Public Petitions Committee, 12 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 12, 2000

Official Report 288KB pdf

---

Visit

Before we turn to the current petitions—we might not be able to deal with all of them, given our progress—I suggest that we discuss the proposed visit to Glencoe, which was agreed at the previous meeting. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

At the last meeting before the recess, it was agreed that we should visit Glencoe to learn more about the background to the petition before reaching a view on the action to be taken. We now want the views of members on the format and timing of the proposed visit. I must however advise members of the advice that the clerk has received on the handling of the petition following consultation with the Parliament's legal team. I bring members' attention to the following points regarding the action that the Public Petitions Committee may wish to take following its proposed site visit.

First, the National Trust for Scotland is a body corporate, established under the National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Act 1938—which was a private member's bill—and is a registered charity. The advice from the legal team is that the Parliament therefore has no remit to examine the operation of the National Trust for Scotland or its internal policies. It may be possible for the Parliament to pursue an investigation of the public funding that the National Trust for Scotland receives from the Executive or executive agencies, either in the form of direct funding or through grant applications, but such an inquiry would seem to go further than the action originally requested by the petitioners.

It is also possible for the Parliament to conduct an inquiry into the economic and environmental impact of the developments referred to in the petition on Glencoe. The land use policies of the National Trust for Scotland in Glencoe and elsewhere in Scotland could also form part of such an inquiry. It has been suggested that this option would perhaps be most in line with the requests for action made by the petitioners.

However, the action to be taken will be agreed after we have visited Glencoe. It would therefore be helpful to reach agreement at this meeting on how we proceed with the visit. The suggestion is that we go on either a Monday or a Friday. It is also suggested that the whole committee need not attend. We would however want the members who go to be representative of the committee. Arrangements could be made to visit the sites in question and to have meetings with the petitioners and the National Trust for Scotland to hear their respective views on the issues raised in the petition.

If members are in agreement we will try to identify a suitable date. The clerk will contact members individually over the next few days to determine their willingness to attend and their availability. Are there any thoughts?

I would be interested to see that letter. I realise that we can deal with the matter today without going into that, but it is interesting.

When we went to the Borders, the whole committee was invited, but some committee members did not go, for perfectly legitimate reasons—they had other commitments or whatever. The offer should be extended to the whole committee. We will not all be able to go in any event, which will narrow it down, and we are a small committee anyway. A couple of members were not in the Borders. Only three or four of us from the committee would be there, plus any interested MSPs. It is not necessary to have a quota. There will be a natural quota.

I want to reiterate what Christine Grahame has said. I would like to request a copy of the letter. I presume that everyone will get a copy. I am sure that it will make interesting reading. I will reserve comment until I have read the whole letter. Everyone should be invited on the visit. I am sure that three or four of us will turn up.

My view is, I think, the same as it was last time we discussed this—it will be a matter of record: even having visited the site, are we in a position to do anything about the situation? The petition will have to be referred to whichever is the appropriate committee. We are not in a position to make any decision on the matter ourselves. If the committee to which we will refer the petition also decides to visit the site, will not we incur unnecessary expense for the Scottish Parliament?

I too am on record as being opposed to the visit. I still am, but I recognise that it was the view of the committee that there should be one. I have a couple of concerns. First, I am not sure that we can change anything or interfere in the matter. Secondly, if the whole committee goes, what does that mean for petitioners who would normally come to Edinburgh to speak to their petitions? Will we notify them that they will have to come to Glencoe?

Thirdly, there is the cost to the committee. What will it mean for any future visits? I am not opposed to visits to take the committee to other cities of Scotland—I have a particular objection to a visit on this petition. Will there still be scope for the committee to go elsewhere? I know that travel has to be agreed by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Those who want to go to Glencoe should do so, but I do not think that the whole committee should go.

There is no question of holding a formal meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in Glencoe. We could not expect petitioners from all over Scotland to go to Glencoe to attend a meeting of the Public Petitions Committee. No member who wants to go to Glencoe is being excluded from going.

I suspect that not all members will go—there is no need for them all to do so. An informal representation of the committee will go to Glencoe to listen to the National Trust for Scotland—there will be a site visit—and to the petitioners, and will then report back to the committee, which will decide what action should be taken. The visit will take place only if the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the conveners liaison group approve the expenditure on it. We will have to apply for the authority to pay for the visit.

Thank you for that clarification. I had thought that it would be a formal meeting, but I realise now that it will not be the same as the meeting in Galashiels.

Apart from the fact that we have agreed to go, we have to go so that we can decide where to remit the petition. In certain circumstances, it is right that we should see for ourselves what an issue is. The action that we should take is not always clear from the submissions that we receive. One can get more of a feel for an issue when one hears about it from a community. We are here to respond to the public, and if the Parliamentary Bureau or anyone else is inconvenienced, so be it.

We cannot do anything until we find out who wants to go.

Strangely, I want to go.

There is no bar on anyone who wants to go. I suspect that three or four members will want to go. They will represent the committee and report back to it. The dates that have been suggested are Monday 25 September, Friday 29 September, Monday 2 October, and Friday 6 October. The clerk will contact members in the next few days to check on their availability. We will then have a better idea of who wants to go and will be able to make a bid to the conveners liaison group and the SPCB for approval of the expenditure that is required.

For the record, I tell the committee that the petitioners, Mr MacDonald and Mrs Macleod, are here today. We are pleased that the committee decided that there should be a meeting. In the interests of balance, I should say that Mary Scanlon has supported the petitioners' case at a public meeting that was held in Glencoe. I imagine that she, too, may be interested in attending a meeting there. I have spoken to the petitioners today and know that they are anxious that there should be a visit to the sites in Glencoe and are pleased that that is part of the proposal. That will be very helpful for those members who attend.

The petitioners are more concerned that a meeting should take place than that three, 10 or 15 members should attend. The petitioners were pleased by the commitment that was made and by the robust arguments that we heard from members such as Margaret Smith at our previous meeting.

Although the committee may not have the power to resolve matters that arise from the hearing, what is important is that there will be a fair hearing for all the issues. The committee is playing an important role in this matter, and I am grateful for the decision to visit my constituency to hear the petitioners' case.

I noted in the National Trust for Scotland's submission that it volunteered to provide evidence to the Scottish Parliament, presumably in any way the committee sees fit.

I am slightly worried. During the summer I went to Glencoe and Skye to check out the roads, admire the lovely scenery and have a brief break. I fear from what Fergus Ewing said that, if we hear representations but have no powers to resolve the problems, we might raise people's expectations unrealistically. I am not against going back to Glencoe and would volunteer to do so to hear the specifics. However, we should not give people unrealistic expectations.

The committee has decided to visit Glencoe; that is not an issue. We are debating the form and nature of the visit.

The purpose of the visit to Glencoe is to decide which committee to refer the petition to.

I was not here when it was decided that we should go, but it was a committee decision.

From what Christine Grahame said—

We have decided to go to get the flavour of the issues.

I am happy to go, but we should be under no illusion about why we are going.

We are going to determine how this committee should handle the petition, where the petition should be sent and to seek evidence on what to do about the petition.

An issue that has continually been raised at the committee is that—rightly or wrongly—it has the reputation of having no way forward but to refer petitions to committees that are already stretched by their work load.

The feeling among those of us who supported the move to go to Glencoe was that there were a lot of unanswered questions—one was about which committee we should pass the petition to. However, this is also a chance for the Public Petitions Committee to answer some of those questions before it passes the petition on. Any parliamentary committee to which the petition was passed once the Public Petitions Committee has done a significant amount of work would take on board our findings and comments. Our comments would be based on first-hand experience of the issues rather than our having merely read about them in a petition.

Going to Glencoe was seen as a way of getting the examination of the matter up and running to get a timeous response.

The committee is going to Glencoe. Nobody is questioning that. The issue is whether we agree that the clerk will contact members individually to discuss their availability at those times, after which we will make our application to travel.

The note that I have been given about the legal situation—it will not be discussed until we come back from Glencoe—will be circulated to all members of the committee.

For clarification, will the submissions be recorded if it is an informal meeting?

No, because the committee would have to take everybody with it. Costs militate against that. A clerk will be present, so a written summary of the meeting will be produced, but there will be no Official Report.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.