Public Petitions Committee, 06 Nov 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Official Report 257KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

A76 (Safety Strategy) (PE1067)

We can return to the original order of the agenda. PE1067, from Councillor Andrew Wood and Councillor Gill Dykes on behalf of ward 8 in Dumfries and Galloway, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the need for immediate action to upgrade the A76 and to implement a safety strategy for the road, and identifies a series of actions that could be taken.

Members have had a chance to read through the submissions that have been made in relation to the petition. Does anyone have any suggestions for what to do with it?

We should write to Transport Scotland to seek its views.

I agree that we should do that as the first step. We need to find out whether there is any strategy in place to tackle the problems and whether it might be possible to invest greater resources to deal with the design of the road.

Do members agree with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Racing Pigeons (Public Health) (PE1068)

PE1068, from John Ferguson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to investigate the public health risks associated with racing pigeons and to introduce measures to ensure that racing pigeon lofts are not situated within residential areas and that owners are made responsible for dirt, damage and public disease.

A letter from Derek Brownlee MSP has been circulated to members. He points out that the petitioner's concerns are not confined to the petitioner. He indicates that one of his constituents has experienced significant stress as a result of activities related to the keeping of racing pigeons in his area and suggests that existing laws are not adequate to deal with the concerns that have been raised.

Do members have any suggestions for how we should deal with the petition?

The problem is arising more often, but racing pigeons are not the only issue—pigeons in town and city centres are also an issue. I would like more information on health effects, particularly from environmental health departments throughout Scotland, if that is possible. Different local authorities seem to take different approaches. I am thinking about how pigeon lofts are sited in Glasgow. The racing pigeon fraternity has a strong lobby that deals with the sporting aspects of racing pigeons, but if there are public health issues, we should certainly try to explore them. No matter what legislation is in place, it will not draw out the health implications associated with racing pigeons and other pigeons and whether people are aware of those implications.

It appears to me that adequate legislation is in place to cover racing pigeons. Obviously, there is an issue with wild pigeons, and I wonder whether there is some crossover. I would not be against seeking more information. I think that there is an association of environmental protection officers, which might be a good starting point. We could find out whether it thinks that the current legislation adequately covers racing pigeons and what can be done about the problem of wild pigeons congregating and causing nuisance and mess. Obviously, dead birds are monitored, but we can ask about the work that is undertaken to check for diseases in the wild pigeon population.

It does not seem that we need to find out anything more about racing pigeons, as the legislation that is in place seems to cover them adequately. As long as owners obey that legislation, particularly that on keeping them in their cages when cases of avian flu are around, racing pigeons do not seem to constitute any more danger than any other kind of pigeon. If we investigate anything, it should be the wild pigeons that infest parts of our cities. I would not be against closing consideration of the petition.

There may be a desire to close the petition, but I suggested seeking further information for a reason. I think that Rhoda Grant mentioned the disposal of dead birds. We would expect a reasonable pigeon keeper to check whether a dead bird was carrying any reportable disease and to dispose of that bird properly. Legislation is in place, but the difficulty lies in how it is applied. We can have all the legislation that we want on the statute book, but we do not know whether it is being properly applied or adhered to or whether racing pigeon keepers in particular are reporting problems to the environmental health services or other services. We should try to get that information and find out whether the current legislation needs to be strengthened.

I want to clarify something. I am not concerned about reports about racing pigeons, as it is in a keeper's interest to report what has happened to a racing pigeon and check things out. If a pigeon dies in its owner's pigeon loft, they will want to ensure that it was not from something that will affect the whole loft. I think that adequate legislation is in place to cover racing pigeons, but I am concerned that there is no cover for wild pigeons. We could be straying from racing pigeons to wild pigeons—wild pigeons could be causing nuisance that racing pigeons do not necessarily cause. Perhaps we could find out what checks are carried out on wild pigeons rather than racing pigeons.

I do not want us to race to a decision on this one—that is my gag for the day. There are separate issues involved, and I am reluctant to close the petition. I would like to know about the implementation and enforcement of the legislation and about the environmental health issues that John Wilson mentioned. We also need to deal with the impact of wild pigeons in neighbourhoods, which is the more persistent and obvious problem that everybody has. Also, there is the issue of folk being concerned that some of the measures that can be taken to deal with the problem can be excessive.

Shall we explore further the points that John Wilson raised, or do members want to close the petition? We can return to the petition fairly quickly once we get a response on it. If we explore the issues that have been raised, we can keep an eye on it. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1078 is from Peter Paterson and the Save the Gillies Hill committee. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the need for new legislation to protect historic sites such as the Gillies Hill from physical destruction through mineral extraction and to preserve such sites in their present condition for the amenity of the community.

We were told that Bruce Crawford wanted to come and speak to the petition. He was present when the petitioners handed the petition to the Parliament. Does the committee want to postpone discussion of the petition on the off-chance that he has been delayed? I think that that is fair, as the member has expressed an interest in a petition. Perhaps the Parliamentary Bureau is more exciting today than might have been expected. Shall we leave discussion of the petition until the end of the meeting, to give him the chance to speak to it?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Educational Maintenance Allowance (PE1079)

PE1079, from Laura Long, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the eligibility conditions for the educational maintenance allowance programme to take account of the number of children in a household between the ages of 16 and 19 who are in full-time education. Before being formally lodged, the petition gained 16 signatures on the e-petition system. Do members have any views on how we should deal with the petition?

I think that the petitioner has a point. I would be keen to get further information to see whether somebody has considered the issue. One child could fall through the net and not receive benefit, which could have an impact. We could write to the Scottish Government, to ask whether it is going to carry out a review.

Are members happy with that course of action? It is not an issue on which I have had a big case load. I wonder whether there is any other agency whose views the committee would like to seek. I do not know whether the Scottish commissioner for children and young people has had to deal with the issue, but we could write to her to see whether it has popped up in her staff's consultation with young people. The Child Poverty Action Group may have specific examples of families that are in those tight circumstances.

I wonder whether we might write to one or two local authorities to see whether they have a view on it. We do not want 32 responses, but the local authorities are the people who use the scheme.

We could write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

We could write to COSLA, but if we wrote to just one or two local authorities we would get a response.

We could also write to a representative body of the directors of education.

Bruce Crawford is now with us. You must have heard us talking about you, Bruce.

I am very sorry that I am late.

I hope that you were getting a hard time at the bureau.

It was an interesting time in the bureau, and I am due in Cabinet shortly, too.

Okay. We will finish consideration of PE1079 and then return to PE1078.

We could write to the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland.

Okay. Shall we do that and write to a mix of four local authorities—say, two urban and two rural?

Members indicated agreement.

I will leave it to the clerk to arrange that.

---

Historic Sites (Protection) (PE1078)

We return to PE1078. I have explained what the petition asks for—it is about historic sites and so on. Bruce Crawford MSP has previously expressed support for the petition. We held back discussion until you could get here, Bruce. You may speak to the petition, after which committee members will make their observations on it.

I am grateful to you, convener, and to other committee members for allowing me some latitude in getting to you at this particular time of the day—

I will remind you of that at an appropriate moment, when I am in trouble.

I am duly warned.

The original permission for the Gillies Hill quarry was granted in 1982, almost 30 years ago. During the 1980s, a considerable amount of quarrying took place. At that time—I am reliably informed by local people—houses were damaged and lorries travelled at speed through the village of Cambusbarron. An undertaking to tidy up the area and to replant trees was for years simply ignored. That gives the committee a flavour of what I have been told is the community's view of the matter.

The permission for the quarry was affected by the 1995 environmental legislation and was reviewed in 2002, when it was casually extended until 2042. Therefore, the quarry has a fair bit of life left in it yet. At that time, the community council was not consulted. The statutory requirements were satisfied by placing a small notice in an edition of the Stirling Observer in 2002 that no one noticed, as might be expected in the circumstances. No environmental impact assessment has ever been carried out. The first that locals knew about the prospect of renewed quarrying was when their homes were shaken by test blasting.

So far, Stirling Council has refused to comment except to protest—perhaps understandably—that its actions have been legitimate. However, it recently appointed a Queen's counsel to investigate the matter, including whether it was legally required to undertake an environmental impact assessment. That process could take up to two years.

If quarrying proceeds in the way that is allowed under the current permission, it will potentially impact on the local trees and wildlife, which are abundant in the area. The Gillies Hill is one of the most spectacular local beauty areas. The hill takes its name from the part that it played in the battle of Bannockburn, when the sma folk came over the hill to chase away Edward's men.

As I said, a QC is investigating the matter and will report back to Stirling Council on 13 December. I am concerned that the process has involved such a total lack of transparency. Some 3,000 people have put their name to the petition that is now before the Parliament. No environmental assessment has yet been undertaken. In this day and age, I find that incredibly difficult to accept and understand.

If the quarrying proceeds, it will do so in circumstances in which there has been a considerable and material change since its time of operation in earlier years when the original—much more limited—permission was granted. For example, the village has almost doubled in size since then. Town and country planning legislation allows for planning permission to be revoked where there has been a material change in conditions, so I have asked Stirling Council to examine that matter.

The lorries that will be used will be at least 25 tonnes in weight. As they travel through the villages south of Stirling, they will—I am told by local people—pass at least four schools. During the day, there could be as much as one lorry every 12 minutes. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

The quarrying could proceed without any laws actually being broken but, using mechanisms such as the requirement for an environmental impact assessment and the ability to revoke permissions under the town and country planning legislation, I believe that we will be able to check the development. At the end of the day, the locals must be given a real say. In ensuring that the process is properly examined, I believe that the committee could work well with the community.

For the record, I should say—I am sure that the convener will understand this—that all my comments today are as the MSP for Stirling rather than as a minister of the Government.

Do committee members have any observations or comments on the petition?

I understand that scheduled monument consent would also be required to quarry there. My previous experience of scheduled monument consent indicates that it seems nigh on impossible to get, regardless of whether planning permission has been given, so I suggest that the community is perfectly safe. Perhaps that comment is a bit flippant and does not show the community the concern that the petitioners would wish.

We could write to Stirling Council to get an update on its position and write to Historic Scotland to check whether it is minded to grant scheduled monument consent or how it would act when such an application is received.

Although the petition stems from the planning consent for the Gillies Hill, the petitioners have asked the committee to ensure that there is also protection for other sites. There is concern among committee members about other occasions when planning consents have been granted and the destruction of historic sites and archaeological sites has taken place.

In addition to Rhoda Grant's suggestion, I ask the committee to agree to contact COSLA to find out what is happening with other local authorities. Such consents are being granted not only in Stirling but in other areas. It would be useful to find out Historic Scotland's views on the matter and also those of the Council for Scottish Archaeology in relation to other sites in Scotland. Although the Gillies Hill is the site before us, I know from my experience that it is not unique, as similar planning consents have been granted and some developers of quarrying sites or landfill sites are totally ignoring the archaeological sites and historic sites that exist in communities.

I welcome the petition because it gives us the opportunity to widen our consideration of the issue and get other views.

Are there other recommendations on how we should deal with the petition?

I know that I cannot make a recommendation, but if the committee accepts that Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency would also be appropriate bodies to contact with regard to the potential impact on the area, that would give a fuller perspective on the matter.

There is also the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland.

A review of the heritage sector has been conducted, so HEACS has made a series of recommendations about how Historic Scotland could face the future—we might drag it into the 19th century in the 21st century. The issue is about the framework within which it operates. We can ask about the position in respect of the recommendations made by HEACS about the preservation of historic sites, battle sites and so on. We will take on board Bruce Crawford's suggestion and write to the other agencies that he mentioned.

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Bruce Crawford for his time. I hope that in his absence the vote in the Parliamentary Bureau was 5-4.

---

Maritime Organisations (PE1081)

PE1081, from Ronald Guild, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to seek a UK-wide reappraisal of all organisations—Government, local authority and non-governmental—with maritime and maritime air space responsibilities, taking into account European Union and International Maritime Organisation contexts and worldwide best practice. The petition has received 12 signatures. How do members think we should proceed?

We know that the Government plans to introduce a marine bill, so we could write to it to get an update on its plans.

And to ask what relation any such bill has with EU maritime policy.

Does the committee accept the recommendation that we raise the matter with the Scottish Government and ask what its plans are for a maritime bill, and about its discussions with the EU on an integrated maritime policy?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Civic Forum (PE1082)

The next petition is PE1082, from John Dowson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive to undertake an urgent review of their consultation and participation practices, to consider a proposal to reinstate funding to the Scottish Civic Forum at a level of at least £250,000 per annum and to adhere to the guidance on participation as published in the Scottish Parliament's participation handbook. Before being formally lodged, the petition received 246 signatures.

Do members have any suggestions about what to do with the petition?

The previous Administration made a decision about the funding of the organisation. I do not know the reasons why that decision was made but, clearly, it would be incumbent on the committee to seek the views of the present Government and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body about the possibility of reinstating the funding.

As the petitioner asked for a chance to address the committee directly, I would like to take this opportunity to state, as we did at the previous meeting, that, although we do not have the time to take oral submissions from everyone, all petitions are considered openly and transparently by the committee. My responsibility, as the convener, is to ensure that the committee has the ability to engage with the issues properly rather than being burdened with additional time commitments.

John Wilson's suggestion is reasonable. Obviously, this is an issue on which members will have a variety of views, but I think that it is legitimate to ask the SPCB and the Scottish Government whether they feel that it would be appropriate to continue to engage with the Scottish Civic Forum, if the funding were available.

Do members agree with that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Local Museums (PE1083)

PE1083, from John Arthur, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to support the creation of local museums such as the proposed Leith museum. The petition has received 72 signatures.

The Public Petitions Committee must be really popular with members of the Parliament, as we have with us another non-committee member who is keen to engage with us in an open way. Malcolm Chisholm represents the area that would contain the proposed Leith museum. Members have before them a letter from George Foulkes saying that he is supportive of options relating to the proposed Leith museum. I invite Malcolm Chisholm to speak to the committee.

The campaign for a Leith museum has widespread support. I note the number of people who have signed the e-petition, but I know that people have been out in the streets of Leith with petitions for several weeks and that a few thousand people have signed them. There is massive public support for the museum and many of the local bodies and community groups support it too. The campaign has been going on for a long time.

There is a strong feeling in Leith that we have a rich and varied history. Notwithstanding the fact that we are now a part of Edinburgh, there is a strong feeling that we still have a distinct identity. Because of those factors, there has long been a feeling that it would be appropriate to have a museum that celebrates the history of Leith.

I do not have time to summarise Leith's history today, but I can say that many important events in Scottish history have taken place in Leith—the arrival of Mary Queen of Scots there in 1561 springs to mind. More recent events that merit being marked in a museum in Leith include the joining—some residents of Leith might say the forced joining—of Edinburgh and Leith.

The museum would benefit not only Leith. Clearly, tourism is a massive issue for the economy of Edinburgh, Leith and the surrounding area—I think that about 10 per cent of the jobs in that area depend on tourism. Such a museum would be a further boost to tourism. It would be popular not only with local people but with the wider public and visitors to the area.

The campaign is seeking to secure the support of as wide a range of bodies as possible. Members of the campaign have spoken to the local council and the National Museums of Scotland, for example. The campaign also wants the support of the Parliament and the Scottish Government. One reason for talking to the National Museums of Scotland is that the customs house in Leith, an early 19th century building on Commercial Street, is one of the buildings that have been earmarked. That building is owned by the National Museums of Scotland and is used for storage at present, so that organisation might be willing to give the building, or part of it, if somewhere else could be found to store the artefacts that are kept there.

It is clear that the National Museums of Scotland has an involvement, and therefore so does the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, who has responsibility for museums. More generally, we seek the support of the Parliament and of the Government. In particular, the campaign would like a feasibility study for the project to be carried out, so I hope that some in principle support will be given and that the petition will be referred to the appropriate bodies to further the objectives of a Leith museum. The campaign is presented as a petition for local museums in general, and we certainly support that in principle, but the petition that is before the committee today is targeted particularly at a museum for Leith.

I am glad that Malcolm Chisholm mentioned the fact that the campaign for local museums goes beyond the immediate environs of Edinburgh. Across the country there is an increasing interest in our built heritage and traditions, and it would be interesting to know how the Government and the Scottish Museums Council feel about the setting up of local museums, not just in Leith but elsewhere, and what sort of funding anyone intending to set up a museum might expect to get. Could we write to the Government and to the Scottish Museums Council to find out about their attitude to that? Perhaps the City of Edinburgh Council could also give us its views on the local situation in Leith.

Could we also get the views of COSLA and of the enterprise companies? There are two strands to the campaign. First, local museums build communities and communities can unite around their local history. Secondly, local museums pull people in from outside—people who have roots in the community, perhaps—and can enhance tourism and ensure that people stay longer in an area. There is therefore an economic development issue involved, so it might be worth asking COSLA and the enterprise companies for their views, as well as the Scottish Museums Council. If more such initiatives are developed, there will be funding needs, and we should point out the benefits as well as the funding required.

I support the suggestion that we should approach COSLA, because I am aware that there is an annual discussion about the number of museums that are threatened with closure. It would be useful to get COSLA's view as well as that of the Scottish Museums Council, to find out what issues arise in relation to funding at present and what constraints there may be. As has been pointed out, the petition ranges much wider than just the Leith museum, and we should consider it in the context of what is happening with funding for local museums in every local authority in Scotland.

As an MSP for the Lothians, perhaps I should declare an interest.

I thought for a moment, Robin, that you were going to volunteer yourself as a museum artefact.

I am sure that Malcolm Chisholm would agree that there are many smaller communities in Scotland that have their own museums. I would have thought that Leith's size, and the fact that it is expanding, were reasons why it merits a museum of its own.

It is a shared Edinburgh debate.

Robin Harper makes a good point. It is probably one of the largest historic communities that does not have its own museum. It reaches into the changing and developing community of Leith, and we think that it would be good, as the new communities develop along the waterfront—the main area of expansion in Edinburgh and Leith—to have a museum that helps to bind the community together. The other bodies that I omitted to mention are the national tourism bodies, which would also have a strong interest in the matter.

Okay. And there is no truth in the rumour that, as a Leith member, you have been setting up a Hogmanay commemorative 7-0 artefact with a ball and a jersey? There is a rumour that you have lost half the votes in the area.

The petition is good and is worth exploring. The folk who can deliver on it are obviously the larger parties at local authority, national and private sector levels. It opens up a debate. If we take on board what committee members have said, we can move forward on the petition. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Malcolm Chisholm for his patience.