Public Petitions Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Official Report 277KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Fresh Talent Initiative (PE1146)

Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. For PE1146, I welcome Jennifer Newman. You have a lonely shift up there on your own, but do not worry as we are not as fierce as we might look. PE1146 urges the Parliament to ask the Government to review the fresh talent working in Scotland scheme with the Home Office to allow overseas students on the scheme to stay and work in Scotland for an extended period at the conclusion of their academic studies without the need for a work permit and, as a result, ensure greater benefits for all concerned given the amount of public funding that is being spent on training such individuals.

You will have seen the format from the previous contributions. Do you want to make an opening statement or will we just go straight to questions?

I definitely want to tell you about my experience, if that is okay.

You have two minutes.

My name is Jennifer. I came to Scotland in 2001 to do a masters degree at the University of Stirling. For that, I received funding from the domestic abuse service development fund, which is a Government initiative, as well as from the University of Dundee. After completing an MPhil in domestic abuse, I began working in Forth valley on a health promotion initiative called healthy working lives, which is another Government initiative that promotes a productive workforce in Scotland by tackling issues such as employability and the environment. I am sure that some of you have heard of the initiative.

After my two years of working full time under the fresh talent initiative, I was sacked because I am American—that was the only reason. At the end of the period of the initiative, the job that a fresh talent person is doing must be offered to a resident worker if any such worker has the minimum qualifications, even if the fresh talent person is the best candidate with the most experience. I had 60 clients in Forth valley with whom I had built up relationships—with such award schemes, continuity of relationships is very important—but none of that mattered. Just because I was American, I had to go.

The implications for Scotland, including the implications for funding, are huge. For one thing, some 9,000 people are involved in the initiative. Given that it costs £6,000 to put a recruitment ad in The Scotsman and The Herald, my recruitment had a financial implication, as did all the training that I received for healthy working lives. All of that cost the Government money. When I was sacked, the Government had to re-advertise the post, and it will now have to train somebody else. The new person has a background in podiatry, so she will have to have all the training on the criteria for the healthy working lives initiative.

Luckily, I have received a job offer from Glasgow, and the employer is working on getting me a work permit. However, I wanted to do something to help the other 9,000 students on the fresh talent initiative, so that they do not have to go through what I went through.

A lot of funding and training was involved for me, and I am passionate about Scotland. I love it here. The green paper on the Home Office website describes what people need in order to stay in the country. The criteria include experience, skills and willingness to volunteer—I volunteer as well. I just feel that the immigration issues should be looked at.

Thank you for your introduction, Jennifer. Have you heard whether there is any intention to extend the two-year limit at United Kingdom level, and whether any representations have been made directly to the UK Government?

The whole immigration system has been changed to a points-based system. The fresh talent initiative will be subsumed into the post-study category of the new system, which will be Britain-wide rather than Scotland-wide. However, that still has implications. You are letting people stay for two years and letting them work in any job, and you are training them, but after the time is up, they can lose their job.

The Government wants everybody to speak English, but people might be working in a technical area and, although they might be learning English, if they get sacked after two years they might not understand why. There will not be any support for them; there was no support for me.

The relocation advisory service of the Scottish Government is really excellent. People from the service came to my work and told my employer, "You can keep Jennifer but you have to argue her case on the form." However, our human resources department called the Home Office and the Home Office said no. Another really big issue is that lots of information from the fresh talent people and the Home Office has been conflicting. Even the way in which posts are advertised has to be really specific. The fresh talent people said that the advert had to be put on Jobcentre Plus and Eures, but the Home Office told me three different things—one time I was told monster.co.uk; one time I was told The Scotsman and The Herald; and one time I was told it could just be on the national health service's SHOW website—Scotland's health on the web.

When you call the Home Office, the people are not helpful at all. That has to be looked into, because people's lives are being affected. People just need a little support.

This Parliament does not have too much influence over the Home Office.

I have to admit that I am no expert on employment law, but I was puzzled by your petition, Jennifer. Fairness must be an issue, and surely the person best qualified for the job is the person most suitable. Obviously, immigration considerations arise when it is being decided whether people can stay in the country or not. The system is hugely complex, and I know from experience of trying to help constituents that contradictions arise and contradictory advice is offered. Did you take any advice on employment law?

Yes, I spoke to an employment lawyer and an immigration lawyer. Unfortunately, immigration law overrides employment law.

New proposals have come from the Home Office. Obviously, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have relationships with the UK Government and the Home Office on issues such as this one. The fresh talent initiative was an initiative of the previous Scottish Government, and the system is being reformed to become a points-based system.

Without going into too much detail, because the committee cannot look into personal circumstances, can you tell us whether you would have a better chance under the new system than you had under the previous system, or is the new system even less effective?

I do not know. I will give you an example. There is something called the highly skilled migrants programme, for which a person needs 75 points to qualify. All that they need is a degree and experience of working in the UK. They also need to speak English. I have 60 points because I am 37. If I was 27, I would have 75 points. The only thing that is keeping me from qualifying is my age. It does not matter that I have five years' work experience here, that I have been here for seven years or that I have gained two higher degrees here. The points-based system does not take anybody's individual circumstances into consideration—it is more like a tick-box approach.

Any system will have inherent contradictions and individual cases that go against the general principle. From your experience or what you know of others' experience, which may have been similar, what are the counselling and support services like for individuals who have taken the challenge of coming from abroad, whether from America or from other parts of the world? What support services are available to you should things go slightly topsy-turvy?

There is nothing. I will just have to go back with my seven years of skills and Scottish degrees. I will just be thrown out.

To your knowledge, is there an appeals mechanism?

I could raise a human rights case with an immigration lawyer, which would cost £750 to initiate and would probably fail. I will do that if I have to.

You blame the Home Office. Have you submitted a written complaint to the Home Office?

Yes, I have submitted a written complaint to the Home Office, as have Anne McGuire and Keith Brown. It is basically just tough. That is why I wanted to raise awareness of the situation. I have skills here and I want to contribute here. I love Scotland with all my heart and I want to stay, but I cannot because the Home Office will not let me.

Convener, can we put the case to the Scottish Government, asking whether it can do anything with the Home Office?

Given the fact that Jennifer has already contacted elected members, it might be appropriate for her to continue to pursue the matter through the member of the House of Commons and the constituency member of the Scottish Parliament, Keith Brown. That avenue is available, rather than having the committee take action directly. In the distillation of our discussion, we will maybe arrive at some issues that we wish to pursue. However, let us ask some more questions, first.

To be honest, I did not bring my case here to get help for myself. Luckily, I have a job offer in Glasgow, and my employer is doing what they need to do to get my work permit. Fingers crossed, they will be successful. The reason that I brought my case here is that there are 9,000-plus students here on the fresh talent initiative who might experience similar issues. I knew from 21 November that I was going to lose my job, but I did not lose it until my work visa ran out. For all that time, when I was on the fresh talent initiative, from November to May, I could not enjoy my life because I spent all my time looking for other jobs. My morale at work was low because I knew that I was going to lose my job. I wanted to come here to raise awareness of the situation and to let you know that there are people in Scotland with skills who want to stay and contribute but who cannot because of the current immigration system.

I am intrigued by your comment about your age being a factor in the points system. I thought that the legislation against ageism was UK-wide. I am very surprised that age is a contributory factor in the points system and wonder whether that needs clarification.

I think that immigration issues override ageism as well. I think that they override everything, although I do not understand why.

In your place of employment, was there any representative organisation to which you could have taken your concerns, such as an affiliate union?

I got a local person who was involved in the union to come with me when I was sacked—when the discussions took place and my employers said that they had called the Home Office three times and been told that they could not hire me. Fresh talent initiative staff told them they could hire me but that they had to argue the case, so there was conflicting information.

The petition raises issues that are not within our remit but that we can explore. From whom would we like to seek further information? Nanette Milne was concerned about two issues.

We should write to the Home Office to ask it to provide the rationale for some of its decisions.

I, too, would like the Home Office to provide us in Scotland with that information. The petitioner is a good, able person, but she is not getting the chance to stay in Scotland to work, which is shameful for us.

Can we write to the Scottish Government on the issue? I understand that the fresh talent scheme was intended to encourage people to come to Scotland to work and, eventually, to settle. There is no point in attracting people to come for two years and then have them go away. The scheme is aimed at building our talent and encouraging people to stay here. The advice that the petitioner received was conflicting and came at a crisis point, when everything had been stopped.

There should be support throughout the initial placement. Like everyone involved with the scheme, the petitioner needed such a placement so that she could decide whether she wanted to stay here to work and what she could contribute. It should have been possible to make some assessment of her contribution. Someone should have held her hand through the initial placement, working with her and advising her and her employer on how the situation could be made permanent, if it was working out. Something seems to be missing. The organisation should have been able to tell the Home Office that she was here under the fresh talent scheme, that her placement was working out and that it wanted to formalise the position and to make it more permanent. It is fine to have a scheme for two years, but we need to ask how it can achieve its aims.

The two-year scheme does not apply to settlement. You have to be here on a five-year work permit in order to be able to apply to stay permanently. I do not understand why the two years that I spent with the NHS do not count towards the five-year period for settlement. If anything, it should be taken as proof that I will work and will not live off benefits. Once you have been here for 10 years, you can apply to stay for ever. I have been here for seven years, so if I get the job in Glasgow I will be fine, as it comes with a five-year work permit. However, I want to raise awareness of the issue.

You have raised a number of issues in the petition, in your oral evidence to the committee and in your answers to our questions. You have provided us with a template for exploring three or four issues. We have received your petition and you have had a chance to speak to the committee. We will pursue the matter with the organisations that have been mentioned in the discussion—the Government, the Home Office and one or two other agencies that deal with the sector in which you were involved. After we have received their responses, we will keep you fully informed of when the committee will reconsider the petition and determine whether and how it wishes to take it forward. You have raised some legitimate issues that we want to explore. I hope that you have found the process helpful.

Thank you.

I hope that it was not too terrifying.

No.

Would members like to take a break now?

Let us go on.

There is a good work ethic this afternoon.

---

Scottish Agricultural Wages Board (PE1139)

PE1139 was submitted on behalf of Unite the Union. I declare an interest as I am a member of that trade union, as are one or two other committee members.

I, too, declare an interest as a member of Unite.

As people can tell from looking, we have never been agricultural workers.

PE1139, which is by John Quigley on behalf of Unite the Union, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to retain the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board as a separate body and to expand its remit to cover all workers in the agricultural sector, including those who work in private and ornamental gardens and in all types of fish farming.

I welcome to the meeting Scott Foley, Rab Stewart and Scot Walker, who all represent Unite. Like the previous petitioner, they will make an opening statement, after which we will ask questions.

I will read a short statement. I hope that it is short—it sounded short to me earlier.

I thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to speak to the petition. My statement has been prepared to elaborate on and enrich our union's petition. The petition's sole aim is to gain from this fledgling Government its continued support for the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. By continuing to support the long-established board, the Government would show its continued support for workers who are employed in the agricultural sector. It would also reinforce the United Kingdom's position and its commitment to the International Labour Organization's convention number 99.

About 67,000 workers are directly employed in Scottish agriculture, and 25,000 of them are covered by the board. It is estimated that the employment of a further 250,000 workers depends on the sector. They range from workers in retail and food distribution to those in processing, packaging and the drinks industry. Those people work in an industry whose accident ratio is among the highest in the Scottish economy. Notwithstanding that, they have a proud past as honourable and hard-working individuals.

Such honourable behaviour has not always been reciprocated. We have only to look back a couple of generations to see the reasons for providing such workers—the backbone of Scottish industry—with a common pay and conditions framework. Historically, the law of master and servant played a major part in squeezing every ounce of sweat from workers' brows. The threat of losing a tied house left many vulnerable.

Members of the Scottish Parliament will appreciate that a return to such a scenario is not impossible. Even in these so-called enlightened times, rogue gangmasters continue to operate outside the law. Without the protection of the wages board and the wages inspectorate, even seemingly law-abiding companies would exploit indigenous and migrant workers in the sector.

One recent case tells of an employer who forced mainly migrant workers to work 39 hours over four days under one contract of employment and a further 39 hours over three days under another contract. Using different employer names for each contract, that employer breached not only the agricultural wages order, but working time regulations. Those workers were not paid for the overtime that they clearly worked; they were only ever paid at the plain-time rate, which did not reach the minimum amount that the board sets or even the national minimum wage. They had to pay for compulsory transport to work. The company moved them to another site to avoid paying the rate for workers who have been employed for more than 26 weeks. They were also forced to continue working into the late evening, because when people are forced to take company transport home, they must wait for that transport. The board and its inspectorate ended that blatant exploitation but, without them, such an occurrence might—and likely would—happen again.

Colleagues, I ask you to put yourselves in the shoes of those vulnerable people and to think of the protection that you would want for you and yours.

Members might have heard of lobbying by the National Farmers Union Scotland to have the wages board abolished. It says that the rates that the board sets are irrelevant and that the majority of employers pay well in excess of them. If that is indeed the case, surely those reasonable minimum rates are realistic and achievable. The NFUS states that it carried out a survey of farmers that clearly showed that a majority felt that non-discriminatory wage rates set by the board would dissuade them from employing young people. It states that 91 per cent of the 441 respondents said that they would not employ 16 and 17-year-olds. Members will agree that we can make statistics say anything, but 441 responses from the 51,249 holdings in Scotland represents only 0.86 per cent of the holdings.

Scottish agricultural workers are not comparable with other workers in Scottish industry. Although other sizeable groups can enter into collective bargaining agreements in the workplace or individual company, farm workers cannot meet the thresholds for statutory recognition rights in the vast majority of cases. For example, out of the 6,632 holdings in Scotland that employ full-time employees, only 176 employ seven workers or more; 3,753 employ one full-time employee; 1,608 employ two; 596 employ three; 288 employ four; and 211 employ five or six. Therefore, out of 6,632 holdings, 6,456 employ fewer than seven full-time staff.

The Parliament might initially be of the view that the national minimum wage legislation and working time regulations replicate in part the provisions of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949. However, those important legislative measures do not encompass the minimum standards that are contained within the act. Members should recognise that the agricultural sector is heavily subsidised and, therefore, it is important that those statutory provisions remain to ensure that a fair proportion of those subsidies is directed to the dedicated workforce that tills our nation's soil.

Unite recognises that the Government proposes to review the board's functions. However, we strongly suggest that, if any such review is deemed to be necessary, rather than consider the board's abolition, the review should seek to widen its scope to all agricultural workers and those in the fish farming sector.

The point about migrant workers was well made. Mr Foley mentioned the ILO convention 99. What is that, and what is its significance?

The ILO convention 99 calls for a minimum rate in agriculture and adequate machinery for the creation and enforcement of such minimum standards. The United Kingdom entered into it in 1953 and, in 1978, Ireland became a signatory. Article 1.1 states:

"Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to create or maintain adequate machinery whereby minimum rates of wages can be fixed for workers employed in agricultural undertakings and related occupations."

You mentioned that the Government will conduct a review of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board and is committed to issuing a consultation document within the next year or so. I presume that I am right in thinking that you will make your own strong submission to that consultation.

That is correct. It is my understanding that the consultation is forthcoming. We are waiting to be made aware of its content and format, and we will do our best to consult as many of our members as possible.

Clearly, your response will depend on the suggestions that are made in that document.

Yes.

The points that you make, you make well. I understand that it will be difficult to get agricultural workers to respond individually to the consultation for the reasons that the board exists in the first place: they might be afraid to stand up to an employer because they are small in number and do not have the strength of numbers for support if they want to do anything like that. That concerns me a little bit. If there seems to be a concerted effort among the employers to respond to the consultation, how will you balance that with responses by workers?

Secondly, I understand the reasoning behind your desire to include more people in the board's remit. However, I note that you mentioned engineering and construction workers in that regard, and I understand that their minimum wages were set by their own boards. How would that fit in with the agricultural workers?

I do not think that I mentioned construction workers. I talked about retail and distribution—

No, it was written in the additional information.

Those workers would have been mentioned in reference to the scope of the union's operations.

The Scottish Agricultural Wages Board is the last of the wages boards—all the others have been replaced. We consider agricultural workers to be a special category, and the ILO convention that we mentioned recognises them to be so. Agricultural workers are also covered by article 2 of the European social charter that was signed by the Council of Europe, which calls for additional holidays and reduced hours for dangerous and unhealthy occupations. As we stated, agricultural labour is among the most dangerous work in the country.

To answer your first question, it is difficult to reach a high proportion of our members, not only because of the circumstances that they are in in rural economies, but because a lot of people are afraid to put their head above the parapet when it comes to raising objections to what their employers seek to gain from any such review. However, we will endeavour to reach as many of them as possible regarding the consultation document.

Concern has been raised about the future of the wages board, given the broader political debate about decluttering the quango state and reducing the number of non-departmental public bodies. I assume that the union has a view on that matter as well. Why are you so concerned about this NDPB? What makes it different? It is important that you tell us that. How is the board different from the other bodies that were mentioned in the First Minister's statement in early January? Why are you so worried about a review of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board?

There has been a lot of discussion and debate on the purpose of quangos and what they do with what is assumed to be the vast amount of money that they spend. However, the wages board is completely different. It is made up of independents. It involves employers and trade unions, and it costs approximately £130,000 a year, which is spent on conducting the pay negotiations, running the associated ad hoc committees that might take place as a consequence of those negotiations, and the administration of the inspectorate. That is not a vast sum of money to use in the service of protecting minimum standards for people who are the backbone of Scottish industry.

Would you like the future of the board to be made more secure rather than less secure?

I like to think that the Scottish Government will make it more secure—not just for workers now, but for workers in the future—in order to prevent the creation of two-tier employment in agriculture. The UK Government has given a commitment to retain the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, and Ireland has recently gained support for its equivalent board. Wages in the countries that border Scotland could be subject to a degree of protection that will not exist in Scotland, which could lead to a race to the bottom in Scotland.

I think that the deadline for responses to the consultation process is being brought forward. Has Unite had any behind-the-scenes discussions with the Government about what the review's principles will be, or are you still in the dark?

We are still largely in the dark. I have made tentative inquiries about when the consultation phase will commence, but I have not yet had anything concrete back. I understand that it is imminent.

Does anyone want to add anything?

Yes, convener. I am one of the longest-serving members of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board—you can tell that by looking at me. I have been on the board for a number of years. We have been through many issues and tried to regulate and maintain minimum standards, some of which have been more easily achieved than others. Because of the industry's vastness and remoteness, we need regulation, which needs to be enforced.

In the mid-1980s, when we started talking about the determination of pensions with the farmers, employers and owners, we faced all kinds of difficulties; eventually, we had to abandon the idea. Pensions were being introduced in every industry, but we had to abandon the idea because, as far as the employers were concerned, if it was not dictated by the wages board, it was not going to happen. They did not even want to discuss the matter. When we look at the industry and the remoteness of some parts of it, I cannot understand that, but I think that it is one of the quirks of the United Kingdom and not just Scotland.

The employers seem to understand the necessity of regulating the welfare of the animals that people look after, but they do not understand the necessity of regulating the welfare of the employees who do that work. There is something vastly wrong with that.

As my colleague Scott Foley said, minimum wages and holidays do not lend themselves to agricultural workers who are finely attuned to the jobs that they do. They are part veterinarian, part mechanic, part driver—they are part everything. They are multifaceted and multiskilled and we do not want to lose them to other industries, but that is what will happen if we do not have some form of regulation to protect them.

Thank you. You have identified two or three areas that the committee can pursue. One would be a behind-the-scenes dialogue between Government officials and ministers and your officials, given the role that the union plays on the board. The second is the timescale for that dialogue and for the consultation, and the third is Rhoda Grant's point about the fairness of the response and how it reflects the views of all those who have an interest in the issue.

We can write to the minister with responsibility for the policy area. It might be worth writing to the First Minister, given the statement that he made in early January. We are halfway through the year and it might help to get an update.

I am in the committee's hands, but would it be fair to say that we recognise that there is a need to declutter the quango sector, but that this situation looks a bit odd in that context? Should we at least explore that point, even though members might take different views?

I have never been a lover of the quango state and never will be, but the board does not sound as if it is a quango. It sounds like a more meaningful partnership arrangement. Expenditure on it, at £130,000 per year, is not vast. I hope that the committee can throw its weight behind the petition. If we are moving into a consultation period, could the committee make today's discussion part of that consultation?

There is no problem with that. The Official Report can be made available to the department that is collating the consultation responses. I expect that Unite and other interested parties will submit a more sharply focused analysis to judge from what we have heard this afternoon.

People make broad statements about tackling the number of quangos, but some of the organisations that are included in that are not quite what we think they are. If such organisations were no longer in existence, that would be a dangerous road to go down because they look after interests that no one else bothers about and make a difference to people's life experiences or work environments.

We need clarity on timescales and an identification of some of the issues. We also need to ask about the principles of the review.

I represent a rural area, which tends to have a low-wage economy. It is important that we do not make that worse by getting rid of an organisation that tries to keep wage levels up. If the board were to go, that would not augur well for the wider environment.

The petitioners have heard the committee's deliberations; I hope that that was useful and constructive. I hope that we can move the petition on to get greater clarity and a solution that might meet your concerns.

We will take a brief comfort break.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

---

Ice Rinks (PE1138)

PE1138, by Mrs Erica Woollcombe, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the continued provision of local ice rinks and to recognise their benefit in promoting health and wellbeing. Members have before them the petition and the supporting documentary evidence.

The petition raises a specific concern, but it also relates to the broader debate about investment in our infrastructure. Only three weeks ago, when Audit Scotland reported on some of the big challenges that we face, I think it said that we would need to spend something like £100 million per year over the next 10 years to get our sports infrastructure up to a standard that the public would consider acceptable for the future.

How can we expedite matters? We are pursuing some of the issues with the relevant Government ministers and officials. Perhaps we should just gather information on the petition. Do members have any strong views or comments?

The convener of the Health and Sport Committee is with us. Perhaps we should refer the petition to that committee for consideration as part of its inquiry on pathways into sport.

I know that Christine Grahame is here for another petition, so I am sorry if we have sprung that on her.

You certainly have.

In essence, PE1138 is about the quality of facilities. Your committee is taking evidence on pathways into sport and on our support for sport as we move towards the Commonwealth games in 2014.

Yes. Do you want me to say something about that?

Nanette Milne asked whether it would be appropriate to give the Health and Sport Committee the information on the petition. I know that you are investigating pathways into sport, which is mainly about individuals, organisations and sports clubs, but people might say that they do not get into, or advance in, sport because the quality of facilities is poor.

As Rhoda Grant knows, we heard evidence from Rhona Martin that a lot of local ice rinks are closing down. That is partly to do with European Union regulations on how the ice is made and so on. It would be useful to absorb the petition into our work.

I support that, given that John and Sinead Kerr are constituents of mine—they come from Livingston.

We should write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the broader issue. Each local authority has the right to determine what it wishes to do with its budget. That is a contested issue at local and national level at different times. It would be useful to hear what decisions or recommendations have been made by COSLA, as part of its sports strategy, about striking a regional balance in access to provision. Each local authority might have to make difficult decisions, but it would be a pity if regions of Scotland did not have a range of facilities for different sports.

There are one or two interested parties that we should write to, which are part of the structure around ice rinks or organised sport. The clerk wants to give me some sound advice, so I invite him to share it with the committee.

I seek clarification on whether the committee has agreed to refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee, or to gather information from other sources at this point.

Can we do both?

Can we do both, Fergus?

The convention is that if we refer the petition to another committee, it is then up to that committee to determine what action it wants to take on it.

We should gather evidence, but provide our information to the Health and Sport Committee. That is what Nanette Milne was suggesting. Are you a wee bit happier now?

Yes.

Good. Ensuring contentment among the clerks is my ambition in life.

---

Water Charges Relief (PE1142)

PE1142, by the Rev Jock Stein, on behalf of Dunfermline Presbytery, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to continue the scheme of relief and exemption of charities and churches from water and sewerage charges beyond 2010. Do members have any comments on the petition?

This is a burning issue. I know that the petition comes from a specific area, but I am sure that we have all been bombarded with concerns from church and charity people and from those who are involved in village halls. We should involve the Government in the petition.

We need to get clarity on the statement about the relief going beyond 2010. Some of the people to whom I have spoken have issues with the scheme, which was a transitional scheme, such as how it affects groups. For instance, if a charity has an income of more than £50,000 a year, it is not eligible for relief. If a village hall committee decides to be proactive and run, say, a lunch club, a crèche, a nursery and other services, its turnover will quite quickly rise above the £50,000 a year mark. This is almost a tax on development, which could halt people's ambition to provide services and therefore affect small communities.

It has been pointed out to me that an organisation that moves premises also loses out on water rates relief, which means that small organisations might be stuck in buildings that are either not efficient or not effective enough to meet their needs.

I hope that those two issues will be raised with the Government, because they need to be taken into account if a permanent scheme is to be drawn up. We have come some way on this matter, and we need something other than a transition scheme.

As we know from our constituents, the issue crops up every few years, so it is certainly worth exploring.

With regard to Rhoda Grant's important point about the scheme being transitional, if we are going to ask the Government for clarity, we should also ask whether it thinks that the scheme will be extended or whether a permanent scheme will be introduced at some point. Given that the operation of much of the voluntary sector depends on continuity and sustainability, it would be good if the scheme were to be put on a safer footing.

I think that we have secured a reasonable consensus. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Right of Notification (PE1143)

PE1143, from Carol Ann Bowmaker, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to amend all relevant legislation to ensure that private tenants have a right to be notified when their landlord has applied for planning permission to demolish their home and that such permission is not granted and notices to quit are not issued to a tenant when outstanding repairing standard enforcement notices exist on a property.

The accompanying material contains all the detail. Do members have any comments?

This is one of those petitions that make you think, "Surely that can't happen." Surely a landlord must advise his or her tenants if something is to happen to their property. We should take some advice on the matter and find out how we can close this loophole.

I agree that this is an odd one. You have to read the petition again to see whether it said what you thought it did.

I suggest that we write to a range of individuals, particularly the minister with responsibility for this issue and certainly the local authorities, perhaps to get a snapshot of the situation in an island authority, a rural authority and an urban authority.

---

Domain Names (PE1144)

PE1144, by Ross Ingebrigtsen, on behalf of dotSCO, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to give full support to the application to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to introduce a standard ".sco" top-level domain name in order to enhance Scotland's distinct languages, culture and identity and for use by all Scottish public bodies.

Christine Grahame MSP has joined us for the discussion. Do members have any comments?

I fully support dotSCO's proposal. For one thing, the name is easy for me to pronounce. Secondly, Scotland is not a well-known country in the world. Indeed, when I lived in the place that I left behind, I did not know that Scotland was on the map. The real priority for me and for Scottish people is to give the domain name—and Scotland itself—full support.

So you thought that you were going to California, but you were sent to Caledonia instead. Good call, brother.

I am glad that the convener read out the terms of the petition, because they are not as they have been given in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing paper. Members are frowning at me, but I assure them that the SPICe briefing needs to be corrected. I must also point out that I appear before the committee with some trepidation, as I have two sons who will be dismayed to hear me talk about top-level domains and seem to know what I am talking about.

PE1144 is an important petition that has attracted a great deal of attention. The petition's 1,200 signatures include those of David Hamilton MP—a Labour member of Parliament—and John Scott MSP. Two motions on the issue have been lodged in the Scottish Parliament. One was lodged by Stewart Stevenson and is mentioned in the SPICe briefing; the other—the SPICe paper does not mention it, unfortunately, but I am not wounded—was lodged by myself. I called my motion "Lets Go With ‘.sco'", as one might.

The campaign has the support of the cross-party group on the Scots language. Members should also know that the Welsh Assembly is supporting a similar campaign for ".cym", which will be for the Welsh language. Basically, the petition is seeking a domain for the Scots language and Scots culture. The campaign group dotSCO, which was set up by two young men—Ross Ingebrigtsen and David Hutchison—as a not-for-profit organisation, has attracted support from civic Scotland and a lot of interest from businesses and cultural groups.

Let me just point out a couple of issues from the SPICe briefing paper. The paper states:

"Internet services are a reserved matter".

Although that is quite correct, the petition is seeking a cultural top-level domain for the Scots language, which is not reserved to Westminster. Indeed, for members' interest, I have dug out a copy of the Parliament's very own publication "Makkin yer voice heard in the Scottish Pairlament", which is in the Scots tongue. Given that we are now putting Scots on various signs, I think that that question can be put aside. DotSCO will apply for a top-level domain name under a cultural banner, just as the Welsh have done with the support of their Parliament.

The SPICe briefing paper also mentions the second-level domain "scotland.eu". In answer to a parliamentary question from Stewart Maxwell in 2006, the then Executive minister Tom McCabe stated:

"The Executive believes that Scotland.eu, combined with the Top Level Domain (TLD) .uk will clearly convey Scotland's online identity."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 30 May 2006; S2W-25732.]

However, I challenge members to type "scotland.eu" into Google. They will be taken straight to "scotland.org", which is a single promotional website. The second-level domain "scotland.eu" is just not used in the broad manner that ".sco" would be used.

As a sponsored top-level domain name, rules will apply to ".sco" that the sponsors will need to put before the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. ICANN meets only a few times a year and, I understand, assigns domains only once every four years. It will next do so in the autumn or towards the end of the year. At a meeting that I attended with dotSCO, I was advised by Nominet—which is mentioned in the SPICe paper—that ICANN is expecting a large number of applications for cultural domains. Only a handful of applications were made the first time round, but domain names are becoming so popular that ICANN is expecting lots of applications this time. Therefore, we need to get a move on one way or the other, as ICANN allocates such domain names only once every four years.

The SPICe paper also mentions that, in 2001, Nominet received an application from ScotNom Limited for the use of ".scot.uk", which is a second-level domain. However, ".sco" will be a top-level domain. In other words, it is the very last bit at the end of the web address.

I am impressed that Nanette Milne seems to be following me. If I am explaining this well enough, I am glad.

You lost me at "co dot".

My point is that, at that recent meeting, the organisation that deals with domain name registration and so on—I have stuff about Nominet here—was very enthusiastic. That was not simply because it will get more business or anything like that. The people at Nominet do not sniff around and bite at things if they do not think they will be worth while and attract many users. The point is that ".sco" will be attractive to people.

I hope that the committee will support the petition, which is to urge the Scottish Government to give its full support to the application. The application has to go through tests but, given what Nominet has said, if an application has parliamentary support—let alone Government support—that will make a huge difference to whether it is successful.

I am aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth is considering the matter. I do not know whether the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism is doing likewise. It is of extreme interest. Businesses, such as cultural and tourism businesses, would be extremely interested in it. That is something that dotSCO would have to prove to ICANN in order to get authorisation.

Do members have any comments, questions or observations?

I am afraid that it is as clear as mud to me. I am not criticising you, Christine.

I will refer Rhoda Grant to the Official Report.

I read the petition and the background notes and I listened carefully to what Christine Grahame said, but I am not 100 per cent clear about this. Who makes the application?

DotSCO, which is a not-for-profit organisation, will have to present a case to ICANN about why the domain name should be allocated. I learned from meeting Nominet that one has first to establish that there is Scots culture and a Scots language. We can take that as read. It has then to be established that there will be users for the site and that it is not going to be like "scotland.eu", which nobody has ever used. You have to establish that various people will register and that it will become useful. DotSCO has to produce a business case and show that tourism businesses and so on might want to use ".sco".

Nominet has made it clear that if there is parliamentary backing for the move, as there is from the Welsh Assembly for the ".cym" campaign, that would show that there was a fair wind behind it. If there is parliamentary and Government backing and businesses and cultural organisations are interested, there is a prospect of having the domain name allocated. However, it would not be allocated without rules. There has to be a framework, a bit like a memorandum of understanding or articles of association. There would have to be rules by which organisations could apply to have ".sco" at the end of their web address. Organisations would not be allowed to just add it; they would have to be approved. Nominet is like the referee of the internet—I knew that the convener's ears would prick up at that statement.

Refs have been in the news recently.

I know, but I am not going there.

So, any organisation—or any person—could say that they wanted to apply for a ".whatever" domain, but they would have to build a case for it. It is the strength of the case that determines whether they can have that name.

Yes—people have to build a case for a top-level domain name.

Would the organisation that applies for the ".sco" top-level domain police the use of it?

Yes. It would have to ensure that what was happening under that domain name fitted the criteria.

I could probably ask questions all day.

I am impressing myself. I seem to know a few answers. No doubt, I will be told afterwards that I got them wrong.

Are there any other comments?

I do not do technology very well and I am a bit of a cultural pygmy, to boot. I hope that the committee can support the petition. All we are asking is for the Government to throw its weight behind dotSCO, which has to do the spade work to make its case. I do not think that that is a big ask. None of us is a technological expert, but other people out there are.

I want to pick up on the final point that Christine Grahame made. The important thing to consider is the impact that such a move would have on business and enterprise. I am a cultural pygmy, but the important thing for me is the impact on enterprise in Scotland.

I see no reason not to support the petition. As I said earlier, Scotland is not known to the rest of the world. The domain name ".sco" would help to raise Scotland's profile in the world.

I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government, asking for its comments before we make a formal decision on whether we should ask it to support the petition. It would be good to get some input and the Scottish Government's thoughts on it.

Okay. We will write to the ministers who have responsibility in the matter—there may be more than one because of its cross over nature. I thank Christine Grahame for her expert guided tour. Her grandson will be marking her and she should get 10 out of 10.

I do not have a grandson yet, unless you have heard something that I have not heard.

Sorry. There could have been a gag in there, but I am in a public committee.

---

Beverage Containers (PE1145)

PE1145, by Dr Alexander Gemmell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a statutory deposit and return scheme on all used beverage containers. Members have seen the details in the background information that has been provided with the petition. Do members have any views on how the committee should deal with the petition?

We need to get views from the Government, the licensed trade people and Waste Aware Scotland, for example.

The petition raises issues that impact on businesses. There is also the enforcement issue to consider. We might want to hear from people in Scotland and the UK who are involved in dealing with waste and packaging about the best ways in which to address the petitioner's concerns.

The core issue is something that we all get frustrated with—the amount of rubbish and waste products that are left lying around. Cans and bottles could easily be recycled. The petitioner raises a fundamental issue of concern about how we tackle that problem in Scotland.

I remember when there was a deposit—I cannot remember how much it was—on lemonade bottles.

It was 10p.

It was not 10p when I remember it from, which was pre-decimalisation. In those days, we did not have to deal with Europe. I know that there are now implications with regard to European matters. Perhaps we should also get views from European producers.

I have tried to explain to my son that it is a life-affirming experience to collect ginger bottles and get the cash back. The look of incredulity on his face told me that he did not know that I had done things as horrific as that.

It supplemented our pocket money.

Exactly. I seem to remember that we even got money back on Domestos bottles, which shows how old I am getting.

There is a range of folk we will contact. We will respond to the petitioner once we have received replies.