Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Official Report 501KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Menie Development (Governance and Propriety) (PE1474)

Agenda item 3 is consideration of new petitions, the first of which is PE1474, from David Milne, on governance and propriety during the Menie development. I remind members that we should stick to the conditions that are outlined in the petition without straying into any tangential discussion.

I welcome Mr Milne and Councillor Paul Johnston of Aberdeenshire Council. I invite Mr Milne to make a short presentation to set the context for the petition and explain what you are looking for in your petition. After that, we will ask questions.

Good morning, convener, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. I thank the committee for inviting me here today to give evidence on my petition, which I believe covers issues of great importance around the planning process. I also thank everyone who signed the petition. It had received around 11,000 signatures when it was submitted, but this morning the figure stands at just over 19,000 signatures—that is 19,000 people who recognise the international disgrace that the events at Menie have become.

I make clear from the beginning what the petition is not. It is not an attempt to set up an inquiry that might overturn the planning decisions that have already been made. We are not trying to right the wrongs that we believe have been done to our community and our environment. The construction work that was approved and has been carried out cannot be undone, although the Aberdeenshire coastal weather has had a good go at it. The merits of Mr Trump’s application were considered by the Local Government and Communities Committee in 2008. There are some overlaps between that committee’s work and the comprehensive inquiry that we are seeking, but new information has come forward—including footage from the film “You’ve Been Trumped”—and my hope is that a public inquiry would draw on that committee’s report and the evidence that MSPs heard then to support its work.

It would also be useful to look at the process and outcome of the initial public inquiry, which found that the application was approved on economic grounds even though the only figures that were available were submitted by the applicant and were never independently reviewed. I quote Professor Cheshire, of the London School of Economics, who says that those economic claims have been shown to be “wildly optimistic”.

This is not a party-political petition, although we are asking for a public inquiry into the actions of politicians and officials. First, the politicians in question were often acting in a quasi-judicial role. Secondly, we are asking for an inquiry that considers the actions of both Aberdeenshire Council and Scottish ministers, and the elected representatives in question are members of all the political parties that are represented on this committee. It is not a partisan request, and I am not a member of any political party. It is a request about good governance; about the way in which planning rules are set and managed; and about the relationships between officials and developers being kept within appropriate bounds. For example, in the future, I would like councillors to think twice before accepting hospitality at an opening event and failing to record that in the appropriate registers but posting photographs and opinions on their own websites.

Above all, the petition is about the protections that the planning system is meant to provide to communities such as ours and to environments such as the now-destroyed site of special scientific interest at Menie. The behaviour of the police in relation to bias and inappropriate activity also requires review and investigation.

11:00

We have been through a lot over the past eight years and I am determined to see something good come out of it. In particular, therefore, I want the committee’s help to ensure that, in future, no other communities and no other protected parts of Scotland’s environment are dealt with in the way that our area was dealt with in this case. Despite the Local Government and Communities Committee’s recommendations, I have yet to see any evidence of substantial lessons being learnt either nationally or locally and as the old saying goes, “Those who do not remember their history are condemned to repeat it.”

We may have moved away from regional to national policing, but on the ground we still see no evidence of balance and no answers to questions that have been previously posed about bias in how cases are handled or even just in how queries and complaints are dealt with.

The petition is also a means of attempting to protect Scotland’s long-term reputation as a shining example of environmental best practice. With the destruction of a unique site of special scientific interest on our scoresheet, any guidance or opinion that we might give to others begins to sound like a good example of, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

The committee has a good opportunity to significantly enhance Scotland’s reputation not only as a beacon of environmental best practice but as a place where people truly want to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours in a cohesive community. It is important that the population believes that it can trust those in charge of planning decisions and that it can trust the police to treat everyone fairly and even-handedly. At Menie, the evidence to date shows that we cannot do that at this time.

My colleague Councillor Paul Johnston is an independent councillor on Aberdeenshire Council. He is much more familiar than I am with the specifics of what went on behind the scenes at the local authority. He and I will be happy to answer any questions that committee members have and to provide any further information that members may require. Thank you.

Thank you. You are aware, Mr Milne, that the issue of the planning process was investigated by the Local Government and Communities Committee, which produced a report on 14 March 2008?

Yes.

The committee report noted that

“the Chief Planner and the Planning Minister”

who was responsible at that time, John Swinney,

“acted in accordance with planning laws when issuing the decision to call in the application.”

I am aware of that. I am also aware that there are significant questions. It is also the first time that an application has been called in after being refused. There are issues around that and there are questions that should be dealt with. That same committee, if I am talking about the right one, gave a fairly damning verdict about the reasons that were given by ministers for calling in the application. The committee considered events only up to December 2007. We are now several years hence and a number of interesting situations have happened. We are primarily looking at those issues.

The call-in, although we were not comfortable with it, was an accepted political practice and is part of planning legislation. We are not trying specifically to change planning law as such; we are just trying to ensure that it is used correctly.

There is, of course, a planning consultation going on now because it is always incumbent on all Governments to look at major features of our daily lives such as planning. Have you had a look at that consultation yet?

I have had a look at it. I have not studied it in great depth yet. I have been a little bit preoccupied.

Will you submit recommendations to that consultation?

There is a good chance that I will—yes.

Good morning. The issue for me is that the petition is clearly fairly open ended, if I can put it that way. For one thing, Mr Milne, you have said that you would like a public inquiry to be held into the planning process leading up to the period in which the Menie estate decisions were made. However, you also made a comment about the conduct of the police and you referred specifically to other public bodies in the petition. Can you expand on that? Are you talking about a wide-ranging inquiry into the planning process, or are you asking for an inquiry—as alluded to by the documentary “You’ve Been Trumped”—into the other public bodies and their conduct, including the police?

To be honest, the inquiry has to be all those things. The planning process is community wide—or rather, that is its end result—and so it has to be wide-ranging in its entire approach. The police have been integral to what has happened and, in some cases, to what has not happened, at many inquiries. The other official bodies are also integral to that process. Bodies such as Marine Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and so on were all involved in the planning process and, in fact, present at the primary public inquiry back in 2008.

The planning process is probably the primary issue, because it is the driver for what happened elsewhere and for the other bodies’ involvement. If the planning process had not allowed the Menie development to happen or if the process had been followed accurately—or in a way that I would consider to be accurate—the issues would not have arisen. The police situation is a slightly different matter, but it is serious enough to be considered.

Considered in what way, Mr Milne? I am trying to clarify exactly what your public inquiry would entail. Is it a public inquiry into the planning process—the decisions that were made and their aftermath? Or is it a much wider inquiry in terms of the conduct of other public bodies, including the police? If it is a much wider inquiry, it is not just about the planning process. The conduct that is being alleged with regard to other public bodies and the police is not something that I would consider to be relevant to a public inquiry into the planning process.

I take your point. The inquiry would have to be a wider one. Although the planning issues are an integral part of it, the behaviour of other public bodies, in particular the police—or sometimes just an individual within those bodies; we cannot tell at this point—are a concern to everyone in this country.

Just for clarity, is it the case that you are not just talking about the planning process?

No, we are not.

We are not just talking about the planning process, but about what influences it. There was a considerable amount of debate and lobbying around the application by other public bodies that were trying to influence the outcome. It would be a dereliction of duty if the inquiry were not to look at how that affected the governance of the whole process, up to and following the decision, right up to the concerns that we still have today. That is not as narrow as just looking at the planning part. Although the issue was supposedly settled at a public inquiry, the committee should ask whether it really was settled then.

Not everybody will be happy with the outcomes of public inquiries. We heard that 19,000 signatures were attached to the petition. Can Councillor Johnston clarify whether those belong to just a few disgruntled individuals who want to pursue an inquiry, in whatever way they can, because they are unhappy about the outcome of the decisions?

Clearly, we are not talking about a few disgruntled individuals. The matter has been a divisive one in the local community for a number of years and has raised considerable questions. We do not get a 19,000-signature petition on the basis of a few disgruntled individuals. I have been expelled from my political party because of my particular views and am now a member of no political party. I was re-elected with a comfortable majority, when people knew what my position was. The issue has created big divisions and will continue to do so.

To take that one step further, this is not a case of something that was the outcome of the public inquiry. All the planning matters, bar one part of the development, that have arisen since have been new applications, not covered by the public inquiry. The system allows every new thing to be considered anew, as all the applications are new. Therefore, everything that was in the public inquiry is almost irrelevant to what is going on now, and all of that is, of course, subject to the wider influence that exists. There are governance issues around that.

The 19,000 signatories to the petition were mentioned. How many of them were from Scotland and how many were from the north-east?

To be honest, I have no idea. The petition was hosted for us by 38 Degrees, which is, as members are aware, a United Kingdom-based organisation. A proportion of the signatures will be from outwith Scotland—I will give you that—but I do not know the exact number.

Why would that be?

Because the “You’ve Been Trumped” film is the biggest single piece of publicity that we have had. The film is internationally recognised, and it has now won 10 international documentary awards, I think. It exposed what went on at Menie in a wide-ranging way and identified what happened there as an international disgrace.

The SSSI was unique in Scotland and the front, leading edge of the entire site is now gone—it is under a golf course. Some people will say, “So what?”, but the point is that it was a geomorphological SSSI. There are two forms of SSSI: a flora and fauna SSSI and a geomorphological SSSI. The first, which deals with plants, biodiversity and surface growth, is the normal one; the second is due to the land form—the way in which the land is formed, shaped and moved. The SSSI in question was unique because of the movement of the structure, and it has now gone. It was heavily used by scientists in the UK to predict, design and follow climate change, but that resource no longer exists because the leading edge, where all the weather and movement started, is gone; it is covered.

The problem is that we do not know what will happen further north, as the edge has changed. That may or may not affect the rest of the estate and the rest of the SSSI; we have no way of knowing. The problem with that is that we have always—or, at least, in the past few years under the current Administration—pushed ourselves forward as an environmentally proud, conscious and aware nation. If we are prepared to destroy in a process something that is unique and highly valuable to the science that we are trying to work on, can we really promote that position and that opinion of our country? That is why we have an international interest in the project.

That is a very interesting point, but I have a question for Councillor Johnston. Given your experience in local government and the fact that we are talking about the planning process and things related to it, why have you not raised concerns about any other planning application that might fall into the category to which Mr Milne has referred?

What do you mean by “any other planning application”?

Let me put it in an easier way. Have you had any situation in the past in which you have felt that the planning process was being subverted or not followed, and have you raised that as a concern?

I think that I have been pretty consistent in the council since what has happened and over this time in asking for reforms and changes in the way that our council committees operate. Basically, a person cannot get heard in the council unless they have a seconder on every individual committee. I am not in a group, and the groups are not interested in doing that, so it would be difficult to make my voice heard. I have been consistent in raising concerns at every opportunity, but one knows that one can do that only so many times before people stop listening. I think that I have been consistent in raising these points.

Good morning. I was going to ask how many of the 19,000 petitioners are from Aberdeenshire, but the convener asked that question. I would wager that very few of them are from Aberdeenshire. As a previous MSP for North East Scotland and a current MSP for one of the constituencies in the north-east, I certainly have not had any complaints about the Menie development in recent times.

Like you, convener, I am struggling to find out exactly what the petition wants to do. It seems to be all over the place. The document mentioned the wind farm, and the petitioner brought up the police. Surely complaints about the police should go to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner.

I am struggling to understand exactly what you want the committee to do. You said that the application is the only one that has been called in after being refused; I am not absolutely certain, but I would question whether that is the case. Perhaps you could say more about the issues that you said have happened since. Can you be a bit more specific?

11:15

Recently we have had information from council officials who have stated quite clearly that they have had officials and inspectors on site every week and that everything is going 100 per cent according to plan. If that is the case, why has there been a number of retrospective applications since then? Those applications have been made because of changes to the original plan. If there are changes to the plan and buildings have been built prior to permission being received, which is what has happened, why have there been no enforcement notices? A lot of that goes on.

Be specific.

I can be specific. Every one of the applications, bar the original application for the layout of the golf course, has been retrospective. Every one of them has had changes made to the original.

What are we talking about? Are we talking about dunes being in a different place? The only one that I know about is for the clock that has been erected at the entrance that does not have planning permission. What are we talking about?

I have to be careful in answering that, because it is yet to be fully determined by the council. Examples are the construction of large bunds around some neighbouring properties. Accusations have been made that they are not in accordance with the plans and they do not appear to be in accordance with the plans; officials have already confirmed that. Car parks have been constructed and lighting has been erected that are not in accordance with the plans. A large marquee and the temporary clubhouse do not accord with what is on the plans; they are in a different location. We are not just talking about the clock; it is virtually everything.

Also, after the entire period of trying to get access agreements, I can say that just about every gate in the estate remains locked, which is in breach of the access code. Despite all efforts with enforcement over all this time, there has been no agreement with the estate to get access.

I am being specific. Those are specific instances of things that have been done since the original application and they have yet to be resolved.

Those are matters for Aberdeenshire Council to resolve.

Of course they are matters for Aberdeenshire Council to resolve, and the reputation of that council is at stake. Everything that surrounds the application should be part of an inquiry to make sure that, as we go forward, there will not be this constant need to fight to get at some of the minor transgressions on top of more transgressions. It just saps the reputation of the place.

We end up with barristers and Queen’s counsel attending minor public hearings on planning applications over wind turbines, all because they might affect the Trump development. I am not saying that they should not have the right to do that, but everything to do with the project raises questions over the way in which we are handling it as a local authority, and as a country, because the way in which we conduct our business is gaining some international attention.

I echo Maureen Watt’s point: those are issues for the council. If people are not happy, they have the means to vote out the council, so I am not sure where we are going with this.

I represent the west of Scotland and have never been to Menie, so I do not know about the flora and fauna and I am completely unfamiliar with the development. I imagine, as a layman, that there is international interest because Mr Trump is involved.

The situation that the petitioners have outlined sounds eerily familiar to me, where a planning application has gone against the wishes of those who were against it. Pretty much everything that they have said seems to be redolent of that.

From looking at the paperwork, it seems that there has been huge public support for the development.

I would disagree with that. There are—

The first vote was 7:7. Is that right?

The infrastructure services committee vote was 7:7.

So it was evenly divided.

Yes.

So there must have been considerable public support for the proposition; otherwise, half of those people would not have voted for it.

That is true, but I point out that I am not against the concept of a golf course or a development—that has been my position from day 1. My problems concern the specific location of the development on top of a SSSI and the way that the process has been handled. The primary issue is the fact that the process seems to have been manipulated at every step by a number of different operations and organisations.

Are you saying that the seven committee members who voted against the plans at the original planning committee meeting had been manipulated by those people who were opposed to the development?

No, that is not what I am saying at all. As a matter of fact—

So it was just the people who voted for it who were manipulated.

No. I am not saying that anybody specifically—

So anybody who voted for the development at any stage throughout the whole process was manipulated.

No. There is on-going manipulation from the local media, which have stated that they will print nothing from the opposition to the development. They said that in print, in one of their own papers, so there is manipulation.

However, that is not the reason why the vote was 7:7. As is normal with such processes, a reapplication was expected. At that time, Mr Trump stated that he would not reapply and the application was called in.

Like other members, I am slightly perplexed about what an inquiry would actually do.

As I have said, the main element of the inquiry would involve looking into the governance and propriety of the handling of the final planning applications to date, along with the behaviour—or non-action—of a number of other governmental bodies.

The police’s bias is blatant and visible. As Maureen Watt said, the matter can go to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, and some other parties are going down that route at present. However, the problem with the overall situation is that we are getting—

Sorry—what are the police biased about?

There are a number of situations in which we, as residents, call the police, and they turn up two days later, and six weeks later we get a notification saying that there is no evidence and they are not going to follow the case through. When the Trump Organization phones over a very similar event, the police are on site three hours later and an arrest may take place. That is the bias that we are talking about.

Our petition for an inquiry is to do with the control and honesty of the process. As Councillor Johnston said, an outline planning application was submitted for the development, and everything else has come in as an independent application. That means that the guidance, control and conditions on that outline planning application, which the Government so carefully put together following the public inquiry, are effectively worthless: they have been bypassed.

The most common example at the site—and the one that we all talk about—is the use of the Leyton farm buildings as maintenance structures for the golf course. There is no planning permission for those buildings to be used as anything at all. They have been converted from agricultural to industrial use with no planning permission. We queried that with the planning department, and we were told that it is covered under the outline application. That is an outline, and there is no detail attached to it, so there can be no follow-through on the process.

Mr Carlaw, have you seen the film?

No.

I recommend that the committee see it, because you will see on—

Yes, but I cannot conduct a public inquiry into those who made the film, can I?

No, but you would get the piece of evidence that would answer your question.

What you get is somebody’s view. A film is not a legal document; a film is a film.

No, but you would see something that would answer the question for you.

In addition, I can help with regard to your understanding of the process of how the council took the decision. The 7:7 vote was not on a decision for or against the application; the 7:7 vote was on a decision whether to defer the application because it was not suitable and to have negotiations, or to reject the application and request that the applicant resubmit because the changes required would be too large. If you need to know the detail of that, the Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies published a peer-reviewed article that gives a blow-by-blow account that would absolutely answer your question.

Good morning. I thought that the local authority that covers my constituency was the only planning authority that had a plethora of retrospective planning applications, but it seems that that is not the case. Clearly, Aberdeenshire Council has them too.

Councillor Johnston, have you served on a planning committee before?

I have done so, on and off, since 1982. Aberdeenshire Council was constructed from 1995 as a council with every member sitting on planning committees.

Okay. You referred earlier to accusations of lobbying on a planning matter. Having served on a planning committee before coming into Parliament, I know that that is clearly a very serious accusation. Can you expand, while obviously being careful, on your earlier statement?

I can expand on it to a point. There is not overt lobbying; there is not lobbying of council members by other members for a particular planning application. That has been my experience—but, then, someone would get pretty short shrift if they tried it on me. However, in this particular instance, I can attest that an attempted lobby was done on me, and I think that the only way of getting to the bottom of the issue is to have an inquiry.

We have to be careful about what we say.

Yes, I know.

Why did you not take action when it happened, instead of supporting this petition seven years later?

Because it is not evidentially a criminal offence or a legal problem to have a conversation with an individual who clearly wanted to influence the outcome of a planning application. The idea that somebody should not have a say on a planning application is not correct, but there was a general pressure to try to influence the outcome of the application. For example, we were instructed not to go to various events because they could be seen as overt lobbying—the applicant certainly tried that one—in the run-up to the main application. There have certainly been a number of events and things since.

I sat on Scottish Enterprise Grampian at the time and, following the decision, a good number of questions were asked of me in a way that suggested that the individuals concerned had been trying to influence the outcome of the decision long before that because it was all part of their idea of what was good for the area. We all know that it happens and—

Well, we do not. I hesitate to ask this question, but I will ask it: where is your evidence for all this?

I would like to be able to provide you with the evidence here today, but I think that it would be better to bring it out in the course of an inquiry.

Why have you not done so before?

11:30

I brought out some important evidence at the public inquiry about the way in which the council operated. That was a salutary lesson for me, and probably for other councillors, because an attempt was then made to remove me as a councillor and I was referred by the local authority to the Standards Commission for Scotland. It was proved that I had no problems and that in fact the council had erred, but the Standards Commission’s recommendations to the council have never been implemented.

I hope that you can see why an inquiry needs to deal with the issue. When, as an individual, I made a very serious point to the public inquiry about the way in which the council conducted its business in negotiating with the applicant, that led to my not being in any political party and to two separate attempts to have me removed as a councillor. That is nothing to do with the outcome of the application, but it is all to do with the governance of what has gone on with this applicant and this site.

I apologise to Angus MacDonald for interrupting.

Let me turn to Mr Milne. You mentioned that the application was the first to have been called in after a refusal. I struggle with that statement, because I do not think that that is the case—unless you can prove otherwise.

I believe that that is the case. I am trying to remember the exact reference, but I do not seem to have it to hand. However, it is my understanding that the application was the first to be called in by the Scottish Government after a refusal. I can supply the reference after the meeting, if you wish. I will need to dig out the relevant information and pass it back to you.

That would be helpful. Thank you.

If there are no other questions, I will now ask the committee what it wishes to do with the petition.

In my view, we should close the petition, with the caveat that Mr Milne be asked to submit his requested changes to the on-going planning consultation, so that his recommendations—which I am sure are well thought through—at least feature in the discussions that the Government will have after the consultation is closed.

Are there any other views?

Convener, I am sorry about this, but I am minded to keep the petition open.

A number of what might best be described as inferences have been made about public bodies in the evidence this morning, and I think that it is only right that those public bodies should be able to respond. Aberdeenshire Council, Scottish Natural Heritage, Marine Scotland and Grampian Police, which is now part of Police Scotland, have all been named as organisations that either overstepped the bounds or acted with impropriety in their conduct with the residents in the Menie estate. I am minded to ask that we write to those organisations, as well as the Scottish Government, to ask them their views on the petition.

The petitioners have cited the “You’ve Been Trumped” documentary. I am aware that a number of comments have been made about that, and a number of organisations have refuted some of the allegations that are contained within the documentary. My view, for what it is worth, is that we should at least give those public bodies the opportunity to respond to the petition before we close it.

To be fair to the petitioners, I think that the petition should be kept open. I agree that, in addition to requesting the Scottish Government’s view on the petition, we should write to Aberdeenshire Council to see what its take is on the matter. Therefore, the fairest thing would be to keep the petition open at this stage.

Do other members agree?

I certainly agree. Given some of the evidence that has been brought to our attention today, I think that we should ask the Scottish Government and the public authorities that my colleague John Wilson mentioned for their views on the petition.

On that basis, we will keep the petition open, with the immediate intent of writing to the bodies that have been mentioned, which include SNH, Marine Scotland, Aberdeenshire Council, Police Scotland and Scottish Enterprise Grampian.

I thank the witnesses for attending; I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes to allow them to leave.

11:35 Meeting suspended.

11:37 On resuming—

---

Bus Services (Re-regulation) (PE1475)

The second new petition, PE1475, was submitted by John Nelson, on behalf of Hamilton Labour party. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review its policies on the funding of the bus service operators grant and concessionary bus travel, and to consider the re-regulation of the bus industry to ensure that people across Scotland are provided with affordable and reliable local bus services.

I am new to the Public Petitions Committee, and I am not really sure what the correct procedures are, but I think that the petitioner raises some important issues that ought to be considered.

There are three different elements to the petition: the bus service operators grant, concessionary bus travel and re-regulation. I certainly hope that we can progress the petition, keep it open and ask the Scottish Government for its views.

Speaking with my Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee hat on, I think that Malcolm Chisholm should know that the BSOG is considered every year in relation to the budget, and that concessionary travel is currently a small part of the consideration that the committee is giving to community transport. Also, Iain Gray has a member’s bill on re-regulation of the bus industry, so all aspects of the petition are being covered by the Parliament in some form or another.

I expressed some astonishment when we received the petition. I read that the petitioner believes that Siobhan McMahon and Michael McMahon

“advised that a public petition was the most promising route for us to raise the issues and influence policy”.

I was somewhat aghast that the petitioner had so little confidence in the parliamentary process or the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament in progressing issues of material concern.

I recall Charlie Gordon raising the issues in the previous session. I am aware that Iain Gray is proposing a member’s bill. We had a debate on bus services fairly recently—actually, it was a year ago, so it is longer ago than I thought.

Given Maureen Watt’s remarks about the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s scrutiny of some of the issues, I am not quite sure why the Public Petitions Committee should progress the petition further.

The Scottish Government’s views on the issues that the petition raises have been made fairly clear each time parliamentary opportunities have been made available to those who wish to promote the concepts underpinning the petition. I am not quite sure what writing to the Scottish Government would add to the sum of our knowledge. I would have thought that, given Iain Gray’s member’s bill, it is for members of Hamilton Labour party to seek to influence in the normal way their colleagues on the Labour benches in the Parliament to progress what is, after all, their party’s policy.

I agree with Jackson Carlaw that the petitioner could have used a number of methods to get the issues on the agenda. The annual review that the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee undertakes has been mentioned. I am tempted by the idea of referring the petition to that committee—I am looking at Maureen Watt. That might be appropriate given that it deals annually with two issues raised by the petition. We could ask that committee to consider the petition and respond accordingly.

I welcome the petition. I would encourage any MSP to encourage their constituents to utilise the services of the Public Petitions Committee. Maureen Watt has indicated that all the points that have been raised in the petition are being covered elsewhere. Can she clarify that point?

We consider the BSOG every time we examine the budget. The grant used to be based on fuel consumption, but the approach has changed in recent years because we want to reduce fuel consumption.

The Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee could indeed have an inquiry into concessionary travel, although nobody has specifically asked for that. However, the issue comes into the committee’s inquiry into community transport. Members might be aware of Age Concern’s current campaign about the use of concessionary travel, which is being considered in the context of our inquiry into community transport.

Iain Gray’s member’s bill will address the point about re-regulation. All the points raised in the petition are being covered elsewhere.

I suggest that we write to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, drawing the petition to its attention, and leave it at that. To be clear, we will refer it formally, not informally.

It seems that members have come to an agreement, although I was going to suggest that we hear from the petitioner first.

The petitioner has not indicated that he wishes to attend the committee. Given the connections that I assume he has and all the circumstances that members have referred to, I am sure that he will be able to talk to the appropriate people.

Do members agree to write formally to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee to draw the petition to that committee’s attention?

Members indicated agreement.