Official Report 296KB pdf
This is a historic occasion, in that it is almost the first time in the world that a videolink has been established and a webcast has taken place simultaneously. I think that the Finance Committee was just ahead of us with its videolink with New Zealand, but this is the first time that there has been such a broadcast within this country.
I am Ronnie Eunson. With me are Drew Ratter and Jim Budge. Another person may join us, but they have been held up.
Thank you. The hard, interactive part comes next.
What should the scheme provide? How can it provide useful assistance to Shetland?
I am a councillor, an agricultural journalist, a crofter and a member of the Crofters Commission. For a long time, I have been committed to area-based support. There would be huge environmental benefits and it is the kind of support that we need.
What discussions have taken place with the National Farmers Union of Scotland? Does it support the idea? Mr Eunson said that farmers in Shetland were losing money. In many areas of Scotland, farmers, including South Ayrshire hill farmers, are also losing money. Does Mr Eunson agree that the system must be fair to the islands and the mainland?
I am sure that the NFUS would support our contentions. We are not looking for extra funds. Under the hill livestock compensatory allowance, Shetland used to receive an amount of money, which has diminished by about £330,000. Those moneys have been redistributed among mainland farmers. Any logical person who knows a little about the environment or agriculture would regard the mainland as much less disadvantaged than Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles and the periphery. We do not wish to further disadvantage anyone. All that we want is the funds that have been taken away from us for distribution to people whom we regard as not needing them.
Good morning, gentlemen. I am a crofter, like many of you up there, and I appreciate the difficulties that you are encountering. However, the hard fact of the matter is that we must be fair to the whole of Scotland, as has been said. I understand that the funding allocation for the new support scheme distributes proportionately more money than before to the Highlands and Islands. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, will make a statement to that effect shortly, if not today.
I accept what you say. We do not yet know the breakdown of the figures. We have not been privileged with that information. It is difficult to believe that more money has been ploughed into the Highlands and Islands. If that money has been provided, goodness only knows where it has gone, because we have not seen it.
No matter what has happened in the rest of Scotland, we have done the empirical work in Shetland that shows that approximately 75 per cent of people are losers and 25 per cent are winners. That cannot be right.
Would you kindly give us an idea, today or by post, of the general cost-of-living problem for those in the agriculture industry in Shetland? For instance, what are the extra costs of transportation compared with the furthermost north part of the mainland?
I am sure that we can furnish you with those details. We can find out the figures and send you them. That would be no problem.
I am pleased to see Drew Ratter. We have worked together.
Hello, Helen.
We worked together through the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, which is a Europewide organisation. I know that Drew Ratter is on the bureau of the CPMR—its executive—so I ask him whether he is aware of other peripheral islands in the EU for which the EU regulation may be interpreted more favourably. Is he aware of any different formulae? We are all governed by the same regulation, but other member states may have interpreted it differently.
That has certainly happened. Every member state makes a proposal under the EU's rural development regulation and those proposals differ enormously. It would be a big job to do empirical work on all of them, but the exercise would probably be worth while. There is more satisfaction with the way in which the regulation has been implemented in several countries, particularly those in southern Europe, than there appears to be in Scotland.
Good morning, Shetland. It is good to see you. Am I right to say that farmers in Shetland are almost all members of the Scottish Crofters Union rather than the NFUS? If I am right, I ask what advice you are receiving from that union, which acts for crofters from all over. Are Orkney, the Western Isles and other parts of the peripheral Highlands making the same claim as you?
Good morning. The NFUS has about 400 members in Shetland. I do not have figures for the Scottish Crofters Union. The NFUS has been active in working with the LFA scheme.
Speaking as someone who is outside all the organisations on the petition, I want to say that the petition's case is not partisan. The council brings together the agricultural organisations and I attend such meetings as a representative of the Crofters Commission. The case that is being presented is very much a Shetland case. The NFUS in Shetland has done a huge amount of detailed work and has made a major contribution to the case; but the case is supported by all the agencies and organisations here in Shetland. There is nothing partisan about it.
As was mentioned, the committee also received a petition from Islay and Jura. We decided to seek the Executive's views and we expect to receive those views shortly. We may be considering this petition again at our next meeting. Have you any indication of the Executive's likely attitude?
No, we do not. Some of us were lucky enough to meet Mr Finnie on three occasions the last time that he was up here. We carefully made points about the implications of the proposed scheme. We made it clear what the result would be if the Executive went ahead with the scheme, but the Executive went ahead.
This year's budget allocation is in the region of £60 million. That figure will diminish, over the next two years, to something like £50 million. Although the Scottish Executive and members of the Scottish Parliament would argue strongly that that budget should be enhanced rather than diminished, responsibility for the allocation rests with our colleagues in Westminster. People who petition the Scottish Parliament on this issue should also raise it with their Westminster MPs to ensure that there is a concerted effort. After all, the Scottish minister can allocate only the funding that is made available for the scheme. Anything that can be done to lobby Westminster should be done, to ensure that the allocation remains at a reasonable level.
We thank you for that advice; we will certainly lobby our Westminster MP. However, Edinburgh cannot shake off the responsibility by simply saying that this is a matter for the Exchequer. Mr Munro seems to suggest that we are looking for more money. We are not looking for more money: we simply want the same allocation as before, but in a form that allows us to pursue sustainable agriculture.
If I heard correctly, the witnesses said that 75 per cent were losers and 25 per cent were gainers from the new proposals. In Stirling, my constituency, I have heard similar comments from the NFUS. What is the difference between the losers and the gainers? What criterion distinguishes between them?
In Shetland it is difficult to say. We considered the issue and arrived at those figures. Some of the losers who are active in agriculture are losing in a very big way. However, to get all the detail would really require action from people who have access to all the relevant material. We do not have such access, and we never have had.
That is the end of our question-and-answer session. The witnesses will be staying with us so that they can hear our discussion of what to do with the petition.
I agree with those suggestions. It is important that the petition goes to the Rural Development Committee. I sit on that committee, which has done a short inquiry into this matter but has yet to report. Because there are so many losers, it is important that that committee continues to consider the matter. As I understand it, a revised scheme could go to Europe in the near future. However, I am worried that the same thing will happen as happened to the previous scheme: it will be rushed and people will not have time to consider it properly. We may end up with the same problems next year. It may be worth considering whether we should make a plea to the Executive to look after the safety net and ensure that it remains at 90 per cent. I know that Ross Finnie is keen on that and I feel that this committee should throw its weight behind the idea too, which might support the minister in Europe. Doing that would at least give people some comfort in the short term until the scheme can be sorted out so that it benefits the people whom it is supposed to benefit.
I support what the convener and Rhoda Grant have said, and I would like to offer another suggestion. We should also submit the petition, for information only, to the European Committee. Drew Ratter made the point that other parts of Europe are equally peripheral and I know that he has been greatly involved in, and has extensive information on, what has been happening in other parts of Europe. We could learn some lessons. If need be, we could use the vehicle of the European Committee to link up with other European organisations of which Drew Ratter and Shetland Islands Council are members. That would allow us to learn about other islands, which appear to be treated better than we treat our less favoured areas here in Scotland.
Sylvia Jackson asked a good question, to which we did not really get an answer, about winners and losers. We all recognise the arguments about peripherality that support the Shetlanders' petition. However, it is hard for me to understand, given the situation generally, why there should be winners at all. I would like to find a means of ascertaining why that is so.
I should have mentioned for the record that petitions PE384 and PE372 have both been referred to the Executive for comment. The Executive has seen PE384 as well as the petition from Islay and Jura, and its comments will relate to both petitions. It has been suggested that we should await the Executive's response and then consider both petitions again. However, we can at this stage formally refer PE384 to the Rural Development Committee. We would pass on the Executive's response, when it arrives, together with our comments on it. We can also refer the petition to the European Committee for information. Is that agreed?
Do members agree to refer PE372 from Islay and Jura to the Rural Development Committee and the European Committee?
I thank our witnesses from Shetland for their valuable contribution to the work of the committee this morning, on this historic occasion. Their contribution has been greatly appreciated by us down here in Edinburgh. It is nice to know that different parts of Scotland are no longer so remote from one another.
Thank you very much.
The television screens will stay where they are for the rest of the proceedings. The people sitting behind them will just have to suffer the fact that they cannot see what is happening.
Can we move the televisions round a bit so that people can see?
We can do that. I just hope that it does not destroy the television sets. We are visible again.
I thank members of the committee for considering this petition, which calls for an independent public inquiry into the foot-and-mouth outbreak in Scotland. As members know, the petition is supported not only by Advocates for Animals, but by a wide range of other respected animal welfare organisations, including the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Compassion in World Farming and the World Society for the Protection of Animals. Those organisations have a joint membership in Scotland of more than 100,000 individuals.
Thank you very much. As well as Advocates for Animals, nearly 30 organisations are listed as supporting the petition. It may be of interest to members to know that, since the petition was submitted, there have been eight other calls for a public inquiry into the foot-and-mouth outbreak. Each potential petitioner, bar one, has agreed to add their support to the petition.
The petitioner has asked all the questions that have been in my mind and that people are asking all the time. I agree that there should be a full public inquiry into the outbreak. My party is also on record as saying that, although I do not see it listed among the petition's supporters. Perhaps you could add the Scottish National Party to the petition's list of supporters, which already includes the Scottish Green Party.
We are meant to be asking questions at the moment.
I agree with Winnie Ewing—I, too, was appalled to hear about the movement of animals. I went to my local vet, who has written to the Scottish Executive. I do not know whether you know, but currently tens of thousands of Scottish lambs are trundling from Scotland all the way down to the south of England to be slaughtered. That is an absolute nonsense, when foot-and-mouth is still so rife at the border. Lessons have still not been learned; the only way that they will be learned is if there is a full, independent inquiry, in which everyone can see what is going on.
I inform members who have so kindly attended today that the cross-party animal welfare group meets tonight. The chair himself is sitting here—
Former chair.
Former chair—I am sorry to hear that, Phil. You were a very good chair. Perhaps members would like to attend that meeting. I declare an interest, too. I have agreed all along with Advocates for Animals, Compassion in World Farming and others as they have consistently put their views throughout the crisis—in fact, long before the crisis—for the ending of live animal transportation en masse, except for breeding stock, obviously. We saw a video from Compassion in World Farming a fortnight before the outbreak was announced. I wish the petitioners well.
That may be one of the key reasons for the widespread occurrence of foot-and-mouth disease. As you know, Advocates for Animals is a member of the all-party group; indeed, we will be at the meeting this evening.
You did not mention European practice. Do you think that the public inquiry should consider practice in Europe?
Certainly, if the public inquiry wants to extend that far. If Britain is to tackle what has gone on here, to ensure that this nightmare is never repeated, there is a considerable amount to be examined. One issue is whether foot-and-mouth got into this country through infected meat, which was then fed to pigs. We need to get to the bottom of that to find out exactly how the outbreak happened and why the disease spread so quickly. Why were private deals, of which the auctioneers were completely unaware, going on at some auction markets? How did those animals come to be in Scotland within hours of leaving the market? Why were those animals never vaccinated?
My party—both sides of the border—is fully in favour of a public inquiry. However, there is a difference in the way that the operation was handled north and south of the border. Do you feel that separate inquiries should be set up? Would you support those inquiries coming together at a later date, so that we get a sustainable and sensible UK policy?
That would be a very sensible approach. It is vital that information comes through from the three inquiries south of the border. Scotland's inquiry will not be set up in the same way, but it will be full, independent and public and it will be able to call people to account for their actions, so that we know exactly what went wrong in Scotland. In Scotland, we have been foot-and-mouth free for a number of months. Does that mean that mass slaughter worked? Our response to that would be that it may well have worked but it has taken out hundreds of thousands of animals that did not need to be killed. At the same time it has destroyed many livelihoods that will never be restored and it has cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions. The public should see the way that the money has been spent. It would be a scandal if Scotland did not have its own public inquiry.
The transportation of animals has been mentioned. To some extent that has come about as a result of the closure, for a number of reasons, of many local abattoirs. It is not the committee's responsibility to suggest petitions for the future. We also have to be careful not to extend inquiries too far by trying to embrace too many issues. However, might you think about the loss of those local abattoirs and future policy on them?
That is touting for work, Phil.
It would have been wrong of us not to have thought about the local abattoirs before now. They have to be considered because, as you have hinted, the transportation of animals was responsible for the fast spread of the disease. Had there been local abattoirs, the disease could have been restricted to certain areas. I am sure that members are aware that many local abattoirs have closed down because the big supermarkets like to take their animals to one large abattoir. That is where one of the problems lies. We would support the NFU in calling for local abattoirs to be opened—it is a humane approach.
I have a question about vaccination. It sounds as though vaccination would be reasonable. However, the Rural Development Committee, of which I am a member, took evidence on the matter, which revealed that many animals that were vaccinated contracted the disease and passed it on. The committee was told that the only reason for vaccinating the animals would be to increase the time between identification of the disease and slaughter—after vaccination, animals could be slaughtered later rather than immediately, as had been going on. We were told that vaccination would not save the animals' lives, as the animals could be infected and pass on the disease to other animals.
That advice contradicts our evidence, which is that vaccination would have worked as a fire-break. The British Association for the Advancement of Science, which met last week in Glasgow, is now putting the case that, if we had vaccinated animals in the north of England, for example, those animals in Northumberland would not now be dead, as vaccination would have worked. Vaccination has its drawbacks, but if it had been used as a fire-break to stem the tide, it would have worked well. Our advice is that vaccination would have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of animals and the livelihoods of many farmers.
Have you or any of the organisations that support the petition received an indication of the likely response of the Executive to the call for a full public inquiry?
We have seen the response of Ross Finnie to a question that was lodged by Mike Russell, which indicated that he did not intend to order an independent public inquiry into the foot-and-mouth outbreak. However, the Royal Society's planned review is unacceptable to us, as that will not be a full public and independent inquiry. In my view, the Executive would probably oppose the petition.
Are not the inquiries that are being undertaken south of the border the kind of inquiry that you are calling for?
Absolutely not. Those three inquires have been set up to investigate the problem in specific areas. We want a full independent and open inquiry in which people can see what is going on and everyone can come together to have their say.
Are there any other questions?
I have a question about the disinfectant troughs. Were they adequate? A motorist entering Northern Ireland, where the procedures seem to be more thorough, must have their whole car sprayed.
I entered southern Ireland through the airport, where I was asked whether I had come from a farm area. As I live in the countryside, I had to be absolutely drenched from head to toe in disinfectant spray. I walked away from the airport with my feet squelching. The measures in Ireland gave reassurance to farmers that people entering and leaving their farms were thoroughly disinfected. However, some people unfortunately did not take proper precautions, as a result of which the disease spread again. The virus is especially virulent.
Thank you very much for answering our questions. You are welcome to stay for our discussion on what we are going to do with the petition.
We should send it straight to the Rural Development Committee. We have already received an answer to the question from Ross Finnie.
We could do that, but we could write to the Executive at the same time to get its response anyway.
I wonder whether we should also send it to one of the justice committees. If we could secure a proper public inquiry in Scotland, as there is not going to be one in England, that would benefit everybody. It is the biggest national issue of the year in these islands.
I am not sure that the justice committees would consider the matter within their remits. We could send the petition to them for their information, however, to see whether they have any views on the proposal to launch a public inquiry.
Perhaps we could also send the petition to the European Committee.
It has been suggested to me that the Rural Development Committee would be the place to consider whether to involve any of those other committees. It would be legitimate for that committee to approach the justice committees on the public inquiry aspect of the petition or the European Committee on the European aspects. However, it is not our role to do so. The Rural Development Committee would be best qualified to handle the petition.
I know the work load of the committees, and if we sent the petition to all three committees it may fall between two or three stools—each committee might expect the others to deal with it on account of its own work load. The petition should therefore be sent to only one committee, which can then decide how to deal with it.
I appreciate what Rhoda Grant is saying. Nonetheless, we must emphasise the significance of the issue, from the beginning of the year and throughout the British isles. I am not sure whether we should leave it to the Rural Development Committee to refer the matter on.
There would be more value in sending the petition to only one committee, as that would have a greater impact. However, I do not like the wording of the suggested request to be sent to the Executive, which asks for information on specifically how it proposes to address the animal welfare issues. As Dorothy-Grace Elder said, the handling of the foot-and-mouth outbreak is a massive problem and we should expect any public inquiry to be full and wide-ranging. The wording of the petition is better, as it asks for an inquiry into all aspects of the crisis,
The suggested request contained that wording only because it is in the petition.
No, the petition says "including", not "specifically".
The petitioners have requested that that wording be used.
I have no problem with saying "including", but I do not want to say "specifically", because that concentrates attention on certain issues.
Because of the significance of the issue, perhaps we should refer the petition directly to the Rural Development Committee rather than write to the Executive.
I am a member of the Rural Development Committee and know that its agenda is pretty full for the next couple of meetings. It may speed things up if this committee writes to the Executive, so that the Executive's response will be available when the Rural Development Committee is able to consider the petition.
Okay. We will refer the petition to the Executive and the Rural Development Committee, asking the Executive to respond to it. That will speed up the process. Is that agreed?
Can this committee indicate its strong approval of a petition in contacting the Executive?
We could give the Executive our views, but whether it would be interested is another matter. Nevertheless, the Rural Development Committee may want to know whether there were strong feelings among committee members concerning the petition and its call for a public inquiry. That is why we should refer the petition to that committee immediately rather than do the homework ourselves, as we would normally.
In that case, with members' agreement, I would like to record our endorsement of the petition.
We can also draw the attention of the Executive and the Rural Development Committee to the Official Report of this meeting, from which it will be clear that there are strong feelings in support of the petition. Is that course of action agreed?
The next petition is PE387, from Mr Stuart Housden on behalf of RSPB Scotland. In the RSPB's view, the current legislation governing the protection of wildlife in Scotland is out of date. Although the RSPB welcomes the proposals for new legislation, which were unveiled by the Scottish Executive in "The Nature of Scotland", it feels that the implementation of those measures should be brought forward. Mr Lloyd Austin will make a brief presentation to the committee in support of the petition.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about our petition. I pass on the apologies of Stuart Housden, the principal petitioner and the director of RSPB Scotland, who is unable to be here. He has asked me to speak on his and the society's behalf.
Thank you very much.
They are Dave Dick, who is our expert on the species protection part of legislation and Clifton Bain, who leads on SSSI issues.
Do you agree that the advances and successes that there have been in reintroducing bird species to Scotland make it more urgent to address the difference in legislation between Scotland and England? Targeting is likely to increase if we do not address that difference.
My instinctive reaction would be to say yes, but Dave Dick might like to comment.
The best example is the red kite, which has been reintroduced into Scotland. It is suspected that nine red kites have been illegally killed this year; it was proved that six of those had been poisoned. There is a serious problem. What has happened to the reintroduced birds has shown what happened to the previous populations. This is an urgent matter. It may not stop the reintroductions, but it is having a big slowing effect. The reintroductions are hugely supported by the public and by public funds.
I am aware that the RSPB probably has more members than all the political parties in the United Kingdom put together, but that will not prevent me from asking a controversial question. I am sure that no member of the committee would disagree that it is vital to protect rare birds, but other members of the Parliament and I are concerned about the impact on other bird types that are at risk in the United Kingdom and in Scotland in particular, such as songbirds and game birds. As you will know, I have also been deeply involved with the save our sports campaign run by the pigeon-racing fraternity. How do we tackle those issues? We are striving to ensure the best co-existence of species, but how do we protect people, especially those in mining communities, who want the sport to be preserved?
Co-existence is the key word. I will ask Dave Dick to comment again.
We have a short time and Helen Eadie has raised three or four issues.
The pigeon issue was also addressed by the joint raptor study, which the Government sponsored. Ministers have accepted the study's recommendations, one of which was that there should be further work on birds of prey and pigeons. I understand that Scottish Natural Heritage is leading that work.
That is where the controversy lies. There is a refusal to accept that in Scotland the raptor working group included participants from other groups with concerns about grouse, pigeons and songbirds. That is why I am unable to give you total support, although I broadly agree with your comments this morning.
That is an argument for another day. I have some sympathy with some of Helen Eadie's comments, but I will move on.
The change to the law to which you refer was concerned only with one narrow though important point. Scots criminal law needs corroboration: two witnesses are necessary, although there are ways round that. The amendment to the law allowed for single-witness evidence in cases of egg stealing.
Is it correct that you do not have any quarrel with the proposals for legislation that are contained in "The Nature of Scotland", just with when they will be introduced?
We have no serious quarrel with the proposals. There are details on which we would like to see improvements, but we fully support the overall philosophy and principles. Our argument is that the proposals should be implemented urgently to deal with the issues about which we have been speaking.
Is there any indication that that urgency is lacking on the part of the Scottish Executive?
As I mentioned, we were disappointed that there was no mention of the proposals in the legislative programme last week. We have no indication from the Executive as to when it plans to implement the proposals.
I simply use the chance to ask why all the songbirds have disappeared. I have not heard a lark all summer although I live beside a wood in the country. It is terribly sad. Is it to do with fences replacing hedges?
As Dave Dick stated earlier, research indicates that the prime cause of reduction in the populations of most songbirds is habitat change that has been caused by changes in agriculture and forestry practice over the years. That is one reason why we work in close harmony with the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Crofters Union to find ways of moving agriculture policy towards supporting more environmentally sensitive agriculture through programmes, such as the rural stewardship scheme, that allow agriculture to support songbirds.
If Dr Ewing wants to see skylarks, one of the best places to go to from here would be the top of Arthur's Seat, which is a non-agricultural area. There are many songbirds there. I live quite close to Arthur's Seat and I can go out in the spring and summer and hear songbirds every day. There are still skylarks about, but the numbers are going down.
What is the raptor population around Arthur's Seat?
There are two pairs of sparrow-hawks. One is in the nature reserve right underneath Arthur's Seat. The other pair is in the trees close to Holyrood Abbey. There is also a pair of kestrels that nest in the hill area.
Thank you for that local information. I am sure that members of the committee will use it.
I do not quarrel with that, but I ask that a copy of the Official Report of the meeting accompany the representation to the Scottish Executive. I feel that one of the reasons why the Scottish Executive has not implemented the proposals as a matter of priority is that the Executive is aware that the matter is controversial. Despite what we have been told this morning, from representations that have been made to me and other MSPs who have been working on the issue I know for a fact that 6,000 pigeon rings have been recovered from peregrines' nests. That is not down to habitat and the fact that there has been a change in the system of agriculture. It is because there is a problem and we do not know how to address it.
The clerk has suggested to me that there could be a delay if we have to wait for a copy of the Official Report, but we could send the petition to the Executive, referring the Executive to the Official Report of this discussion when it comes out.
The next petition, PE383, is from Mr Ken Alstaff on behalf of Dundee and Tayside Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It calls for the relocation of civil service jobs, departments and agencies away from Edinburgh and Glasgow. I understand that Pam Smith and Sandy Meiklejohn will speak to the petition.
I am a Dundee solicitor and past president of Dundee and Tayside Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I am accompanied by Pam Smith, who is the current president.
The normal rules apply. You have three minutes to make a presentation and then we will open the discussion up to questions and answers.
Happily, I can be brief. As you have said, you are well aware of the background that brings the petition to the committee. I have been fortunate to appear before the committee once before and therefore have had the benefit of seeing the committee at work.
Dorothy-Grace Elder, from Glasgow, has the first question.
That is the health warning before I start.
Before you answer that question, I point out that no members of the committee come from Edinburgh.
It is difficult to deny the point that you make. Our argument is based on jobs per thousand of population. That arithmetical argument inevitably means that Glasgow and the Glasgow conurbation would end up with the largest number of jobs. The number of established civil service jobs is broadly comparable in Glasgow and Edinburgh despite the significant disparity in their populations.
Do you agree that it would be wiser to remove Glasgow from the calculation and that a straight comparison with Edinburgh and the surrounding areas would be better?
I am reluctant to remove Glasgow altogether from the equation. I go no further than acknowledging that the problem is greater when a comparison is made with Edinburgh rather than with Glasgow.
I am sympathetic to the aims of the petition. However, I have been looking at the background papers to the petition and note that Tayside appears to be doing quite well compared with the Highlands and Islands. Do you agree that, rather than concentrating on Tayside, we must consider putting civil service jobs in all areas of Scotland where traditionally they would not have gone? Is that an aim of the petition or do you really want to stick with Tayside alone?
The underlying theme of the petition is that the issue should be considered properly. I acknowledge that Dundee and Tayside might not be the winners as a result. We think that we have a good case and we are not afraid to be a part of such an exercise.
My instinctive reaction is to support the aims of the petition. However, there is a nagging question. I come from Fife—every member around the table seems to be putting in a bid for their area. The old Hyundai factory is lying empty and any Government department could relocate there tomorrow.
We look forward and not back. We do not look backwards at traditional means of communication. We look forward at electronic means of communication. This morning, we have seen that they work.
I have a follow-up to Rhoda Grant's question. Given all the new technologies, surely anywhere is a suitable candidate—it could be Inverness, Oban or the island of Islay. If there were a suitable building, it might be cost-effective to go where jobs are scarce but there are a lot of skills. The nub of the petition was spoiled somewhat by your narrative because you are from Dundee, which, according to my information, is doing very well—everyone is saying that about Dundee. The SNP party conference is helping by going to Dundee this year. New technology should be considered when we are looking at the issue. Anywhere is a likely candidate.
Dundee is doing well by its own efforts, but it could do better. The rural areas surrounding Dundee might not be sharing in the benefits that Dundee is enjoying. The job picture in Angus has not been as bright as it has been in Dundee. Dundee has also had some recent setbacks in terms of jobs. We have been successful in attracting inward investors but, unfortunately, when America sneezes, sometimes Dundee catches a cold. We have recent experience of that.
I would have a lot of sympathy with the petition were it not for the fact that it specifically mentions Edinburgh and Glasgow. I do not want to make a distinction between Edinburgh and Glasgow—I would just refer to the area as the central belt. We accept that Dundee is not within the central belt. If that wording had been presented in the petition, I would have been happy to support it and the concept of moving the jobs to the periphery of Scotland which, to be fair, seems to be happening already.
Thank you for those supportive comments. I understand that there is currently a presumption against the location of new civil service jobs in Edinburgh and that when opportunities to relocate come up, such as on the expiry of a lease, that presumption comes into operation. Our concern is that that is a somewhat reactive approach. We would rather see a proactive approach, with the issue being examined so that a fairer distribution of civil service jobs results.
As you know, convener, I hate to be controversial on issues such as this, but the comments that have been made, particularly with respect to Edinburgh, are somewhat ironic, as all the committee members who support the petitioners' ideas supported setting up a Parliament in Edinburgh that has boosted the number of civil servants and the amount of bureaucracy in Edinburgh, bringing more people to the city. I wonder whether Dundee ever put in a bid for the new Parliament. That will be a matter of historical record. Would the petitioners have supported the idea of the new Parliament being set up in one of the ancient capitals of Scotland, which would have diminished the problem that has been described?
The convener may be better able to answer that question than I am.
The Scottish Parliament once met in Dundee, at Claypotts Castle, but that was a long time ago.
It also met at Inverkeithing in Fife.
In the old days, the Scottish Parliament was peripatetic. Perhaps we should learn from that, rather than building very expensive buildings in one place.
I want only to thank committee members for their fair and interested hearing.
You are welcome to stay and listen to our discussion.
We should ask specifically about moving whole departments. Glasgow has not received all the departments that it was rumoured to have been promised before the Parliament started.
Are you talking about moving existing departments from Edinburgh?
Yes. That was mooted before the Parliament started. It was suggested that a large number of civil service jobs would come to Glasgow and other locations once the Parliament was set up. It was said that whole Government departments would operate outside Edinburgh.
I have been reminded that the enterprise and lifelong learning department has moved most of its activities to Glasgow. In any case, we will ask for the information to be provided as part of the Executive's response.
I want to add a note of caution, as the issue has to be handled sensitively. If, after restructuring, new departments are set up or formed, they should not be in Edinburgh, but I am a wee bit wary about telling people who are established here to pick themselves up and move. People have families and friends; they have their lives. We have to be careful.
At this stage we are simply seeking an update on the relocation policy from the Executive, so that we can better consider the petition in the context of the Executive's response. We are not taking a position on the matter.
I thank the petitioners for their attendance.
That might be the answer. The petition is a complaint against what is happening in the education system in Edinburgh. We could use the opportunity to hear first hand about what is happening. When the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill was being considered, the requirements were clearly stated, after a bit of arguing to and fro. Let us hear from the education department what it is doing to implement the policy on Gaelic.
I notice that one of the petitioner's complaints relates to recruitment at a college and that the final paragraph of the Scottish Executive's letter of 7 August answers that point, so that aspect of the petition seems to have been resolved. As I understand it, the problem is a lack of teachers of Gaelic. I do not know what we can do about that. It depends to an extent on the number of people who are willing to become teachers of Gaelic. If there are not enough applicants, there is not much that can be done by throwing money at the problem. Much of the correspondence that I have had with Alasdair Morrison on the matter relates to the sheer need for a huge number of extra Gaelic teachers. The provisions are there, but I am not sure how we encourage more people to become Gaelic teachers.
It is suggested that we ask the Scottish Executive for its response to the petition, and specifically about what it is doing on the recruitment of teachers of Gaelic.
I am aware that there are incentives to encourage people who are already in the teaching profession.
Could we find out from the Executive how successful those incentives have been?
Is it agreed that we ask the Executive to respond to the petition; that we ask it what action it is taking in trying to recruit additional teachers of Gaelic across Scotland and how successful that action has been; and that we ask the City of Edinburgh Council what provision it is making, so that we can better consider the petition?
I can say from bitter experience that you have to be very determined to learn the language if you are not a native speaker.
At some point in my life, I shall try to do precisely that, but not at the moment; I do not think I have the time.
The next petition is PE390, from Ms Deirdre Henderson, which deals with exclusion in higher education. The petition calls on the Parliament to take action on a number of issues considered necessary by the petitioner to ensure that students from non-traditional backgrounds are not excluded from higher education. She calls for review and evaluation of the student experience of mental health and hardship, of entry procedures and requirements, of the academic support that is offered to students, including tutor training, of the availability of flexible learning opportunities, of child care policy and support for parent students, of student fees and student funding, of the effect of university budget cuts and of the number of workers at universities who are encouraged to access higher education.
The next petition is PE391, from Councillor Willie Scobie. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider a range of issues in relation to the adequacy of existing housing legislation in protecting tenants who have exercised their right to buy, but who subsequently have repairs imposed on them by local authorities without their consent.
We should remember other things, for example that the Parliament has passed the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill and that the laws of the tenement are coming up for review. A bill relating to common repairs and other issues is to be introduced by the Executive and will be considered by one of the justice committees. To my mind, when someone buys a property, it does not matter who sold them it—whether it was a local authority or anyone else; their rights as owners of former council homes are the same as those of owners of any other properties.
Petition PE356, which dealt with much the same issue, is being dealt with by the Local Government Committee. It would seem logical also to send PE391 to that committee. We could highlight Phil Gallie's point that the petition impinges on work that is being carried out by the justice committees. Perhaps the Local Government Committee would liaise with those committees when it handles PE356 and PE 391.
It would be wise to strike up that relationship.
We will do that. I propose that we send PE391 to the Local Government Committee and draw its attention to the changes in legislation that are being pursued by the justice committees, so that the committees can liaise on how to dispose of the petitions.
Perhaps we should also seek the opinion of the justice committees as to whether they are happy to leave PE391 alone.
Is that agreed?
Petition PE393, from Killin community council, calls for the Killin area to be included in the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park. Sylvia Jackson has a particular interest in the petition and wants to make a contribution to the debate. She has walked through the door as I am speaking, so we do not have to slow down to await her arrival.
I thank the convener for arranging to forewarn me that the committee had moved on to discuss PE393. John MacPherson, the chairman of Killin community council, is with us and can answer questions too, if that is required.
I understand that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development is due to appear before the Rural Development Committee on 2 October 2001. It would be timeous to send PE393 to the committee and to ask for the petition to be added to the subject matter for questions to the minister.
If Killin were to be included in the national park, would that open the floodgates for other places to ask to be included?
Killin is the main area in my constituency that has been left out of the national park. The decision to do that has divided the Glen Dochart area in two. The community in another area around Balfron is also asking for a review of the decision, but Killin is making the strongest arguments for inclusion. The request for a review is a major issue in my constituency.
As no other member has indicated that they want to speak, does Sylvia Jackson have any final points to make?
The petition is not fully complete. It is hoped that the final petition will be presented to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development on 19 September, before the end of the designation order consultation process on 21 September.
It is suggested that we refer PE393 to the Rural Development Committee. We will recommend that it raises the petitioners' concerns with the Minister for Environment and Rural Development when it meets the minister on 2 October. Are we agreed?
Thank you.
Next
Interests