Public Petitions Committee, 19 Dec 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 19, 2000

Official Report 253KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

The next agenda item is current petitions. Members will note that we have received several responses to various petitions that we have considered. The first petitions are petitions PE119, from Mr C Ogg, and PE280, from the Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society. The first calls for the Parliament

"to ensure that suitable allotments are provided according to statute".

The second calls on the Parliament

"to establish an Allotments Working Group that would actively protect and promote allotment provision in Scotland."

Members will recall that we passed the matter both to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and to the Scottish Executive, as well as to the Social Inclusion, Housing and the Voluntary Sector Committee, the Rural Affairs Committee and the Local Government Committee. We have now received the response from COSLA, which we will consider this afternoon. It indicates that the City of Edinburgh Council is preparing good practice guidance on allotments and that that guidance, once agreed, will be used as the basis for consulting other councils.

We received a reply from the Scottish Executive that indicated that, although there were no plans to introduce legislation relating to allotment sites, it was considering the role of best practice guidance in relation to allotments. It also indicated that it would be for those councils that are pursuing the transfer of housing to community ownership to consider—in discussion with tenants—the future of allotments that may be affected by that transfer.

Of the three committees that were contacted, the Local Government Committee is the only one that has indicated that it wishes to consider further the issue that was raised in the two petitions. It is therefore suggested that we pass copies of the responses to the petitioners for information, and also that we copy the responses and the petition to the Local Government Committee for its further consideration.

Is that proposal okay?

No, I am afraid not. I thought about this quite hard last night and I cannot accept it. If crofters, farmers and other stewards of the land have to accept responsible access, why should not owners of allotments? The Executive has not thought about that—that is no one's fault but the Executive's. Unless it includes allotments, it will further reinforce the belief that is held in rural areas that the proposed access laws are to benefit only urban dwellers, at the expense of people in the countryside. After all, many rural dwellers might be interested in the way that the allotment system works. What is sauce for the goose, should be sauce for the gander, especially at this time of year.

I have been advised that the original petitions did not deal with responsible access to allotment land, but with the preservation of allotments in urban areas when they had to be moved to make way for industrial developments or whatever. I do not think that the issues that were raised by the petitioners and the issues of responsible access in rural areas are parallel.

The Executive's response, under the heading of "Land Reform", talks about allotments and responsible access.

It talks about the land reform bill and points out that the remit of the land reform policy group did not extend to allotments.

My point is that the remit should have extended to allotments. It is important that the land reform legislation is right. Allotments have been overlooked, as the Executive's response admits. I suggest that the Executive should now consider them.

But no one is suggesting rights of responsible access, or the right to buy, for allotments.

I think that that is being suggested.

The Executive's letter talks about providing for a

"right to buy when rural land comes to be sold, a crofting community right to buy and a right of responsible access."

It talks specifically about "rural land".

What is the difference between rural land and urban land?

Pollution?

To be fair, the paragraph on land reform in the letter from the Executive came after a request from this committee. We thought that there might be a connection with the land reform bill and the Executive responded to our concerns. The petitioners did not ask about access to allotment land.

That is a fair comment.

I take your point, John, but I do not think that there is a direct comparison between the rural and urban cases. The petition is about the preservation of allotments in cities, but no one is making the suggestion that there should be a right to buy or rights of access.

People want to keep allotments in towns and cities because councils have been selling off the "green lungs", as they are called.

COSLA's letter on this issue says that

"policy on, and decisions relating to, allotments must therefore be a matter for each council taking account of local needs and circumstances."

I think that the committee would support that view. Otherwise, it would seem as if we were trying to suck up the powers of councils. It has never been Parliament's intention to do that. If legislation is required, that will be our responsibility. However, COSLA seems to have answered the points that were raised.

I think so. These decisions are local decisions. COSLA will issue guidance and the Executive will issue information on best practice, but the final decisions will be local decisions.

I am sorry, convener, but I have to go. I have an appointment at five past four. Can I just wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy new year

Same to you, Sandra.

We must remember that the Local Government Committee is pursuing this issue, so we will be able to consider what it does. John, do you accept that?

Yes.

Thanks, John.

I did not realise that this is Sandra White's last meeting as a member of the committee. I am sorry. I thank her for the sterling work that she has done in the Public Petitions Committee. She will be sorely missed.

I have enjoyed it.

I am sorry to see you leave us.

It is a shame to give it up, but unfortunately, there was nothing else for it.

Where duty calls—or danger.

Have a nice Christmas. Bye.

John, can we just leave it that then?

Yes.

Is the recommendation on the petition agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next response was to petition 191, on 24-hour police presence at the accident and emergency department of Glasgow royal infirmary. Members will remember that we considered a letter from North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust and agreed to seek further information from it on its consultation with staff representatives. We have received the response that details the consultation that the trust is undertaking with trade unions on security. The trust has arranged a meeting with the petitioners to enable them to participate in the process. Given that the trust has made arrangements to liaise directly with the petitioners to discuss security concerns, it is suggested that we agree to pass a copy of the trust's letter to the petitioners and take no further action. It seems to me that the trust has moved its position.

We should welcome that, note it and take no further action.

I just wonder whether we should ask for the petitioners' response before we agree to take no further action. We should find out whether the petitioners are happy with the trust's response before we agree to take no further action.

We did that. We asked for the petitioners' reaction to what the trust said and passed it to the trust, which has now responded. Do you want to ask the petitioners again?

In fairness, before we decide that the response is fine, we should ask the petitioners again whether they are happy with it. If they are, we will then decide to take no further action.

When we pass a copy of the trust's letter to the petitioners, we can ask them whether they are happy with it.

I think that we can couch the question in terms in language that assumes that they will be happy with the response, but we should ask them.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE252 on funerals and burials. Members will remember that we agreed to copy this petition to the Scottish Executive minister for a response to the issues that are raised in the petition. We have received a long letter from the Scottish Executive explaining that this is a reserved matter, but drawing attention to the roles of the Department of Trade and Industry, the funeral ombudsman scheme, the National Association of Funeral Directors, an to an inquiry by the director general of fair trading in March 1998 and a current inquiry. The reply is fairly comprehensive and we should take no further action, but agree to pass a copy of it to the petitioners recommending that, if they wish to pursue the issue, they should address the DTI, given the reserved nature of the consumer protection issues in the petition. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from Mr Browning on behalf of various retailers in Polwarth, in Edinburgh. Members will remember that we agreed to copy the petition to the Minister for Children and Education. We have received a detailed response, in which the Executive makes it clear that it is aware of the difficulties that are faced by the petitioners. The Executive has, in recent months, corresponded with the petitioners on the points that were raised.

As the response makes clear, the Executive takes the matter very seriously. The response outlines a series of different forms of action that it is taking. It is clear that there are political differences between the Executive and the petitioners in relation to "It's a Criminal Waste: Stop Youth Crime Now", but the Executive is taking positive action on the petition. It is suggested that we should agree to copy the response to the petitioners and take no further action. We could also suggest to the petitioners that they continue to liaise with Executive officials on the issue. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next response is to the petition from the Friends of Durris Forest about four-by-four off-road driving in public forests. We agreed to seek the views of the Forestry Commission, and Forest Enterprise wrote to us. We then agreed to seek further advice from Scottish Natural Heritage on the environmental impact of four-by-four off-road driving in forests in Scotland. We also received additional comments from the petitioners. A copy of those comments and a CD-ROM that includes photographs of the areas of Durris forest that are used for off-road driving are available to members.

Scottish Natural Heritage has set out the response that is before you, and it has enclosed a letter that it sent recently to Aberdeenshire Council and copied to the petitioners in relation to the application for full planning permission for off-road driving in Durris forest. That letter indicates that if Aberdeenshire Council decides to grant planning permission for the proposal to change the use of forest tracks for off-road driving,

"SNH recommends the adoption of a section 75 agreement to regulate the implementation and management of the proposal".

The environmental statement that was produced for Durris forest identified potential threats to tracks and SNH agreed that there is some merit in the petitioners' claim of potential deterioration in the condition of tracks. It therefore recommends that Aberdeenshire Council should meet interested parties

"to agree reasonable limits of interaction and potential conflict between informal recreational users and Land-Rover Highland Experience"

and to agree methods of monitoring.

SNH has gone some way to meeting the wishes of the petitioners. We should send that response to the petitioners and take no further action.

To aid that discussion, should we write also to Aberdeenshire Council, asking it to note the contents of the petition?

I should have informed members that the petition is directly related to a current planning application. It is not within the Parliament's remit to intervene in that process.

When we discussed the petition before, I thought that the petitioners were referring to tracks that had been constructed. Having received further information, I agree with the petitioners. I know forests and land, and I think that the petitioners are right to say that there need only be very little traffic for forest glades—what are known as rides—to be cut up and destroyed for walking. I have seen that happen many times. I would have thought that the local authority and Forest Enterprise would want to ensure that the glades and rides that are being used for public access are kept as fire breaks. It is not in their best interests to destroy the fire-breaking ability of rides or to cut the grass and heather uniformly off them. Now that I understand the petitioners' meaning more clearly, I entirely support their point of view.

I understand that there was a 12-month trial period before the planning application was made.

Peat or tundra takes decades to recover if a tracked vehicle travels over it and cuts the surface. That can be seen on satellite images. When we discussed the petition previously, I thought that the petitioners were referring to tracks that had been made.

You would not object to sending a copy of SNH's response, along with your comments, to the petitioners and to Aberdeenshire Council, requesting that they be taken into consideration.

Not at all. I would like the council to take the response into consideration.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The final response that we have relates to a series of petitions. The first is from Sidegate Residents Association and asks the Parliament to investigate the recommendations of a recent public local inquiry into Briary Bank. The other two, which are on the same subject, are from Mr William Watson and Ian Arnott. We agreed to pass all the petitions to ministers for them to take into account when reaching a decision on whether to intervene in relation to the local plan.

We have now received the Scottish Executive's response. It states that East Lothian Council submitted to Scottish ministers a copy of its plan in the form in which it proposes to adopt it. After careful consideration of all relevant matters, including the points made by the petitioners, the Executive took the view that the proposed allocation of the site at Briary Bank for housing did not warrant the intervention of Scottish ministers. In a letter to the council, the Executive indicated that it expects the proposed development framework to be prepared in consultation with Historic Scotland's buildings inspectorate and the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland and to recognise the overall environmental quality and character of the area.

In the response to the committee's request for information on why the reporters at the local planning inquiry recommended that the site was suitable for housing, the reporter indicated that previously—in 1991—the planning committee had been wrongly advised that the proposed developments affected prime land and would be a departure from the development plan. In other years—1989 and 1990—the planning committee agreed that the housing need did not outweigh objections to the design of the scheme. The reporter notes that since then the case for the development, based on housing need, has become stronger than ever.

We have also received the comments of John Home Robertson, the local MSP. It is suggested that we copy the Scottish Executive's response to the petitioners and take no further action.

I agree with that course of action. We have received a full response from the Scottish Executive.

I support that, too.