Official Report 296KB pdf
Forth Road Bridge (PE943 and PE942)
Good morning and welcome to the sixth meeting in 2006 of the Public Petitions Committee.
I thank members of the committee for taking the time to take evidence on my petition for a second Forth crossing. I start by explaining why I believe that such a crossing is needed. I will consider the current road bridge and how it is being used.
Thank you.
Thank you, convener. I am the chair of TRANSform Scotland, which is the campaign for sustainable transport. We are an umbrella group that represents 60 organisations, including road and rail operators, environmental groups, local authorities and others.
Members may ask questions of either of the petitioners, or of both, and we shall see how the debate develops. This is a new way of doing things for us. We do not usually hear from petitioners on both sides of an argument at the same time, so it will be interesting to see whether we can get a discussion going.
Mr Hood referred to specific figures for HGV traffic. Can either witness give us some more figures, particularly in relation to northbound movement? I would like to hear about other types of traffic—principally car traffic—and about the extent of car commuting into Edinburgh via the Forth bridge.
The draft local transport strategy from the Forth Estuary Transport Authority contains figures on use of the bridge. According to FETA, 70 per cent of cars at peak times in both directions are singly occupied, and 70 per cent of commuter trips are single-occupancy trips. That suggests to us that there is considerable scope not only for shifting people from cars to public transport but for shifting from single occupancy to multiple occupancy of cars.
How does car commuting compare proportionately to HGV traffic?
I do not have specific details about that. I suspect that it will be in the local transport strategy. It is quite a lengthy document that runs to more than 100 pages.
My question is important because Mr Hood emphasised the Forth road bridge's role in the national and regional economy in terms of freight movements by heavy goods vehicles. It can be argued that such traffic is more important and more significant than car commuting. That argument could have an influence on decision makers.
That is a fair point. In transport debates, passenger transport often gets all the attention because people have votes whereas freight does not. However, the thrust of transport movements through Fife—although the economic picture is changing—involves a crucial role for road haulage. The key export markets for hauliers are the crucial south-east of England market and Europe. Hauliers tend to head either to the ports at Grangemouth or Greenock, down the M74 or to the Coatbridge or Mossend railheads, where they can be connected by train to the deep-sea ports and to the channel tunnel. If we look at those destinations on the map, the route via Kincardine is, to be frank, the logical course for the vast majority of that traffic. The Forth road bridge problem is not so much an issue of freight as of links with Edinburgh. Although some of that freight traffic currently still uses the Forth road bridge, we need to make bigger strategic decisions about whether that freight traffic should be encouraged to go on the line of route via the Kincardine bridge.
If I was driving from Glasgow to Fife, I might consider the Kincardine bridge as an option. However, my perception is that the trunk roads on the north bank of the Forth at Kincardine are substandard compared to the strategic routes around the Forth bridge.
The decision that a haulier makes will involve a trade-off in relation to the time difference, the cost difference and the reliability of the route. It is hard to second-guess what a particular haulier might do in certain circumstances. However, on the map, it is evident that the route via the Kincardine bridge should be the strategic line of route for the key freight destinations.
Would the roads around the Kincardine bridge need first to be improved?
Although TRANSform Scotland is against major new road building, we have never said that we are against road building per se. For example, on roads that have a large proportion of HGV traffic, it might be appropriate to provide crawler lanes to allow cars to overtake. We would not have a problem with that.
I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
I said specifically that building a second road bridge would probably not be a long-term sustainable solution for exactly the reasons that Rosie Kane has given. Within a relatively short time, a second road bridge would also be over capacity, which is our current problem. FETA's outline proposal involves a shift to a multimodal bridge, with additional public transport structures such as a light railway on the second bridge. That seems to be a fairly sensible solution because it would involve trying to move people out of their cars and on to public transport. FETA specifically states in the proposal that it will not provide additional lanes of traffic for single-occupancy vehicles. That is an important part of its overall strategy.
I will pick up on the points that Rosie Kane made. She is right that what Mr Hood appears to propose is to predict the growth of traffic and to provide the road space for it. That is known as predict and provide. That method of transport planning was used in the 1980s, but it is now firmly discredited because it leads to ever-increasing congestion, ever-increasing air pollution and it contributes to the biggest problem that faces the world today: climate change. Our strong suggestion is that predict and provide is not appropriate.
I will direct my questions at Mr Booth and Mr Spaven.
The general principle is that we should not put additional burdens on people unless an alternative is available. However, 70 per cent of cars at peak times are singly occupied, as are 70 per cent of commuter trips. Public transport is not the only alternative; lift sharing may also be an alternative. Friends of the Earth Scotland is keen to support companies in developing travel plans that give people incentives to lift share or to use public transport where it is available. There are many alternatives to building a second Forth road bridge. We must explore those before we commit what could be £1 billion of taxpayers' money.
Would you care to comment on the security issues for frail and vulnerable passengers who take part in lift sharing, particularly with people whom they may not know well? Would you also like to comment on the bigger issue, which is that—as Scott Barrie and all the Fife MSPs have pointed out—we want a replacement bridge rather than an additional bridge?
On the first question, about David Begg's comments, we accept that it cannot be a case of using only the stick or only the carrot. The stick and the carrot must be used together to produce a solution that people regard as being fair and effective.
Corrosion in the bridge's main cables is an issue, but FETA has proposed various alternatives to building a replacement bridge and we argue that all the alternatives should be explored before we decide to build a new bridge. For example, FETA is exploring dehumidification of the main cables to slow down or stop the corrosion; we welcome that. There are other options, such as augmenting the cables on the existing bridge if the corrosion cannot be stopped. For example, the 5 April bridge in Lisbon has been strengthened by adding additional cables; it was not even necessary to close the bridge when they were added, so there was minimal disruption to bridge users. If Lisbon can do that, surely Edinburgh and FETA can do it, too.
I have arranged for the bridgemaster to give my colleagues and me a presentation at 1 o'clock today, so we will get the detail then.
I mentioned earlier that we felt that there was a need for a transport planning and development solution. One of our worries is that, if we keep providing road capacity, we will effectively reinforce Fife's role as a mere dormitory suburb for Edinburgh instead of focusing on whether we can attract more development to Fife so that there is less need for travel. Those fundamental questions might be beyond the immediate concerns of the petition, but we realise that they are issues.
There are two now.
Well, that is a 100 per cent improvement.
In the additional information on my petition, I said that there are a number of things that we can do in the short to medium term. We should consider them, but if we are to secure the economic future of people in Fife and all communities north of the Forth estuary, we need a sustainable long-term plan. We can listen to all the good solutions that have been suggested, but ultimately we will need a new bridge. The problem is the length of time that it will take to put that in place. A new bridge is by no means an overnight solution, so we should be considering and planning it now. In the meantime, we should put in place the short to medium-term solutions that will ease the pain of people who live north of the Forth estuary.
Notwithstanding the good ideas and improvements that David Spaven and Chas Booth have suggested, you argue that Fife's economy will be marginalised if current and future needs are not met. Will you develop that theme? If a new bridge is not built, what will be the consequences?
As I mentioned, we do not have security. That has a big impact on Fife's economy because anybody who is looking to invest in the area wants to ensure that they have proper communications. If, for example, I was setting up a business in Fife, I would need the security of knowing that I could get my product to market. As I see it, people in Fife and places north of Fife have a distinct disadvantage because they do not have a long-term secure route to market for many of their products. That has an invisible effect on the economy. It is difficult to quantify, but it is very real to the people of Fife.
Are you saying that there is a sort of planning blight because of concerns about the future viability of the bridge and the uncertainty about whether there will be another link?
Exactly. That is why it is so important that a road map or plan be laid down so that people know what will come on line and what new transport solutions will be in place during the next 10 to 20 years.
The reality is that, in modern economies, transport tends to account for only a small proportion of the total cost of manufactured goods—typically, between 2 and 5 per cent. In general, Scotland has adapted to its peripheral situation quite well by going for goods that are distinctive to Scotland, such as whisky. An example in Fife is Diageo, which is doing extremely well and has diversified into non-whisky spirits. It has fair distances to cover, but it seems to be doing well up in Leven. We also have the electronics industry, in which transport costs represent a tiny proportion of the end value of the goods. Transport is not necessarily a key factor.
I think that you perhaps misunderstood me. I am not talking about the costs, but about the accessibility of Fife—perceived or otherwise. There is a real fear for people: if I was locating a new business in Fife, the question whether I would be able to get my product south of the Forth would concern me greatly.
The experience is that improving road links often makes it easier to service an area from outside that area. A classic example is the brewing industry. With the expansion of the motorway network, there is more and more centralisation of breweries. We no longer have Scottish & Newcastle in Edinburgh, because it brews elsewhere. It is a lot easier to bring products into a new area when new road infrastructure is built. Companies might wonder what the point of locating in Fife is if they can service the area from somewhere else. The relationship between transport and economics is complex. We should not automatically assume that a new bit of infrastructure will somehow create an economic bonanza for Fife. The issue is not that simple, because there will be negative as well as positive effects.
You would concede that the economy of the area around Edinburgh is already overheating and that house prices are such that people cannot afford to buy. For Fife to catch some of the benefit, it seems reasonable that people be given every encouragement to buy houses in Fife. If a new bridge is a way of achieving that, it is not reasonable to deny them that.
I would rather see the development in Fife than in Edinburgh.
That is what I am saying. To allow development to take place, suitable road and rail infrastructure must be in place so that product can be taken into and extracted from Fife.
The main freight routes in and out of Fife do not head toward the Forth bridge at all; they head toward the other key freight locations on the M74 that I mentioned. However, freight is a bit of a side issue. The primary issue with the Forth bridge is to do with people who commute into Edinburgh. Frankly, I would like more jobs in Fife, so that people do not have to commute to Edinburgh.
I rest my case.
I am pleased that Chas Booth explained exactly what PE942 is about. He is saying that we should wait for the feasibility study and not that he is definitely against a new bridge. Everyone in Fife and outwith the area knows about the problems in Fife. Certainly, during our meeting in Dunfermline, the issues were thrown up and it became obvious that the transport system needs improvement.
I believe that the consultants have said that if corrosion continues unchecked in the main cable, it is likely that HGVs will be banned. In fact, the point is that the load on the bridge will need to be reduced and the most likely way of doing that is to ban HGVs. That will happen some time between 2014 and 2018, although the consultants do not know exactly when. The key phrase is "if corrosion continues unchecked". As I said, dehumidification has been introduced on suspension bridges throughout the world and it generally works. It may not necessarily stop corrosion altogether, but it at least slows it down. If that method is used, as is likely, the date of 2013, which has been bandied around a great deal, is likely to be pushed back considerably.
Chas Booth's position is not a million miles away from mine. It is a question of securing the future. I believe that the inevitable solution will be a second bridge.
Chas Booth and David Spaven are calling for a year's delay while alternative options are explored, but how would such a delay affect the people and economy of Fife?
A rule of thumb that project managers use is to assume that a year's delay at the start of a project means that ultimately there will be several years' delay. I am sceptical when people say, "We'll delay this just for a few months," because the delay has an inevitable knock-on impact. The impact of the current situation is that people are not setting up businesses and homes in Fife, because they think that the area is not prospering—Helen Eadie touched on poverty in Fife—or getting the best value from its proximity to the booming city economy of Edinburgh.
I am sorry that I missed the witnesses' opening remarks. My train was late—I was not coming from Fife. I will test the panel by pointing out an error. The bridge in Lisbon to which Mr Booth referred is the 25 de Abril bridge—25 April was the date of the revolution in Portugal. There should be no rewriting of history.
With respect, that is not the case. It is important to draw a distinction between a second Forth road bridge and a replacement Forth road bridge. If—that is a big "if"—it were unsustainable to continue to maintain the existing bridge, we would not oppose the construction of a replacement bridge. However, to be frank, the chances of that being the case are next to nil.
I will tease this out. You, equally, are jumping to a conclusion before what you are calling for has been done, which is for all the information to be placed before us. Do not get me wrong: interim measures to prevent the bridge from being closed for any reason and to extend its life are absolutely the prudent way to go. However, I would not want to rule out a second bridge—from your presentation, I hope that I would not hear you do that either. In Lisbon, a second bridge was built; you might be interested in travelling on it some day.
We are quite clearly against a second bridge, but we are not against the idea of a replacement bridge if it is needed. It is true that one could go to Lisbon and look at the second bridge. However, a few years ago, I went to San Francisco and Portland in the north-west USA, which is the centre of what is called smart growth, under which cities are developed in a way that is not the typical American suburban sprawl and city centres are regenerated. New motorways have been knocked down in San Francisco and Portland and replaced with public transport systems. I would like Scotland to get towards the cutting edge and find the sort of solutions that are right for the 21st century. Building a second bridge—as opposed to a replacement bridge—will make our problems worse overall.
We also have to take into account the fact that FETA has said that the maintenance of the current bridge is being hampered by the capacity. In effect, a second bridge would allow a more sustainable future for the current road bridge.
I have a comment on Jackie Baillie's point about jumping to conclusions. She said that we had reached a conclusion prematurely. I argue that the opposite is the case. If the case can be made that the current bridge is unsustainable, we are not opposed to building a replacement bridge. Those who are currently saying that a second bridge should be built are guilty of jumping to conclusions. They are saying that none of the options on the long list of options for maintaining the existing bridge will work. Let us give them a chance.
You have said that you are in favour of replacing the existing bridge. What would happen to the economy of Fife while the existing bridge was being knocked down and a new one was being built over several years? How comfortable would you be with what would appear to me to be an obviously detrimental effect?
I firmly believe that that is a hypothetical situation that will not arise.
But you said that you were in favour of it.
We are not opposed to the building of a replacement bridge if the current bridge turns out to be completely unsustainable. As I said, the date of 2014 for banning lorries from crossing the bridge has been mentioned because of a small survey of the existing bridge cable. With dehumidification and other options, that date can be extended. It is not likely that Fife will be in the position of having no bridge whatsoever and we are not arguing that the existing bridge should be removed or knocked down. We are arguing that a second bridge would be imprudent at the moment.
Given what Jackie Baillie said about the 25 April bridge, I suggest that a revolution might be a good solution.
In Portugal.
When a survey was done on the proposed route for the M74 extension, the Glasgow Development Agency and/or Scottish Enterprise spoke to businesses—tin-shed businesses and so on—that might set up along the route. At the time, it was said that those businesses supported construction of the road for communication purposes—the transport of goods and so on. However, on further inspection, the survey showed that 75 per cent of the businesses said that any communication that brought goods to and from the market would do them, as long as they had good public transport, such as trains. It was put out that the only solution to moving goods was cars and trucks, but that was not what the survey asked about.
As I have said, the relationship between transport and economic growth is extremely complex and tends to attract knee-jerk reactions, which are probably not appropriate. You mentioned that firms have prosaic needs. For example, they just need good public transport for their workers to get to work. Surveys often show that public transport access, not car access, is important. Businesses need access to people with the right skills and training; the right housing in the area; and a pleasant environment for people to live in.
I will follow up John Scott's point to Mr Booth. Mr Booth should take Mr Scott's point seriously, because we have a fairly recent practical example of such a dilemma. Before local government reorganisation in 1996, I had political responsibility for the Kingston bridge—another bridge that was maybe going to fall down one day if it was not repaired, although it is a reinforced concrete bridge rather than a steel bridge. Mr Booth should be wary of saying that his view is the most financially prudent, because the operational dislocation of building a new bridge must be considered. The problem is not the bridge structure but the approach roads. Building a new bridge will cause much inconvenience and dislocation to existing traffic and transport systems, whether it is an additional crossing or a replacement crossing.
I agree with that. Can I go back to something that Rosie Kane picked up on? In Fife, we are ambitious about our future. We see a second bridge as an enabler to bring new jobs. It is a rather pessimistic view that one job that is lost in Fife is a job gained in Edinburgh. I see the bridge as enabling more jobs to be created in Fife, not to the detriment of anywhere in Scotland. Why should we believe that it should be to the detriment of anywhere else in Scotland if we are able to innovate and produce new manufacturing and other businesses? That is what we are trying to do.
Unusually, I am going to be non-parochial and make the point that what is being asked for is not just a Fife bridge but a bridge that will serve the whole of central east Scotland and the economy of that area. I would go further than that and say that it is a trans-European network identified key spot. We need to bear in mind the fact that the bridge would serve not just the Fife economy but the economy all the way to the north of Scotland. Given the peripherality of Scotland to central Europe, it behoves all of us to consider the proposal critically and seriously.
The recommendation is that we write to the Executive and FETA. Do members have any other recommendations?
I suggest that we write to Fife Council.
I want to make clear what I was saying about fragmented, small-picture planning. Some of the planning activities in Glasgow and other areas have been responsible for draining the lifeblood from other areas. The tin-shed companies that are responsible then leave Glasgow, so it is very short-term economic thinking. Fife has probably been a victim of that, too. I suggest that we send the petition to Architects & Engineers for Social Responsibility. I will confirm that that is the correct name.
If members are happy that we write to such an organisation, Rosie Kane can confirm its name with the clerks after the meeting.
We could find out the views of the local authorities on the south bank of the Forth.
And Scottish Enterprise.
A large range of organisations has been suggested. Are members happy with the suggestions?
I thank the witnesses for their co-operation. I found the discussion informative. I think that the experiment worked and allowed a debate to develop on all the issues—certainly, it has not put me off trying the idea again.
Rural Schools (Funding) (PE937)
Our next petition is PE937, by Mrs Catherine MacKinnon, on behalf of Roy Bridge primary school. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to recognise and promote public-community partnership funding as an alternative to public-private partnership funding as a means of securing the long-term future of rural schools.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak. I offer you the apologies of Jim Mather MSP, who was going to join us but had to go to another meeting at 11 o'clock.
The petition is interesting and thought provoking. I must apologise for missing the start of your comments. Is membership of your community based on a legal framework, for example a friendly or mutual society model? Perhaps I should declare an interest as a Co-operative Party member and as someone who is enthusiastic about such community initiatives.
We have not yet formalised the legal structure, but our voluntary committee, which developed the schoolhouse project, is a constituted body with charitable status, and we are considering reconstituting it as a community company limited by guarantee with charitable status.
What professional support have you received throughout the development of this proposal?
Are you talking about legal support?
I suppose that I am talking about support from Highlands and Islands Enterprise and others.
We have used grant assistance from the local enterprise company and Highland Council to get an architect, quantity surveyor and structural engineer on board. We also have legal assistance waiting in the wings to set up everything else.
Good morning, and thank you for your presentation. Your idea is excellent. I have seen a lot of PPP projects, which will cost their communities millions of pounds when their 25-year leases run out. Anything that can benefit a community, as your project could, must be welcomed.
Highland Council has not said that it will provide a new school but it has given a ballpark figure for providing a school with the number of classrooms that we propose. The council's figure is twice what the community would hope to build a school for. Obviously, figures can be contentious and we are currently recosting our plans. Everyone knows that the costs of public sector projects go up and up, and that when tenders come in they are not what was expected. That could also happen with community projects, but much closer attention would be paid to detail and to tendering.
Councillor MacLennan is here. Why does Highland Council not support this type of community partnership? Is it because the idea has not come from the Executive?
One reason the idea is not receiving support is that it is new. It is untested, and councillors like to use the tried and the tested.
That sort of thing obviously benefits the whole community.
Highland Council has about 180 schools: 60 are in excellent condition; 60 are in a medium condition; and 60 need a lot of money spent on them. The Roy Bridge project is an opportunity to do something that, although untested, might save millions of pounds in the long term. If only one in 10 of the remaining 60 communities followed us down this route—if it was a success—it could save millions of pounds.
I want to be sure that I understand correctly. Highland Council is currently consulting on a scheme of primary education that covers your village.
Yes.
The council's proposal is to move the children to a village 3 miles away to an existing school that would have to be extended. Is that right?
There are three options. One is to remain as we are—
Oh, so the status quo is an option?
Yes, but the school needs a lot of money spent on it. It is more than 100 years old. There is another school 3.5 miles away, and the council would prefer to move us to that school. The third option is the one that we are advocating today—to give the community a chance.
But unless the Scottish Executive certifies that your project is a valid financial model, the education authority could not consult on it. That is why your petition is aimed at the Scottish Executive.
We hope to get as much support for our project as possible, so that—if it stacks up—it can be a pathfinder.
Is the option of educating the children at Spean Bridge educationally deficient or does it just not accord with your wider concerns about the regeneration of your village?
I can speak quite well on that. I live not in Roy Bridge but in Torlundy, which is a village of about 100 households. It has no shop, school, village hall or pub. The school closed 30 years ago, but the village has doubled in size—it is basically just a commuter village for Fort William. The community at Roy Bridge is out on its own and it has a crofting heritage behind it. It needs to be preserved and protected.
You are trying to do something quite tricky—use a constrained statutory consultation about a scheme of education to achieve wider regeneration objectives.
Yes.
It is quite an interesting idea.
It is not only about rebuilding a school; it is about providing additional affordable housing, additional car parking, a better all-weather playing pitch for the kids and an additional play area. It is basically about transforming the village.
The proposal to educate the children in an extended school in Spean Bridge is not a PPP proposal, is it?
The school at Spean Bridge is an existing PPP school that will need an extension to accommodate the children from Roy Bridge.
So it is part of an existing PPP contract. You have correctly identified that the magic ingredient in a PPP—of which I have some experience—is level playing field money from the Scottish Executive. Am I correct in saying that you want the community trust—or whatever you call it—to lease the existing Roy Bridge village school from Highland Council?
We want to lease the site.
Do you want to transfer ownership to the trust and then lease the school back to the council?
We would lease the site, develop it—build a new school on it—and lease the building back to Highland Council.
You would lease the enhanced facility to the council. There obviously must be a risk assessment of a financial model. Who in the village would take the risks and stand behind the project if it were to encounter financial difficulties?
Do you mean in the longer term?
Yes.
That would all be built into the lease. The onus would be on Highland Council to make the repayments over whatever the term was—15, 20 or 25 years, for example—and that would be a condition of the Bank of Scotland lending the money.
So, if your trust went pear shaped, the facility would revert to the council.
Yes.
There is a range of options. Perhaps we could find somebody who would donate a bond that could be held while the school was in existence.
As I say, I find it a fascinating idea.
I, too, think that the idea is fascinating. I am hugely in favour of community ownership of rural schools; I have some experience of that, having been educated in such a school. However, I would like you to develop the concept a bit further. As I understand it, you are talking about the council owning the land, the bank owning the building and the council paying the rent or the interest to the bank, but where is your community involvement? Are you providing the managerial input only?
We would be enabling the borrowing. I understand that the council cannot go to the Bank of Scotland and ask for a straight loan.
The council should be able to borrow money less expensively than at 1.75 per cent above base.
The council goes out and gets quotes. I have been a councillor for only three years and it is terrible to be so cynical at such a young age but, when an official says that something will cost £2 million, it never seems to come in at less than that; it is usually more expensive. The council has given us ballpark figures of £2 million or £2.5 million for a new school in Roy Bridge and we are coming back with substantially lower figures.
We would also have voluntary input, which cannot be costed. We would achieve value for money as a result of that input, which is not included in the proposed figures.
Like Mr Gordon, I am concerned about the risk. With the best will in the world, building projects can go wrong. If something went wrong with the building in 20 or 30 years' time and it became unusable, how would the community cope? Would insurance be required against such risks? Presumably, some mechanism would be required so that the community could cope if the building became unusable before all the payments had been made and before the building's supposed design life had expired.
That would be built into the agreement with Highland Council. PPP agreements contain pretty detailed provisions on how such matters should be dealt with. For example, in the school in Spean Bridge down the road, the playing field had never been usable. The council's payments do not cover the playing field but the consortium is still liable to reinstate it. Such details would be included in the agreement. For example, in case the building developed problems, the onus would be on the community to ensure that the agreement required the building company to maintain the building as a viable school for the duration of the lease period.
I have asked some awkward questions, but I wish you well.
I, too, am curious about the proposed model, but I confess to wanting to take a step back so that I can understand the position of Highland Council. It would be helpful to know—I assume that the witnesses know this—whether the council's conclusion on the Roy Bridge school was arrived at because of the age and disrepair of the building or whether it was due to declining school rolls or other educational issues.
The school has no educational issues. Roy Bridge school provides a high standard of education, especially in music. The children have been down to London for ceremonies and presentations. Within the local area, the school has a strong reputation for music. There are no educational problems.
Lochaber has just started to review its local plan, and there are great pressures on building land in Fort William. There are few areas that we can build out into, apart from going up the Great Glen corridor to Spean Bridge and Roy Bridge. Of the 28 primary schools in Lochaber, only two were projected to have a rise in their school rolls going forward some seven or eight years; one was in Spean Bridge and the other was in the town. Only three school rolls were projected to be stable, one of which was Roy Bridge primary school. Every other school roll was forecast to fall by an average of 14 per cent, so it is an area of stability as regards school rolls. If we had a newer school at Roy Bridge, I am sure that its roll would rise in the same way as that of Spean Bridge primary school.
I am sure that you have made those eloquent arguments to Highland Council. What has happened as a consequence? Has the council just dismissed them?
We have just started the consultation process, and this is when we get the chance to put forward those arguments. The community recognises that we may well need to have a plan B; so, here we are today, trying to get as much support for it as we can.
I suppose that I am taking a step back and saying that, as a councillor, you have an opportunity to shape the consultation rather than just to participate in it. If you have made the points that you have just made to the council, I wonder what view the council has taken even before it has started the consultation on the basis of the information that you must have given it.
When I speak to individual councillors, they are impressed with the proposal. It is a nice, new, shiny idea that is being presented by a nice, new, shiny councillor and it has to be tested. The figures have to be tested to see whether they stack up, but there seems to be a grain of support for the idea.
Risk is sometimes managed by having an asset. I am interested in your suggestion that you would lease the land from the council. Would that be at no cost to you? Would it be a 99-year lease? What kind of asset is the council offering?
I would not say that we are being offered it just yet.
What would you like the council to offer you?
It would be just a peppercorn lease—a means to achieving the end. At the moment, we have the schoolhouse on a 50-year lease. I think that a 20, 25 or 30-year lease would probably be more attractive to the council, as that would be in line with the PPP initiatives. A lease of 50 years is a bit long. The leasing element is a means of transferring ownership to the communities so that we can deliver the end-product, which is the school that the council would like to have.
My final point is on the level playing field support that was referred to earlier, which has been renamed—goodness knows what it is called now. Basically, the funds to cover the charges that are associated with PPP are paid directly to Highland Council through its revenue support grant. One might perhaps assume that the council could do something creative, given the fact that it has that chunk of money, of which you would want only a tiny proportion to make the project fly. I leave that thought with the shiny councillor.
I would like to ask a couple of questions to clarify things. You have talked a lot about the leaseback of the building. Who would employ the teaching staff, the janitorial staff and the administrative staff in your PCP school?
Highland Council would. The educational provision in the school would be entirely in the realms of the council. The council would also carry out the furnishing of the school, as I believe that it does with PPP initiatives. The employment of janitorial and cleaning staff would be open to debate. For PPP initiatives, the PPP provides the janitorial and cleaning services. We could discuss whether the PCP would wish the community to take that on—which we could consider doing—or we could leave that in the hands of the council. That would be open for discussion. The educational provision and the teaching staff would be employed through the education system of Highland Council, no differently from staff in other schools.
What if, during the consultation, the council were to conclude that Roy Bridge primary school is just not sustainable? How do you envisage convincing a local authority to continue paying for staff and a property that it has decided is unsustainable in its current situation?
I do not think that the council would embark on the consultation if it felt that that was going to be the long-term situation. Does that answer your question?
If the local authority decides that the school is not sustainable because of the on-costs of maintaining the school where it is rather than transferring the 30 pupils to a nearby school, how will you convince it to use public money to maintain the school?
At the moment, the figures stack up. The two schools are being managed by the same head teacher, because someone is on sabbatical, and the costs might not be as great as the costs of running two totally separate schools. The two communities are relatively comfortable with the joint headship and I see no reason why it could not continue into the future at some point.
The issue is the capital investment cost. The buildings are in such a state that, whether this year or next year, there will be serious health and safety issues and something will have to be done. A quick fix will not solve the problem. At the moment, the council is strapped for capital to put into schools and Roy Bridge primary school is not a priority. It is looking for a solution to that. The on-going revenue cost is not the issue.
Spean Bridge primary school could just about swallow up Roy Bridge primary school at the moment. We worked out that there would be two spare seats left in the school. Spean Bridge is an area of growth, where a lot of house building is going on, and virtually all the land that was designated for building has been exhausted. The school needs an extension, which will cost the best part of £200,000. That money would go a long way towards building our school if it was redirected towards the building of a new school in Roy Bridge.
That would also have an environmental impact.
It sounds as though you have a few arguments on your side.
Perhaps we should notify the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities of the petition, although it has not bothered to reply to other petitions. I would also like Highland Council to be informed of the petition.
I welcome what has been said, which has been very interesting. I wish that we had been able to grill some of the companies that were involved in the PPP in Glasgow on everything from there being no space to having secret cameras in the classrooms—but we will not go there. It has been an interesting debate. I wonder whether we should seek the views of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on the petition. It has been campaigning on the issue, and there are implications for workers, and so on.
The idea has general merits as a financial model, and not just in Roy Bridge, but I am disconcerted to learn that Highland Council is consulting on changing a scheme of education for primary school children apparently for purely financial reasons. There is an educationally viable school, but Highland Council does not want to renovate the dilapidated building.
We can ask Highland Council some specific questions. That is a valid suggestion.
I am sorry that I missed the presentation. I had to go to another committee.
Yes. We will pass the petition on to other committees when we receive responses back. We will write to the Executive, COSLA, the local authority and the STUC, to get their perspective on the proposal and to see what support is out there for this innovative way of trying to protect a viable local school. The proposal has a lot of merit and deserves further consideration.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Planning (Engagement and Consultation) (PE946)
Our next new petition is PE946 by Andrew Watt, on behalf of the Old Musselburgh Club, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the process of local engagement and consultation in local planning issues.
Thank you for hearing us on this matter. As indicated by the information submitted with the petition, we are concerned about a development to extend Musselburgh racecourse. We believe that what has happened in Musselburgh in the past few months should not happen in communities in Scotland in the 21st century. There has been a failure by Musselburgh joint racing committee, which operates the racecourse and is a joint venture between East Lothian Council and Lothian racing syndicate, to engage with and consult local people.
We are joined by Susan Deacon for this petition. I will allow committee members to ask questions before I give Susan an opportunity to ask questions or make points at the end.
Increasingly, consultation is an emerging theme in planning and I accept your example. I have two questions, just for my benefit. Did I pick you up right that the joint racing committee is a joint venture between the council and somebody else?
That is correct.
Okay. On that basis, the planning application will be referred to ministers.
It has been referred.
Is the development on common good land?
It is.
Was the land gifted to the people of Musselburgh? If it was, by whom and for what purpose was it gifted? Conditions may be attached to the usage of common good land. Have you investigated that?
Yes. It was gifted by a 1674 charter. Since that time, local people have tried to defend their rights to use the common good land and have raised interdicts in the courts to do that, some of which are in force. One of the interdicts allows the people of Musselburgh to play golf on the links, unhindered. As the committee can imagine, we believe that the developer's artificial all-weather track is contrary to the terms of that interdict.
Notwithstanding the consultation on the planning application, was there a separate consultation on the proposed use of the common good land?
No; that is one of our main objections. There has been no consultation with the community on the use of the common good land. East Lothian Council has a statutory responsibility to administer the land in the interests of the people. For that reason, there should have been more consultation with the people. In 1985, the former East Lothian District Council raised legislation to enable it to govern this piece of land. That legislation says that nothing shall prejudice the rights of the inhabitants of Musselburgh to play golf on the links. As far as we are concerned, the inhabitants of Musselburgh have not been consulted.
Would it be fair to say that your concerns relate not to the consultation that was done within the strict confines of the planning laws—you are not suggesting that the planning consultation was deficient in some way—but to wider community engagement issues about the use of common good land and so on?
That is correct. There was proper statutory consultation, but our concerns go more widely than that. In terms of the guidelines, councils have to consult communities. In this case, given the sensitive nature of the area in question, greater consultation should have been undertaken.
You said that the vote at the planning committee went very much along party lines. Surely you are not suggesting that councillors were whipped on a planning application? As you know, that would be a breach of ethical standards.
I am well aware of that. One group on the council is promoting the issue and that group also sits on the planning committee. With the best will in the world and within the current rules, it is very difficult for people not to be influenced by those around them. I am not suggesting in any way that there was a lack of probity, simply that it is human nature for individuals to be influenced by what their own people want to do.
My colleague Jackie Baillie emphasised that the decision of the planning committee was referred to the Scottish Executive. As I am sure you are aware, when a council has an interest in a proposal—in this case, a financial interest—the application is referred to ministers as a safeguard.
We are well aware of that.
Is it not therefore conceivable that your concerns may well be addressed by ministers, albeit that that would happen within the strict confines of the planning process?
Yes, they will be. However, irrespective of what happens in that process, that does not get over the fact that we should have been consulted an awful lot more and been enabled to make a greater input into the application than has been the case until now.
As I said, you are concerned about wider issues of community engagement by the council on the future use of common good land.
Yes.
Having read through the petition, I am very concerned about the situation. The lack of statutory consultation is one thing, but your petition clearly shows that there was a lack of meaningful consultation. That is something that we come across continually when we deal with petitions on planning issues.
That is correct. In this issue, the conflict of interest is complex; indeed, there is a multiple conflict of interest. They are councillors and they have to represent their constituents, but they are also members of the commercial enterprise. They have a statutory duty to administer the common good properly and, over and above that, they are members of the planning committee. We feel that their position has detracted from proper consultation. They do not want to consult us on the matter; at no time have they come to the community and tried to consult.
I note from your petition that the councillors did not attend a meeting that you held that was attended by 300 local people. We know that because of the conflict of interest the application has been pulled in by the Scottish Executive. Do you want the Executive to hold a public inquiry on the issue?
Both my colleagues would agree that the community feels that such an inquiry would be a great deal fairer and more impartial than what has happened so far.
The project will get an interest-free loan from the Horserace Betting Levy Board, provided that an all-weather track is included, and East Lothian Council is giving a £9 million low-interest loan. The HBLB has said that it will give its loan if the council's loan is forthcoming. The council's offer of funding comes despite the fact that, as you said, local people were not consulted or involved in any of the decision making.
They were not consulted beyond the statutory consultation requirements under the planning laws. When the information about the £9 million loan was made available to the community, it was looked on with horror. The planning application had not been decided and, given the sensitivity of the issue, the provision of such funding was not considered to be a reasonable approach to take.
If councillors who are willing to go forward with a loan are also members of the joint organisation, that is a concern. I will leave it at that, because other members want to raise issues.
I declare an interest, as I am a member at Ayr racecourse. A similar project is going ahead at Ayr, but there is huge community buy-in. I think that everyone is in favour of the project at Ayr.
Yes. The promoters claim that there will be a benefit to the local economy.
I presume that you dispute that.
Yes. We question the benefit that 60 all-weather racetrack meetings a year will bring to the local economy. The only benefit will be to the betting industry. All-weather tracks do not attract a lot of people for winter race meetings, but the races are televised in betting shops so that people can bet on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights when they have finished work. Our research shows that all-weather tracks in England are sometimes lucky if 500 people turn up on an evening.
All the shops and retail facilities will be closed when evening racing takes place under the floodlights.
I perhaps did not catch properly what you said. Is there a suggestion that the councillors who are on the planning committee might gain financially from the project? I hope that that is not the case, but I want you to clear that up.
At no point did I say that. The councillors who sit on the planning committee and who are also involved with Musselburgh joint racing committee disqualified themselves at the planning stage. What I said was that if a majority party decides to progress a project, it is only human nature that people will be influenced by others with whom they work. That is equally true here in Parliament. I am not saying that there is a lack of probity, but the matter causes great concern in the community because the perception is that the ruling party, whose members are the decision makers in the matter, wants to progress the matter. It may not be true, but that is the perception that people have.
Thank you for all the information that you have brought to us; you definitely know your stuff. I share your concerns about the statutory elements of consultation and the obligations that are, or are not, attached to that.
The consultation process, aside from the statutory aspects, mostly involved sending free tickets for the racecourse to residents of the area adjacent to the development. The developers addressed members of the local golf club, who use the golf course itself, although they have only 44 per cent use of the course. The only other consultation was a public meeting that was held by the community council in the Brunton hall, which was filled to capacity, and which was unanimously against the development. At that meeting, the manager of the racecourse came along with his experts on the development. They were very ill prepared and could not properly answer the questions. His comments on the benefits to the economy of the town were based purely on speculation and were not founded on any investigation of the town's current economy. That was the sum of the consultation outwith statutory procedures.
There is an artisan golf club whose members play on the links. As John Caldwell said, they play about 44 per cent of the golf on the links. The club's management committee comes largely from outside the town; they are not local people. There are statutory obligations to allow the people of Musselburgh to golf on the links and they have rights on the common good land, but that golf club was the only consultee on what was to happen to what is an historic golf course on which the playing of golf can be dated to before 1672. We feel that there should have been consultation of other people who golf on the links and of the people of the town.
I can give you an example of another consultation situation. Queen Margaret University College will shortly move to Musselburgh. From the very start, before planning applications were submitted, that institution has made big efforts to get the community involved and to explain what would happen when it came to Musselburgh. Representatives have come regularly to various local organisations and to community council meetings to give us updates. There is now a forum that started about a year ago; it is attended by members of different community organisations and information on the plans that the college has submitted are fed in to it. The college has taken on board all the issues and has developed its plans accordingly, making changes to accommodate the needs of the community. Much of that has been done without council help. I offer it as a different example of a development on a scale that affects the whole town.
I welcome the opportunity to make a few points. This issue has been difficult for the community and for everyone involved. I think that the committee has had a taste of that today.
That has been very helpful. We have to consider the general issue of how decisions are arrived at in the planning system. Although I understand fully the petitioners' concerns, we cannot consider the specifics of the case because it is before the Executive and there is due process to go through.
That is important. I would also like us to seek the views of East Lothian Council and perhaps the Musselburgh joint racing committee, rather than just send the petition to the Communities Committee, because I do not know when it will be able to consider the matter.
If we send the petition to the Communities Committee while it is taking evidence at stage 1 of the bill, it might be appropriate for it to seek information from local authorities about specific issues that we bring to its attention. I do not think that we can do both the things that Sandra White mentioned. If we want to retain possession of the petition and pursue specific questions, we will have to write to East Lothian Council. We would be unable to send the petition to the Communities Committee until we had received a reply from the council. If we send the petition to the Communities Committee, we have to trust it to pursue the points that we have raised in our discussion this morning.
I have concerns about the timescale. The Communities Committee has a number of issues to consider in relation to the third-party right of appeal. I do not think that it will have time to write to individual councils for information.
I guarantee that if we wait for a response from East Lothian Council, we will have missed the opportunity to send the petition to the Communities Committee while it is dealing with the bill at stage 1.
I agree. There is a window of opportunity for us to ask the Communities Committee to consider the petition during its consideration of an appropriate bill. Given the broader issues that the petition raises, it should go to the Communities Committee. I confess that normally I want the other side to have an input but, in this case, I suspect that the decision is made, so all we would get from East Lothian Council is a revisiting of its decision. I am conscious that if we send the petition to another committee we should not be writing letters elsewhere. Could we perhaps send it to the minister for information only?
Yes.
Excellent. I suggest that we do that.
Are there any other suggestions?
I accept Jackie Baillie's suggestion. If the petition is discussed when I am at the Communities Committee, I will suggest that that committee write to the council.
That is the way to do it. Are members happy for us to take forward the petition in that way?
It is important that we have confidence that this sort of thing will not happen again. A number of major developments in Musselburgh are due shortly. We would like to feel confident that there will be proper consultation on them.
All the points that you have raised will be recorded in the Official Report, which we will send to the Communities Committee, which is considering the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. As Sandra White said, the MSPs on that committee will have the opportunity to pursue the points that have been raised as they see fit. Thank you for coming to the committee.
Fish Farms (Protection of Rivers, Streams and Lochs) (PE941)
Our next new petition is PE941, by Frank M Buckley, on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Salmon and Sea Trout, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure greater protection of the rivers, streams and lochs of Scotland, such as Loch Broom and the River Gruinard, from fish farm developments. The petitioner is concerned about the impact of salmon farms on sea trout and salmon stocks, and the consequent impact on tourism and the wider economy.
It might be appropriate to seek the views of the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation, the Scottish Anglers National Association, the Fisheries Research Services, the Scottish Association for Marine Science, the institute of aquaculture at the University of Stirling and the Scottish Executive.
I thank Helen Eadie for those recommendations, with which I agree.
I agree that there has been a tremendous reduction in the wild fishery up and down the west coast of Scotland. There are many possible reasons for that, some of which we can confirm and others that we cannot. As John Scott said, the high incidence of sea lice is a big problem. Several suggestions have been made as to why we have that high incidence, one of which is that the sea lice come from caged fish up and down the coast. However, the caged-fish farmers say that the sea lice are a natural problem over which they have no control. A lot of research is being done on that. The recommendations in our briefing are sufficient—we should solicit information from the various agencies that have been suggested.
Are members happy to write to those agencies?
Family Law (PE944)
Our next petition is PE944, by Gary Strachan, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to investigate why Scottish law has no presumption of equal access to, or residence with, both parents for children after separation; why bias exists against fathers as equal parents in the Scottish court system; why contact orders are not enforced; and why parental responsibilities and rights are ignored by the medical, welfare and governmental institutions to the detriment of children. The petitioner considers that the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 has failed in its policy objectives of promoting the involvement of fathers in their children's lives.
In considering the Family Law (Scotland) Bill, the Justice 1 Committee struggled for a considerable time debating the issues. It recommended: a presumption in favour of joint parenting; the issuing of guidance to welfare, medical and other institutions; and the enforcement of contact orders, all of which matters are in the territory of the petition. Despite the Justice 1 Committee's recommendations, the measures did not emerge in the bill at stage 3, although the Executive made several commitments. Rather than dismiss the petition, could we write to the Executive to ask what it is doing on those commitments? One commitment was to undertake research, the second was to launch and then to evaluate pilot schemes to inform future policy development on contact orders, and the third was to provide additional funding of about £300,000. That money has not yet been allocated—I think that the Executive has involved the Justice 1 Committee in the allocation. I am keen for us to write to the Executive and, if the money has not been allocated, to consider an approach to the Justice 1 Committee.
That is a sound suggestion. I would be unhappy if we were to disregard the petition. None of the Justice 1 Committee's recommendations was taken into account, despite the fact that several amendments were lodged at various stages of the Family Law (Scotland) Bill. I am very much aware that the most upset constituents who have attended my surgeries have been fathers who have, for one reason or another, been denied access to their children. They feel that the law is hugely imbalanced against them. Jackie Baillie's proposals are worthy of pursuit.
Are members happy with that?
Quite a number of people have come to my surgeries over the years to complain about the issue. It is difficult to understand why an order that is made in court for a contractual arrangement is not enforced. Parents say that social work services will not take that work on and that the police will not back it, although such orders are enforceable in court. That is strange and causes considerable distress, as members know.
Are we happy to write to the Executive to ask the proposed questions? I hope that we will receive answers that address the concerns that John Farquhar Munro expressed.
Dunblane Primary School<br />(PE933, PE940 and PE948)
Petition PE933, which is by Doreen Hagger, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to instruct HM inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland to investigate Central Scotland police's dealings with Thomas Hamilton from 1975 to 1996 and to examine the 1,655 witness statements that were taken during the investigation into the shootings at Dunblane primary school on 13 March 1996.
Petition PE940, which is by Sandra Uttley, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to establish a new public inquiry into the shootings at Dunblane primary school on 13 March 1996. Petition PE948, which is by William Burns, also calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to establish a new public inquiry into the shootings at Dunblane primary school on 13 March 1996 to reinvestigate whether Thomas Hamilton led a "charmed life", who his associates were and to determine whether the original public inquiry failed to consider crucial available evidence.
The initial concern not just of petitioners, but of other people, was the 100-year rule. Subsequent petitions have mostly been from the same people and have been signed by just one petitioner. We wrote to the Lord Advocate and had some success in dealing with the 100-year rule. Some information is unavailable simply for reasons of privacy—I think that it concerns matters such as children's names.
I strongly support the convener's views. Sandra White alluded to the fact that every single document has been published on the website by the Lord Advocate, except for what has been redacted. It is significant that all that information is in the public domain. For the reasons that were mentioned—inquiries have been held elsewhere and the matter has been explored—it would be inappropriate for the committee to take further action. I agree that we should note the petitions and close them on the basis that they do not come from the families concerned. If there were any specifics, that would be a different matter, but for the moment I am not persuaded that we should take any further action.
On Helen Eadie's point about specifics, is any new information available? Has the information that we have in front of us today been seen before or has it only just come to light? It is perhaps up to the Lord Advocate or the Minister for Justice to tell us why they think the evidence should not be examined further. Obviously, I take on board the comments about the parents and I do not want to reopen old wounds. If there is no new evidence, I do not see the point of pursuing the matter, but if there is—
I looked at the e-mail from William Burns yesterday and I did not see anything new in what he is claiming. There are some specifics and more accusations, but I do not see any new evidence. However, if members think that there is new information, they can argue the point. I did not find anything remotely new in the information that was submitted—just different ways of arguing the point that has been put to us before.
I agree with the convener about not in any way harming the families who were involved in the Dunblane massacre, or the community. If people have noticed holes or uninvestigated areas, we must consider them as sensitively as we can, given the circumstances. I understand from Sandra Uttley's evidence that the Scottish information commissioner seems to be making further inquiries into some of the stuff under the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) 2002. Should we notify Kevin Dunion and seek his views on the matter?
It seems to me that Sandra Uttley has already taken the information to the appropriate person. We could write to Kevin Dunion and get the same response as Sandra Uttley, but—
We now have three petitions on the matter rather than just one. I do not know—I am aware of the sensitivities of the matter, but some of the stuff jumps out at me and I have to ask questions. I do not want any of us to look back and say, "If only…" because we missed an opportunity to look at the matter properly.
As I said, the petitioner has made an FOI request. I do not think that it is appropriate for the committee to make inquiries about an FOI request that has been submitted. If the petitioner discovers something new from her request and it highlights another issue, she is entitled to lodge another petition. However, she has not actually uncovered anything—she has just made an FOI request, which does not add to the information that we have already considered. If the FOI request uncovers something new, that would take us into a different area, but at the moment all we are being told is that more information is being sought. That does not mean that more information has been discovered. You can disagree with me, Rosie, but—
I am just seeking guidance, really. I have concerns.
As I said, if new information came up and a new petition was lodged that addressed it, the Public Petitions Committee would be more than willing to take that forward. My view is that the call for an inquiry is based, again, on people's suspicions rather than on information.
Such calls must be evidence based.
If we allowed these petitions to be taken forward, we might not be acting in the best interests of those who are affected, but in the interests of those who have a theory that there might have been something untoward, but who have yet to uncover anything to substantiate that theory. Are members happy that we just close the petitions on that basis?
Next
Current Petitions