Current Petitions
Higher Education (Exclusion) (PE390)
PE390, from Ms Deirdre Henderson, asks the Parliament to take necessary action on several issues to ensure that students from non-traditional backgrounds are not excluded from higher education. We considered the petition at our meeting on 11 September 2001 and agreed to write to the Executive for its comments. The Executive has written back with comprehensive details of the action that has been taken with the Cubie committee of inquiry and the Dearing committee of inquiry, and of action that the Executive has taken.
The Executive's response addresses many of the issues that the petition raised, such as flexible learning, widening of access to students from non-traditional backgrounds, improvements in child-care policies and student finance. It is worth noting the Executive's view that it would not be prudent or practical to conduct further substantial review of the new student finance arrangements so soon after their introduction.
In view of that full response and the range of initiatives that is under way to widen access to higher education, it is suggested that we copy the Executive's response to the petitioner and take no further action. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Planning and Environmental Regulations (PE395)
PE395, from Mr C Cotchin, asks the Executive to examine the local authority planning and environmental regulations, with a view to amendment. The petitioner was particularly concerned about protecting people who live next to low-use commercial premises from incoming companies that increase the intensity of use. We agreed to seek the Executive's views, which we have received. The Executive's response makes it clear that while the Executive keeps legislation under general review at all times, it has no plans to examine the issues that the petition raises.
The Executive draws attention to what is and is not regarded as development. If the former use and the new use fall under the same class in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, the change of use is not development, as the response explains in detail. The response makes it clear that the Executive also considers that the use classes order, which was last revised in 1997, does not require to be reviewed. It is suggested that the petitioner should write to the Executive, detailing the circumstances that prompted the petition, and that that evidence will be taken into account in any future review.
The Executive appears to be satisfied with the use classes order. It also seems content that current procedures to deal with noise nuisance are adequate. However, the petitioner is of the contrary view. Although the local circumstances that prompted his petition have been resolved through planning procedures, he feels that those procedures are cumbersome and do not provide sufficient protection to the public. It is therefore suggested that the petitioner should be invited to submit detailed comments to the Executive, as outlined, with a view to informing any future review of the use classes order. If members think that that is not enough, we can refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee for further consideration.
If someone has bought a house next to an existing development and then another development has come along—another factory, say—that person would have had access to the local plan when they bought the house, which would have advised them what the area was designated for. Is the petitioner suggesting that there is not enough protection if the local authority fundamentally changes the plan?
That may well be what he is getting at.
I recall a case that involved a workshop that was fairly quiet before someone came along and created a joinery operation in the building. The change in the use of the building had a significant effect on the adjacent neighbour, whose house was not new—it had been there for many years. The effects on the individual seemed not to have been taken into account by the local planning department. Perhaps that was a local issue, on which the local planners had to stand up and be counted. However, I understand this chap's unhappiness at being faced with a situation like that. The responsibility lies very much with the planners.
It is a question of what the council zones for. The wording of the petition is rather unfortunate; it should have been more catch-all. The petitioner asks that
"people already living next to low use commercial premises are given protection from incoming companies who cause a subsequent increase in intensity of use."
That increase could be business of the same type, for which the area is zoned, getting better or it could be the situation that exists in the east end of Glasgow, where an area that was zoned for what were formerly called noxious trades had a tannery that was turned into a cattle incinerator—a much worse thing. It depends a great deal on the zoning requirement, as laid down by the councils. The whole planning law situation needs a shake up. Instances such as this one occur far too regularly.
The Executive has said that it is prepared to listen to any detailed points that the petitioner has to make. We should recommend that he write to the Executive and, if he is still not satisfied, that he should come back to the Public Petitions Committee. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Predatory Birds (PE449)
PE449, from Mr Alex Hogg, on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, calls on the Parliament to initiate an independent investigation into the impact of predatory birds on waders, songbirds and private stocks of fish and game birds. We considered responses from various bodies and agreed to contact Alex Neil, who chaired a working group that was recommended by the Transport and the Environment Committee. We have now received a reply from Alex Neil, in which he explains that the research study that was initiated by the Scottish Homing Union and Scottish Natural Heritage is concerned only with the impact of raptors on racing pigeon populations and does not cover the wider issues raised in the petition, concerning waders, songbirds and private stocks of fish and game birds.
Some of the responses that were received in relation to the petition suggested that the moorland forum that will be set up shortly by Scottish Natural Heritage will provide an opportunity for groups such as the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to get involved in discussions relating to conservation and management issues. The Transport and the Environment Committee wrote to Scottish Natural Heritage recently about progress in forming that moorland group.
In view of Alex Neil's comments that additional action needs to be taken to address the issues raised, it is suggested that we refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee for its consideration.
Members indicated agreement.
West of Scotland Water (PE456)
PE456, from Mr Paul Hyles, calls on the Parliament to urgently initiate an inquiry into West of Scotland Water's commitment to continue to provide a high-quality service to its rural customers and to ask the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to implement a moratorium on the current reorganisation of posts within West of Scotland Water while the inquiry is being conducted.
We have received responses to the petition from the minister, from West of Scotland Water and from the water industry commissioner in Scotland. The details of the responses are all included in the report. Although the petitioner's concerns can be understood, it appears that the closure of the Dumfries laboratory is an operational matter, which was the responsibility of West of Scotland Water and is now the responsibility of Scottish Water.
Parallels can clearly be drawn between the petition and other petitions that have called on the Parliament to intervene in the executive decisions of health boards or local authorities, when it has been clear that it would be inappropriate for the Parliament to intervene. From the information provided in the responses, it appears that there is little to justify an inquiry into the commitment of the water authority to the delivery of quality water services to its rural customers, as requested by the petitioners. It also appears, from the information provided by the water commissioner, that there is nothing to indicate a need to review the more general issue of the centralisation of jobs in relation to the delivery of water and sewerage services.
It is suggested that we agree to copy the responses that have been received to the petitioners and to take no further action other than to advise them to continue to pursue the matter locally with the management of Scottish Water. It is suggested that we agree to pass copies of the responses to the clerk of the Transport and the Environment Committee for information. Are there any comments?
The remit of the water commissioner is that he can do anything he likes as long as he is looking after the efficiency of the delivery of the water and sewerage services. The social and economic consequences do not matter. It is a bit like SNH's behaviour when it decides that somewhere will be designated as a site of special scientific interest and says that it has no responsibility, unless it is a scientific argument, which means that the social and economic consequences of the designation are of no interest to it. Obviously it is too late in relation to the remit of the water commissioner, but perhaps we should all be aware when we give remits to commissioners with vast powers that we are allowing them to have enormous influence over the social and economic conditions of people's lives.
I thought that the case for the retention of the Dumfries laboratory was well made, economically and socially, but the water commissioner does not agree and he has the remit. Are we sure that the water commissioner has no responsibility in his remit other than to ensure the efficient delivery of water and sewerage services?
That is a problem with the remit.
That is right, but are we sure that we are correct in stating that nothing matters except that the commissioner must ensure the efficient delivery of water and sewerage services?
The commissioner will be answerable to the minister. We can challenge the minister on any issue that we have concerns about. That goes back to the issue of the accountability of quangos and elected bodies.
Are you suggesting that we should write back to the commissioner to ask whether it is part of his remit to consider the social and economic implications of delivering value for money?
I would like a copy of the commissioner's remit. That would be a simple thing to get.
We could certainly write to him to ask for a copy.
That lets people know that we are looking at the matter and it may frighten them into behaving better.
We will certainly make the remit available to members of the committee. Otherwise, is the suggested action agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
National Library of Scotland (PE466)
PE466, from Ms Antonia Bunch, calls on the Parliament to initiate a review of the funding of the National Library of Scotland, particularly in the light of the scientific and business needs of the Scottish economy, and to report. The petition relates to concern about the closure of the Scottish science library and the Scottish business information service in October 2001. We agreed to seek the comments of the Executive, the National Library of Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. We have now received replies from all four.
The National Library of Scotland has made it clear that the Scottish science library and the Scottish business information service reading room were closed because of low usage, and that the library is now providing a service to business and science users through its general reading room. Although the Scottish Chambers of Commerce supported the continued operation of the service, Scottish Enterprise has made it clear that it could not support that, based upon its objective assessment of the situation.
It appears that the funding of the National Library of Scotland is being addressed as part of the spending review in 2002. As part of that process, the library will make a case for additional money to support certain areas of its service. It does not, therefore, seem appropriate or necessary for the Parliament to conduct an additional funding review, as the petitioners have requested. It is suggested that we agree to copy the responses to the petitioners and take no further action, other than to send copies of the responses to the clerk of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Borders Council (Budget Cuts) (PE467)
PE467, from Beverly Paterson, on behalf of the Borders Action Group, concerns the impact of the Scottish Borders Council's cuts in education spending. Members will remember that, having received responses from the Executive and Scottish Borders Council, we agreed to write to the petitioners, seeking their comments on the responses. The petitioners' comments are on the second page of the cover note. They say:
"the remit of the working group being set up by the Council to look at swimming pools etc has been altered without any public consultation.
although there is no proposal to close any Community Centre, staff numbers will be reduced, leading to a reduction in services.
the public consultation with service users promised by the Council is inadequate, and the Committee is asked to obtain full details of the consultation process."
It should be pointed out that, in a by-election last week, a member of the Borders Action Group was elected to Scottish Borders Council so someone on the council now represents the group's views.
From the responses that we received and considered, it appears that the council has now set a balanced budget, has not failed to meet its statutory responsibilities and is considering methods of funding voluntary organisations and preventing swimming pool closures. The council was also investigated by the Accounts Commission and was instructed to take remedial action to resolve its financial difficulties.
The petitioners have asked the committee to obtain further details of the council's proposed consultation process, as they claim that it has been inadequate to date. There is a risk that if we accede to their request and continue dialogue on issues that relate to the council's provision of specific services we could be accused of interfering in matters for which the council has executive responsibility. That would also move away from the action that the petition calls for.
To avoid that, and to take positive action to assist the petitioners, it is suggested that we agree to write to the council asking it to contact the petitioners directly to address the points that they raised and ensure that the Borders Action Group and others who have concerns are given the opportunity to participate fully in the consultation about the future of swimming pools and community centres.
Never wishing to miss an opportunity, I point out that a Conservative member was elected to Scottish Borders Council the other day and he will certainly ensure the sound management of the council's financial affairs.
It is always good to hear that the Conservatives are reviving.
In relation to the petition, is it recommended that the committee agree to take no further action, on the basis that procedures have been put in place to address the council's financial affairs and that it would not be appropriate for the Parliament to be involved in the process. Is that course of action agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Adoption Procedures (Black and Ethnic Minority Children) (PE472)
PE472, from Mr Narinder Singh Sahota, concerns adoption procedures for minorities. Members will remember that we agreed to seek the Executive's views and ask it to comment on the issues that the petition raised. We have now received a response from the Executive, which points out that the adoption policy review will not address the issues that the petition raises, because the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 already requires that when reaching a decision relating to the adoption of a child
"a court or adoption agency shall have regard so far as is practicable to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin, and cultural and linguistic background".
The Executive's response also explains:
"following the Regulation of Care Act 2001, all local authorities and adoption agencies will be required to register their adoption services with the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and are subject to assessment and approval in accordance with the National Care Standards for Scotland …
Under the standards, adoption agencies must ensure that the family chosen reflects as closely as possible the child's ethnic and cultural background and faith. The agency must also take into account the birth family's views on the religious and cultural upbringing of the child and prepare adoptive parents for the ethnic, cultural, faith and language needs of the child."
It appears that the national care standards in relation to adoption might address the concerns of the petitioners, although they might not assist them in the case that prompted their petition. It is therefore suggested that we agree to copy the Executive's response to the petitioners, together with a copy of the relevant extracts from the standards document, and ask whether in their view, the measures would assist in preventing the specific situation that prompted the petition in the first place. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank members for their attendance. This has been another very long meeting, but it has been worth while.
Meeting closed at 12:44.