New Petitions
We move on to consider new petitions. Time is running out. Unfortunately, we have to be out of the room by 1.15 pm, because another committee will be using it at 1.30 pm. We have three groups of petitioners to hear from, and we will try to get through them in the time that is available to us. Any other petitions will have to be passed over to our next meeting, apart from the petition on Peterhead prison. We will try to deal with that petition today, because our discussion of it was scheduled for today's meeting and quite a large number of people in the public gallery have attended the meeting to listen to the discussion.
Planning Process (PE508)
The first new petition is PE508 from Mr Philip Graves on behalf of Strathblane community council. Mr Graves wishes to make a brief presentation, but I did not see him coming in. Is he here?
Philip Graves (Strathblane Community Council):
I am here.
You are welcome. You have three minutes in which to make a presentation, following which I will open up the meeting to questions from members.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to question the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999.
I intend to deal only with the main points in the petition. I will speak about how the EIA regulations are supposed to work, and how that process has failed in practice, and then I will offer a few tentative solutions. I make no apologies for using the West of Scotland Water application for a water treatment plant in Milngavie as my example, because I know the application well. The project is of a national scale—it will cost about £100 million—and has spawned a raft of independent reports and much criticism that the environmental issues have had to play second fiddle to engineering issues and cost.
The EIA regulations and planning advice note 58, which supports them, clearly state that environmental issues should be considered at the earliest stage of any project and should influence the alternatives that are considered. Local people and other interest groups should be brought into the discussions as soon as possible—certainly as soon as the scoping exercise is established. That crucial stage is when the terms of reference and the identification of significant issues for the EIA are agreed.
I believe that WSW has failed in many respects. The application has been bogged down in East Dunbartonshire Council planning department all year, with much to-ing and fro-ing between the two organisations. That suggests to me that the scoping exercise was not tight enough and that East Dunbartonshire Council, at great expense of time and money, has had to commission three or more independent reports to fill in all the gaps.
Local consultation has been poor. The first that Strathblane community council knew about the application was in August last year, when it appeared in the local papers. We believe that, by that time, WSW had already completed the selection process and had decided on its chosen site. Since then, many local concerns have emerged, including concerns about traffic and the loss of recreational amenities around the reservoir. Those concerns have forced WSW rather belatedly to complete a traffic impact survey, in February of this year, and a leisure use survey, which was completed in August of last year.
With that in mind, we suggest that a full review of the EIA regulations is required. To be specific, we feel that the local planning authority should set the final terms of reference in the scoping exercise. A statutory requirement to consult local communities should be introduced, akin to the consultation code that has just been introduced in the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002. We should consider introducing an independent EIA-qualified consultant, or consultancy group, to head up EIAs. They would be appointed by the local authority but paid by the developer. Finally, we should consider appointing a commissioner to scrutinise the entire process followed in each application. That might avoid the inconsistencies and lack of transparency that all the independent reports claim bedevil West of Scotland Water's environmental statement.
I finish by quoting from the independent report of Scottish Natural Heritage, which has produced an excellent report on the process:
"We do not consider the site selection process and the landscape assessment under taken as part of the EA process adequately demonstrates the best practical environmental option has been selected."
I now open the meeting to questions from committee members.
I was interested in Philip Graves's point about the independence of the local authority when it appoints the environmental impact assessors. Will he explain the rationale behind giving developers the responsibility for appointing the environmental impact assessment consultants? I share his concern about the lack of independence. We all know that when we appoint a consultant, we usually appoint the one that we know will give us the answer that we want.
I cannot answer that. Common sense suggests that you are right. Why should the developer be allowed to appoint the consultant? As we all know, the person who pays the piper calls the tune. It is difficult to answer the question. It is a question I am asking the committee.
You refer to European directives. Have you considered taking your case to Europe? Winnie Ewing will be the expert, but it is my understanding that the environmental impact assessment regulations date well back, to the 1980s, and were improved and updated in the late 1990s. I also understand that certain countries are interpreting the directives too widely. Next month, I have to take to Europe a case that brings in environmental impact assessment. Have you considered going to the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions as well as to the Rural Development Committee?
I have certainly considered it. It would mean a big sacrifice of my time and effort. I have a 9-to-5 job and I am not a legal mind. I would be happy to assist anyone else that has the resources to do that. Scotland has accepted the regulations and the quality standards were encompassed in the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990. However, anyone who has been to Loch Katrine, for example, where the water for the treatment project comes from, will see that the water is as clean as it gets. I would not hesitate to drink straight from the loch, yet here we are about to spend £100 million in a bid to make it even cleaner. That strikes me as absurd.
Has a scientific assessment been done?
Within the environmental statement, there is very little about why the water needs to be cleaned, how dirty it is and how thorough the filtration process that has been chosen is. The Arup Scotland report, commissioned by East Dunbartonshire Council, questions whether the plant will work—whether it is 100 per cent certain that it will rid the water supply of cryptosporidium. I wonder how they can go ahead with the project when there is no scientific evidence that the plant will work.
I was listening to what Dorothy-Grace had to say about Europe. Taking the case to the European Committee on Petitions, on which I used to serve, is a possibility. It would only mean a day trip to Brussels and you do not have to have legal representation, so it might not be that expensive. However, we should follow the suggested action first.
You referred to the consultation code in the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002. Has the code not been published yet?
It has not been published, but there is plenty information available about what it will and should include. Des McNulty, one of our local MSPs, has done a lot of work on ensuring that plenty local consultation is included in the code.
Do you believe that the project would have gone ahead if the consultation code had been in place?
There would have been far more discussion early on and some of the issues would have come to the fore much earlier, which would have saved a lot of time. I like to think that the proposal would not have gone through; in any case, it would not have become bogged down for months in the planning department.
Were members of the public consulted before the decision on the preferred site was reached?
That issue is somewhat controversial. One or two suggested areas for the site, one of which is called Baldernock, had been consulted well before Strathblane community council was consulted. I represent a little village outside Strathblane called Mugdock, which overlooks the reservoir. Although two or three of the residents will be most affected by the development, none of them was consulted. Indeed, we were not officially informed before we saw the application in the local paper. Baldernock community council was consulted perhaps a year before.
Thanks very much. You are free to listen to the discussion about what should happen to your petition.
I should stress that we cannot become involved in the individual planning decisions that prompted the petition. However, it is suggested that we agree to write to the Executive, to seek its comments on the general issues that the petition raises and, in particular, to ask whether it has any plans to review the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 and the guidelines, along the terms that the petitioner has suggested. Moreover, it is suggested that we seek clarification about which body is ultimately responsible for overseeing the scrutiny of the environmental impact assessment process in circumstances in which Scottish ministers can become involved. We might also want to write to Scottish Water, seeking its comments on the petition, with a specific request for details and an update on its new consultation code.
I support the suggested action. I underline the importance of Mr Graves's proposal that independent consultants should be appointed to carry out EIAs, even though they might be paid to do so by the developers. The Parliament should take forward that issue. I hope that the Executive will respond positively to it, because it is vital to so many developments in Scotland.
We will certainly make that clear when we write to the Executive. Do members agree the suggested action?
Members indicated agreement.
Educational Provision<br />(Children with Special Needs) (PE516)
PE516, from Ms Sara Craig, is on educational provision for deaf children. I welcome Ms Craig, who will make a presentation to the committee. I am sorry about the rush, but we have had a very busy agenda this morning.
We are very grateful for the opportunity to speak to the committee. I am accompanied by Lynn Toti, who is also a parent of a deaf child; Joseph Owens, who is the chairman of the West of Scotland Deaf Children's Society; and Andrew Strachan, who is a past pupil of Gateside School and is profoundly deaf. We speak for ourselves and our children, two of whom are deaf. These are our words. We are here neither to discuss petty conflicts, nor to create division.
In the past two weeks, we and other parents have attended meetings held by Renfrewshire Council, based on a discussion paper on the inclusion in mainstream schools of children who have special needs. It is clear that options are open to parents and that they will be listened to. We welcome that, but we would have welcomed it even more a year ago. We are also aware that we speak in the context of the national debate on education.
We are humbled by the difficulties that some families face and we recognise that there are degrees of impairment far beyond those of our own children. We are also lucky to live in Renfrewshire, which has an outstanding record in providing for children who have special needs, and their families.
The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 makes the presumption that, other than in exceptional circumstances, children with special needs will be educated in mainstream schools. We believe that it may be in the interests of children with special educational needs in Scotland, and their families, for the Scottish Parliament to examine what "school" means and, in particular, to ensure that the interpretation that can be put on laws does not confine the idea of a school to buildings.
We also believe that the retention of specialisms and specialist teachers for some special needs is vital to the interests of the children who have such needs. We feel that that is true of deafness, a view which is supported by the paper that has been submitted to the committee by Ms Grimes who, at the University of Edinburgh, is a researcher into the education of deaf children. Even the most highly trained generalist who does not understand deafness finds it difficult to see past the condition to the child. However, a specialist in deaf education sees through the deafness to the child. Such a person enables and supports that child and expects them to reach their full potential.
Although we are focused firmly on the future, we feel that we should acknowledge what is good about the past and take it with us into the future. We all need to work together collaboratively and creatively to ensure that what is good for children is made possible. We need to do all that we can to ensure that the future is better than the past. The effect on the children cannot be the only check.
If you were to look into the future what might you see?
In your dream, you might imagine that, on diagnosis, the child and the family would be embraced by a support network of professionals who would listen to what they had to say and advise them gently, while being aware of the family's shock.
In your dream, you might imagine that the child and their family would be welcomed into a nursery in which other children who faced the same challenges would play and learn with children from the community—making friends and accepting each other as separate and different, but the same.
In your dream, you might imagine that teachers who are highly trained in dealing with deaf children's difficulties work with all the children in a specially adapted nursery environment day in, day out with highly motivated, trained and experienced nursery nurses working alongside them.
In your dream, you might imagine that support continues seamlessly into the primary and secondary stages, where the child is supported at the educational location of the parents' choice. In your dream, you might see teachers who are qualified to deal with the child's difficulty working alongside mainstream teachers at the parents' chosen location. You might see head teachers of mainstream and specialist provision managing an integrated system that can adapt so quickly and effectively to support the child and the family that they almost do not realise that it is there.
In your dream, you might imagine that such a system has evolved organically and flexibly to meet the complete and particular needs of each child. In your dream, you might not think that we are talking about a special school.
That is reality. Today, as we speak, our children are experiencing inclusion in its fullest sense. That is what our children and all the children of Renfrewshire have in Gateside School. The people of Renfrewshire include deaf children in the heart of their community alongside their own children. Through Gateside School, they have encouraged and educated deaf children alongside their own children. Gateside School is not just a nursery, but a school that serves the needs of more than 100 deaf and visually impaired children in Renfrewshire, with a head teacher who is paid on a banding for 61 to 100 pupils. Gateside School did not grow overnight; it grew slowly within the community that it serves, encouraged by generations of education officers, teachers, healthcare providers and parents as a good thing and as an inclusive system of education for deaf children that works.
It seems to us to be self-evident that a school is not a building.
We feel that special schools are not just buildings in which to accommodate the exceptional children who cannot be included at a mainstream educational location. That could be so divisive. We feel that the description of a school as a fixed location and where children with special needs are educated in one location called a special school and so-called normal children are educated in another location called a mainstream school needs to be laid to one side. The inclusive nature of the environment is what matters.
The approach that is taken to education provision should be flexible and adaptable and should wrap itself around the needs of the child in their community, not the management needs of the local authority. We feel that to make inclusion work, seamless specialist provision for children with special needs should follow the child from pre-school and nursery provision throughout their education.
There should be a personal element of familiar continuity and trust in the delivery of specialist provision to meet the child's additional needs, as represented by the role of a specialist head teacher and a community of other families who share the same experiences, in order to provide support and hope. Teachers who are motivated and who have undergone years of training to work directly with our children should be treasured and encouraged because they are all too rare. They should have their own workspace and they should work with a head teacher who shares their specialism and understands the demands and requirements of their chosen specialist vocation. Steps should be taken to ensure that sufficient qualified teachers of the deaf are being recruited and trained to meet the needs of deaf children.
What we have said has broad implications, but we have specific concerns. We wish to retain the idea of Gateside School, which we believe is fundamental to that school's success and provides a model of inclusion and integration. We wish to retain the post of specialist head teacher and the specialist nature of the provision that is made for our children in mainstream education. We also wish to ensure that any change can be shown to have quantifiable benefits for our children and that the success or otherwise of any new system can be measured against the outstanding success of the present system.
We want to build a future for all our children. We need to work together and to be sensitive to each other's needs and priorities. Our children are small, and have their lives ahead of them. We believe that we can make a difference to those lives here today.
We have received apologies from Sandra White MSP. She was here earlier, but has had to leave to deal with urgent business. She has said that she supports the proposal to send the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. Annabel Goldie is also unable to attend, but she has passed her briefing notes to Phil Gallie, who will speak on her behalf.
Annabel Goldie pushes the wider argument that the implications of the closure of Gateside School could stretch throughout Scotland. However, she makes no apologies for concentrating her remarks on Gateside itself, which she believes provides a standard of excellence for the teaching of deaf children. Her first point therefore concerns the future standard of educational provision for the children who are currently at Gateside.
Annabel Goldie also expresses concerns that Renfrewshire Council's consultation process seems to consider Gateside to be a nursery rather than a school. Such a move could affect other schools in Scotland, because the council did not need to consult people about the proposed closure, as would have been required of it had Gateside been a school. That issue is of concern to Annabel Goldie and is her principal reason for giving her total support to the petition.
Annabel Goldie points out that Gateside is professionally equipped because of the fact that its head teacher is a qualified teacher of the deaf. She feels that, unless schools such as Gateside have that level of expertise, deaf children will suffer. Those are Annabel's words, not mine and I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to present them.
I want to clarify whether Gateside is a school or nursery. What age are the pupils when they leave Gateside?
The building that houses Gateside houses the head teacher, the peripatetic teachers and the nursery class. The current situation is that the nursery class children leave the building whenever they are ready to go into the main stream, which is at the age of five or six. The children used to be educated within the Gateside School building for much longer, but they are so successfully integrated into the main stream that they are now all supported by the peripatetic teachers of the deaf in the mainstream locations that their parents have chosen.
What support is available to the children when they go into mainstream schools? What is provided to help them integrate?
As chair of the West of Scotland Deaf Children's Society and, more important, as a parent of a profoundly deaf young man who has gone through Gateside, I am probably better placed to answer that question.
The support depends on the needs of the individual child. As Gateside has such a flexible system, it is able to meet the needs of profoundly deaf children. Generally, in primary school the children will receive between seven and a half and eight hours support in class each week. In other words, a visiting teacher will go to the local school that the child attends to give in-class support to ensure that the child is totally included. The academic needs of such children become greater in secondary school and so, at least in the initial stages, their support also gets greater. One or two teachers may support them through the secondary school.
On the age at which children leave Gateside, the parents argue that the children leave Gateside when they leave secondary education, but the council argues that they leave Gateside when they leave the nursery. That is the situation.
The achievements of deaf pupils in Scotland project was established in 2000. Is it an on-going project and to whom does it report?
Our committee papers inform us that you believe that the specialist visiting services for deaf children should not be merged with generic special needs services because of the particular problems related to deafness. Do you hold that view strongly?
When you talk about mainstream education for deaf children, are you talking about only hard-of-hearing children who are aiming to learn English or about profoundly deaf children as well?
We are talking about children right across the scale, from children with mild hearing loss, who might receive a visit from a Gateside teacher once a year, to profoundly deaf children who might, in the past, have been described as deaf and dumb. Some of the children require high-power hearing aids and technical aids in the school and conditions that are suitable to allow the hearing aids to work.
Could a profoundly deaf child fit into mainstream education without more than a few hours' assistance a week?
No, no. The point is the level of specialism of the teachers. It is proposed that the specialised service be replaced by a generic system. Whether you are talking about a school as a building with specialist teachers in it, or as an institution with an ethos of specialist teachers providing access to education for deaf children in mainstream locations, the important thing is retention of the specialism. It must also be ensured that the specialist qualified teachers of the deaf report to a head teacher who is a qualified teacher of the deaf. The danger of the generic system is that, over time, the specialist provision could be watered down. In a team of 46.6 teachers—which I believe is the figure that Renfrewshire Council is considering—a proportion will have a specialism in English as a second language and so on. Over time, to deal with absenteeism or whatever, the danger is that non-qualified teachers of the deaf would be put in to support those children in mainstream schools. We have already seen that in East Renfrewshire, which—following disaggregation in 1995—decided to have a generic team of teachers, only two of whom are teachers of the deaf. Some parents who have children in that system have found that their children are being supported by non-qualified teachers of the deaf. When you have been used to an excellent service, it is hard to accept anything less than that.
On consultation, the fact that Gateside has been regarded as a nursery school has excluded more than 100 families from being fully consulted on the change. If the change is for the good or will make no difference to the level of provision, what would be the problem with talking to and consulting those 100 families?
Six questions have been put to the Minister for Education and Young People about the school's history. I do not know whether that information is pertinent to the committee, but the letter that I sent to Cathy Jamieson is the 13th attachment to the letter of support that I have given to the committee. I would like to read the questions out, if you will allow me.
You will have to be quick as we have at least two more petitions that we must deal with before quarter past one.
The six questions, which remain unanswered, are:
"A. If Gateside is a nursery school, why did the education officers agree status of the school and head teacher in a tribunal of 1999?
B. Why does the education department continue to award a head teacher's salary on a banding of 61/100 pupils to the head of a nursery school by their definition?
C. If Gateside is indeed now registered as a nursery school, when was that status agreed?
D. Was Gateside previously registered as a special school?
E. If status was changed, did a formal consultation take place to do so?
F. If the status had been changed without due legal process will the plans be stopped and the Education Department enter into discussions with the parents over future provision?"
Are there other schools like Gateside in the west of Scotland? How do other local authorities provide cover?
There is a mixture of provision, including some good practices and some practices that could be better. There are units in schools and there are special schools that are dedicated to total communication, which is right for some children. I am sure that we would all love provision for children to be uniformly good throughout Scotland; however, provision is patchy.
In your opinion, what is the real reason behind the council's decision? Is it money?
It may be—I do not know. The questions remain unanswered. All my letters to the council, including those to the convener of the lifelong work policy board, remain unanswered. On every occasion, they were sent on behalf of children and parents at Gateside School. It may be that the council is pursuing a policy of inclusion and integration. Whatever, it is a pity that those parents have been treated abysmally.
Thank you. I am sorry that this morning's business has been so rushed, but other petitioners are present who must be given a chance to speak before we are thrown out of here. You are free to listen to the discussion about what we will do with the petition.
I stress again the point that the committee cannot get involved in decisions that are made by elected local authorities. Nonetheless, we should write to the Executive, asking for its comments on the issues that are raised in the petition, regarding the provision of education for deaf children by local authorities. We should also write to Renfrewshire Council, asking for its comments. We should make it clear that we are not questioning the council's right to decide how it provides education services for the deaf, but that we want to get a general view of the way in which those services are being provided in the area, in relation to the general issues that are raised in the petition. We should also send a copy of the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. When we have received the responses from the Executive and Renfrewshire Council, we can make a final decision on whether to refer the petition formally.
What about the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on deafness?
We will also copy the petition to that group.
A new cross-party group has been set up by Jackie Baillie to address learning disabilities. That group is trying to embrace such issues.
We can also copy the petition to that group.
Can we also ask about the ADPS project that was established in 2000? I presume that it still exists. Could we get some information about it?
Yes. We can ask for that information in our letter.
It seems that provision of education for deaf children is patchy throughout Scotland—that is what we should be dealing with.
Yes. We will keep members informed of responses as they are received. Are all those actions agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Water Treatment Plants (PE517)
The final petitioner who will speak today is Mr Rob Kirkwood, who has submitted petition PE517, on water treatment plants. I would also like to deal with the Peterhead petition before the end of the meeting. We have to be out of here because another committee is meeting here at half past 1.
Mr Kirkwood, I apologise for the rushed nature of today's business. We have a strict time limit. Would you like to make a brief introduction?
Rob Kirkwood (Leith Links Residents Association):
Yes. I shall try to be quick.
The smell that is made by the water treatment plants in Edinburgh has been made internationally famous by Irvine Welsh, in his book "Filth". He describes it as the "Dame Judy" at Seafield. Down in Leith, we have more colourful ways of describing it, which I will not go into now. I will use Leith's experience to illustrate the wider issues of odour problems that are caused by water treatment plants.
The problems of odour occur when key items of equipment fail at water treatment plants. On such occasions, there is a build up of raw sewage in the primary tanks. Because that raw sewage has nowhere to go, it is allowed to lie in the tanks for weeks or months on end and to grow septic and create odours. That problem could be prevented in the following ways. First, there could be early intervention when equipment goes wrong, to prevent the build-up of sludge in the tanks. That is not happening at Seafield. Since the introduction of the private finance initiative at that plant, there have been cutbacks in staffing, training and equipment. For that reason, the odours have grown steadily worse in spite of promises that the situation would improve.
Secondly, the primary tanks should be conical in shape. When key items of equipment break down, sludge builds up in the tanks. If they are conical, the sludge continues to slide down the sides towards an exit pipe.
At Seafield there are 40-year-old flat-base tanks that have long been rejected by the water treatment industry. Those tanks allow sludge to form a carpet on the base of the tanks. The carpets of sludge grow steadily thicker, become septic and float to the top. That is why Seafield is associated with a stench. Furthermore, the sludge can be removed only by draining the tanks and digging it out. When draining takes place, the community is exposed for months on end to the most obnoxious odours.
If possible, the primary tanks should be positioned far away from community areas. At Seafield, the six primary tanks are less than 200m from the nearest houses, shops and a new McDonald's outlet. The community lives regularly in clouds of obnoxious odours.
If tanks cannot be moved away from community areas they should be covered. At Seafield, the problem has existed for more than 40 years. It is unacceptable that members of the community have been regularly driven from their streets, gardens and, on occasion, from their homes. It is also unacceptable that we have had cases of children and adults vomiting in their own homes when forced to live in the clouds of hydrogen sulphide.
There is a need for extra investment. Unfortunately, most of the investment—£1.8 billion—is already legally allocated to upgrading water treatment. Therefore there is a clear need for extra investment to be focused solely on the problem of odour. There are good reasons why the investment programme should begin in Edinburgh. There has been massive underinvestment in Seafield for more than 40 years, which is why it is one of the few water treatment plants that still operate using flat-base tanks. At a recent community meeting, Gerry Winterbourne, the general manager of Thames Water, conceded that the 40-year-old primary tanks are the prime reason why he is unable to control the odours at Seafield. The communities surrounding those tanks suffer more regularly from noxious odours than other communities. Most recently, the community was forced to live inside a cloud of hydrogen sulphide for the whole month of May.
It is unacceptable that Edinburgh, one of the most prestigious cities in Europe, should be associated with that smell. The problem needs a prestigious solution. Edinburgh is one of the fastest-growing cities in Europe, which suggests that the problem of sewage odour could be equally fast growing.
Thank you. I am very sorry that we have only a short time to discuss the matter. Susan Deacon, who is off on maternity leave, has written to the committee. I will quote one section from her letter, which says:
"While my primary and immediate concern is to rectify the problem which my constituents face, I am bound to say that the case highlights a number of issues of wider concern. It seems to me there are serious questions to be asked about where responsibility and accountability on such matter lie. Indeed, the very fact that it has proved so difficult for a community's concerns to be listened to and acted upon would seem to me to be proof positive of inadequacies on the current arrangements."
We do not have time to ask many questions. Does anyone have a burning question on the petition?
I agree with the suggested action.
There is tremendous sympathy throughout the Public Petitions Committee for the petitioners. It is suggested that we agree to write to Scottish Water, asking it to detail the measures that are currently being used to tackle the problem of noxious odours and bacteria from Seafield and other similar sites in Scotland, and to indicate whether it has any plans to introduce the new conical primary tanks and other measures that are suggested by the petitioner. It is also suggested that we write to Edinburgh City Council asking for its comments on the petition and to the Scottish Executive asking why it thinks that environmental protection and planning enforcement legislation seem insufficient to resolve situations such as that at the Seafield plant. If members agree to that action, we will keep the petitioners informed of any responses that we receive and thereafter take a formal decision to refer the petition onwards.
Mr Kirkwood referred to the PFI. I do not know what the PFI contract covers. It might be operations and maintenance. Ultimately, Scottish Water is responsible. Could we also ask for comments on the conditions of the contract?
We should ask those questions addition to Susan Deacon's questions.
Yes. We will ask for comments on the contract and we will ensure that Susan Deacon's questions are asked.
I had a meeting recently with Dr Hargreaves, the chief executive of Scottish Water. His view was that he has a duty to keep water rates as low as possible. He is unwilling at this point in time to concede that conical tanks are required and that covering of the tanks is required. He maintains, as the company has for three years, that he can solve the odour problem with the old tanks. I am sure that the committee will get the same response. I ask the committee to disregard it and to point out to him that for three years those promises have been made, but they have not been met.
Certainly. I suggest that we write to Scottish Water and make it clear that the view of the committee is that Scottish Water should actively consider conical tanks.
Could I also add that they should be covered? It is not enough just to have conical tanks.
They should be covered conical tanks.
I am sorry about the rushed nature of the business. We are trying to get on to the Peterhead petition, before we are thrown out of the committee room.
Do I have members' agreement that all the other petitions be held over until our next meeting, and that we move now to the Peterhead petition? It is urgent that we move forward on that today.
Members indicated agreement.
Peterhead Prison (PE514)
Stewart Stevenson is here to speak briefly to the petition.
Thank you. I am sure that members of the committee will know that the Justice 1 Committee has been considering with considerable energy the Scottish Prison Service estates review. It has had to date some 13 evidence sessions on the matter and, in about 30 minutes' time, it will sit down to consider further its draft report on the Scottish Prison Service estates review. It will be useful if the convener of the Justice 1 Committee knows, however informally, that the Public Petitions Committee has passed the petition to it formally for consideration.
What the petition says is well understood and reflects the widespread concern in the Peterhead area and throughout Scotland about the proposed closure by the SPS of Peterhead prison. The petition reflects the very unusual substantial support that exists in the north-east community for a specialist prison that treats sex offenders. That support is unlikely to be replicated elsewhere.
In view of the time constraints, I will make three very quick points. In the past week, I received a letter from one of the prisoners at Peterhead prison. That letter reflects what a number of people who work in the prison have said to me, which is that as a result of the uncertainty that has hung over the prison for about 30 months, there has been a diminution in the number of people who are employed there; it is about 30 under establishment. That is beginning to impact on the quality of service that is provided. Just as the convener's remarks indicated a sense of urgency, I say to the committee that the matter is urgent from the point of view of ensuring a safer Scotland and in order to protect the work that is done at Peterhead. The problem will be exacerbated during the summer, because many employees will quite properly be taking summer breaks.
I close by thanking the committee for considering the petition. Almost all members will be familiar with the arguments surrounding Peterhead prison. I understand that the First Minister has indicated that he will visit Peterhead prison over the summer. I do not know yet on what date he will visit, but everyone in Peterhead will welcome that visit and the opportunity to show what Peterhead prison can do. They look forward to the First Minister's probable support for a way forward for the prison.
The clerks have been in touch with the Justice 1 Committee, which has indicated its willingness to consider the petition as part of the report that it is about to publish. Can we agree formally to refer the petition to the Justice 1 Committee?
Yes—with one addition, because Stewart Stevenson made an important point about a premature rundown of prison staff. That point will not currently be included in the petition, but we should add it and ask the Justice 1 Committee specifically to address it.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Could we act even faster than that and write directly to the Scottish Prison Service about staff numbers as well as referring the matter to the Justice 1 Committee. Such problems are developing by the day and the hour. I am alarmed to hear of the rundown.
That must be a matter for the Justice 1 Committee. Once we have formally referred a petition to a committee it, rather than the Public Petitions Committee, must pursue the matter.
Could we write?
No.
Could not we write in the intervening week to ask the SPS what its view is?
You could write as an MSP, but the petition will have left the committee.
It might be helpful for the committee to know that I will pursue the matter as the constituency member.
For the sake of speed, we should not write to the SPS. We should refer the petition immediately to the Justice 1 Committee, so that it receives the petition as soon as possible and can deal with it.
Is it agreed that we refer the petition straight to the Justice 1 Committee? We will draw its attention to the rundown of staff.
Members indicated agreement.
I apologise for the rushed nature of the meeting this morning.
Meeting closed at 13:20.