Public Petitions Committee, 06 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Official Report 174KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

The next item on the agenda is current petitions. Members will have papers that have been issued to them today.

We will deal first with petition PE115, from Julia Clarke, which is about noise pollution at Edinburgh airport. We wrote to Scottish Airports and Edinburgh airport and received detailed replies from both. The letters give comprehensive details of aircraft movements at Edinburgh airport and the steps that are taken to monitor and reduce levels of noise in and around the airport. Scottish Airports writes that pilots are instructed to turn away from residential areas over the Forth estuary soon after take-off to minimise noise. It also points out that Edinburgh has voluntarily applied a ban on older, noisier jets taking off from the airport at night. It says that it consulted local authorities extensively when the current departure routings were amended in 1994 and that there were no objections to the proposed changes.

Scottish Airports has also consulted on a continuous basis the airport consultative committee, an independent watchdog that provides the opportunity for two-way feedback with local communities. It has regular updates prepared by independent consultants of noise contours for the airport in accordance with UK standards. It does that on a voluntary basis. It also intends to install a noise and tracking monitoring system, again on a voluntary basis, which will cost about £250,000, to report on incidents of noise that exceeds limits and to fine the airlines and operators that are responsible.

The Edinburgh airport consultative committee, which is independent, has responded in similar terms, and made the additional point that noise complaints have reduced over the past three years, despite an increase in aircraft movements. Its view is that with more than 96,000 aircraft movements per year, the number of complaints—which was 74 in 1997, 61 in 1998 and only 40 in 1999—is extremely low. The consultative committee is of the view that Scottish Airports is doing everything possible to reduce noise levels further.

I invite members to say what we should do, given the comprehensive information that we have received from the two bodies. One suggestion is that, given the views of the independent consultative committee, no further action should be taken. The responses that we have received would then be handed to the Transport and the Environment Committee and the petitioner.

The information that we have received is very specific and detailed. I take it that it has been sent to the petitioner.

Not yet. It came in only today.

We could pass the information to the Transport and the Environment Committee with the petition for its comments. It is gobbledegook to me—mind you, I have just received it—and I do not have the information to assess it, whereas the Transport and the Environment Committee would.

The information has been read in detail by the clerk. The striking thing is that the independent consultative committee agrees with Scottish Airports, so I suggest that we ask the Transport and the Environment Committee whether it agrees with us that no further action should be taken.

Yes, but at least we should let it see the information.

Yes, we will pass it on.

The next petition is PE147, on sheltered retirement housing. The petition came from the Sheltered Retirement Housing Owners Confederation, which was seeking a meeting with Iain Gray. You will see from the letter that we have received that Iain Gray has agreed to have the meeting, which is what the petitioners asked for. That is good news, which we can pass on to the petitioners as quickly as possible, asking them to contact the minister's office to arrange a meeting. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE173, on the closure of Ballater area council office. We have a response from Aberdeenshire Council on the issues that were raised in the petition, in which it provides the reasons for its decision to close its Ballater office. It has indicated that the closure is a result of the cuts in local government expenditure. The council has made arrangements for council tax payers and council tenants to make payments through local post offices. It is suggested that the withdrawal of cash collection in Ballater could help to ensure the future of the Aboyne office 15 miles away, which was one of the offices from which cash collection initially was to be withdrawn. The council has yet to make a final decision on its closure.

It is clear that cuts have forced the closure on the council against its will, and that at least it is trying to make sure that the cuts are implemented in such a way that some areas retain a cash facility, such as at the Aboyne office 15 miles away. I do not know what anyone else thinks, but it is a matter for the local authority. We could respond to the letter from the council by asking it to ensure that the needs of the local people are fully taken into account before the council arrives at a final decision. The correspondence could be passed to the petitioners and to the Local Government Committee for their information. What do members think?

This is another of those horrible cuts. Did you say that it is 15 miles to the nearest office?

Yes, it is 15 miles to Aboyne post office.

That is a substantial distance for people who are already hard pressed. Presumably, they would have to use what little money they have to travel.

I am sorry; there are local post offices.

That is what I am asking about. In practical terms, how does that affect people?

I am sorry. When I referred to the Aboyne office, I meant to say that the Aboyne area council office is 15 miles away, but there are local post offices where people will be able to make payments. People from Ballater will not have to travel to Aboyne.

That is what I was concerned about. It is a long distance for people who are strapped for cash.

No—they are able to pay at the local post office in Ballater.

I understand that—I just wondered how close that is.

There is no information about that, so the answer is that we do not know. I suspect that all we can do is pass all the correspondence to the Local Government Committee and to the petitioners.

That is probably right.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next additional paper—item D—is a letter from North Ayrshire Council about the issues raised in the petition about the withdrawal of the sheltered housing warden service.

Members will see that the council refutes much of the petitioners' claim. As I said, the letter has already been passed to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, along with the petition. We should just wait to see how that committee handles the situation, unless members wish to make other suggestions.

I have just read the letter, which suggests, on more than one occasion, that Mike Russell has been less than accurate in his presentation. It would be fair to him to ask him whether, on reflection, he agrees with that assessment. The comments that the letter from Mr O'Neill makes about him do not miss in any way.

The letter has already been passed to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, but—

The letter names Mike Russell and says that he has got it wrong and that he continues to spread misinformation.

We could copy the letter to Mike Russell and ask for his response.

Yes.

It might also be appropriate to pass the letter to the petitioners, because it says that their information is inaccurate. When people are charged with being inaccurate or misleading, it is appropriate to give them the chance to refute that charge.

Therefore, while the letter has already been sent to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, we will now copy it to the petitioners and to Mike Russell.

Yes—for their comments on the sections of the letter that refer to them.

It should be sent to the constituency members for the area as well.

Who are the constituency members?

Irene Oldfather.

Both Cathy Jamieson and Irene Oldfather—or is it Margaret Jamieson?

Cathy Jamieson is the member for the South Ayrshire area.

I do not agree with that approach at this stage. As we have come this far and have received comments from the council about the inaccuracy of the statements by the petitioners and Mike Russell, it might be more appropriate to receive responses to those comments from the petitioners and from Mike. That would give us comprehensive information.

We should be consistent. Earlier, we argued—

That was in relation to a petition. Here, we are in the middle of—

That is still an issue, however. The local constituency members have every right to be consulted. Protocol suggests—

May I suggest a way round this? When we get to the convener's report later, I will suggest that, at the beginning of the next meeting, we hold a session to deal with such issues as informing local constituency members about petitions that affect their constituency. Therefore, can we leave the matter until then?

The letter has already been passed to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, and we should certainly let Mike Russell and the petitioners know about the letter and seek their response. We can deal with the issue about informing constituency members at our next meeting.

I am not happy, but that is okay.

The letter is public knowledge: it will be on the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee's agenda. The local members will be able to access that information anyway.

The final additional paper is a copy of the correspondence between John Swinney and the petitioner, Ian Cantwell, about the assessors of Tayside valuation joint board. John Swinney copied that correspondence to me so that I could pass it on to the committee. Mr Cantwell has made clear his gratitude for the work of the Public Petitions Committee and for the hard work that is being carried out by MSPs on behalf of the Scottish people. It is nice to get such a letter for a change. We thought that we should include it on the agenda.

Open up the fan club.