is a surprise—because I have a maritime constituency. I well remember Allan Wilson giving an undertaking when we were in the old Parliament buildings. If whoever is responsible for the issue now has difficulty writing to us, perhaps they would prefer to come to the committee and explain their views on the way forward.

I seem to recall that Ross Finnie has responsibility.

We will give the minister one last opportunity to write back to us. If he does not, we will pursue the matter.

That is the last of our petitions this morning; I thank everyone for their attendance.

Meeting closed at 11:48.