Official Report 254KB pdf
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Public Petitions Committee's 11th meeting in 2005. I have received apologies from Helen Eadie. John Scott and John Farquhar Munro have both said that they will have to leave for part of the meeting. They will come back, but they have other meetings to attend.
Convener, I told you in advance that I would raise a point about PE853, on services for children with special needs. I asked the clerk for an explanation of why the petitioners are not being allowed to present their case verbally and I was told that it was because we had already heard about similar petitions. However, the petition is about special needs schools, not rural schools, and I seek clarification on why the petitioners will not be allowed to be heard.
I thought that we were going to discuss that when we came to that petition on the agenda.
I thought that it would be mannerly to bring it forward.
If you want to discuss the issue now, I can explain clearly why I felt that it was unnecessary in that case for the petitioners to give oral evidence. The pro forma that accompanies the submission of a petition asks whether the petitioners would like the chance to speak to the committee if required. We have discussed the guidelines on school closures on a number of occasions and the guidelines for rural schools and special needs schools are exactly the same. We have exhausted the discussion. We have considered a number of petitions before and referred them to the Education Committee, which conducted an inquiry into the matter. We have also had numerous responses from the minister. I honestly do not believe that the petitioners for PE853 could bring to the committee anything that would add to what we already know about the subject.
I raised the matter because I still think that special needs schools are different from rural schools. I know the legislation and I have read through it, but the Equal Opportunities Committee, of which I am a member, has found that a great deal of controversy and concern surround the mainstreaming of special needs children. I still think that PE853 is different, because it relates to a special needs school.
I understand that, but you made a suggestion that was quite offensive. Not hearing from the petitioners is not a discourtesy to them. We must listen to presentations about petitions on a host of issues. The other petitions that are before us are on new issues about which we will gain additional information when the petitioners talk. I must judge whether it is the best use of the committee's time to listen to something that it has already heard.
I did not say the word "discourteous".
You made a comment and I have responded.
The Equal Opportunities Committee has not examined the matter before, but it is considering it now.
If that committee is considering the issue, we can bear that in mind when we discuss the petition.
Ancient Woodland (PE858)
We move to the petitions for which petitioners are here; I thank them for coming. Our first petition is PE858 from Andrew Fairbairn, on behalf of the Woodland Trust Scotland, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to address the threat to the fragmented remnants of ancient woodland by fulfilling its commitment to protect the nation's rarest and richest wildlife habitat under the United Kingdom forest partnership for action, which was made in preparation for the world summit on sustainable development in 2002.
First, I thank the committee for taking the time to hear evidence on this important issue. Our petition has struck a chord with the public and received more than 3,000 signatures, of which 2,625 were electronic, which I think is a record. We are also pleased by how much support our petition has received from outside Scotland. People from 43 countries throughout Europe, Asia, the Americas, Africa and Australasia signed the petition, which shows the international significance of, and value that is attached to, our ancient woods.
Thank you for your interesting statement. Are you involved in discussions with the Executive? If so, what has the Executive pledged to do? What progress has been made?
We have had discussions. One of my colleagues will tell you more about them.
I lodged the petition and I apologise for not making the opening statement—I thought that I would be moving house today but the deal fell through, so I am here.
After the Executive carried out its consultation on tree preservation orders, it made a public commitment to ensuring that the Forestry Commission would be a statutory consultee in planning applications that involved woodland. Which criteria would you like the Forestry Commission to use? The implication behind your statement is that you feel that the suggested approach will not protect ancient woodlands.
We know of examples in which felling licences have been granted for ancient woodland. We feel that there is no room for compromise. We have a finite resource of which very little is left. We think that it is worth protecting, particularly given the duties that the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 placed on public bodies in respect of biodiversity. As Angela Douglas said, ancient woodland is our most biodiverse habitat. If we do not try to protect it, what is the point of the duty in the 2004 act? We have not heard from the Forestry Commission that it is fully committed to protecting all ancient woodland, which is what we want to hear. If we hear that, we will be happy, but we have not heard that.
It is important to stress that we are not against development. In a handful of cases, we have been able to get involved before it is too late and, where there is a willingness, we have found that it is often possible to ameliorate any damage. That is what we want to happen. We are not saying that development must not take place; we are trying to ensure that it happens in the right places and that the bits of the country that are irreplaceable and which are critical to us are not lost.
You will be aware that a review of the Scottish forestry strategy will be undertaken this year. Were you involved in the previous one and are you likely to be involved in this one?
We were heavily involved in the previous one and were disappointed that a number of the comments that we and others made were not taken on board. Clearly, the Scottish Parliament has established some key factors and we believe that developments in areas of international policy will strengthen the case for amending parts of that strategy. We are pleased that, this time round, we have been able to have early discussions with the Forestry Commission and the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development to discuss the changes that we want to be made.
Were you involved in the consultations that were undertaken in 2002 and 2004 on the new planning bill?
We have been involved in discussions on the planning bill, mainly through Scottish Environment LINK, and have tried to feed into it. We have also responded to the consultation on tree preservation orders, which included the Forestry Commission as a statutory consultee, which will be included in the planning bill. We have been feeding into the process, but part of the problem is that the planning process is not picking up the destruction of ancient woodland, as Andy Fairbairn mentioned. NPPG 14 states that ancient woodland should be protected, but that is not reflected in structure plans and local plans. The move to local development plans might afford an opportunity for us to include more enhanced protection, on which we will seek to have discussions over the next year or so.
The difficulty with NPPG 14 is that it is guidance, so local authorities do not feel that they need to abide by it—it is there for interpretation. In looking at structure plans and local plans, we have found that the protection of ancient woodland is often referred to in the text but is not followed up by the policies in the plans. There is a big discrepancy.
That is an important point, because the local plan is the key to all decision making at a local level. We met the Scottish Executive to discuss that point. The wording in the planning guidance for Scotland is pretty good, and in fact other parts of the UK have used it as an example. However, the Executive told us that it is guidance and that local authorities do not have to adhere to it; they need only acknowledge that it is there. That is a weak link.
I understand what you say about guidance and legislation. Do you see the way forward as being a forestry bill to protect ancient woodland or the new planning bill?
We have identified two actions that could be taken in the planning system to solve the problem, which Flavia will outline.
First, in the current system there is the option to create a specific designation for ancient woodland, which would mean that all the planning systems would pick that up at a local level. Once a development has been identified as encroaching on ancient woodland, the relevant expert advice—whether from SNH or the FC—would be involved and a decision would be taken. The other option is formally to request local authorities to include the ancient woodland inventory on their geographic information systems. Once a development was identified as being on ancient woodland, the same mechanisms would come into play and relevant consultation would take place.
But the issue could be included in the new planning bill.
Indeed.
What is the point of having planning guidance if nobody pays attention to it? The Scottish Executive producing guidance is a waste of time if people do not adhere to it or use it. Serious consideration needs to be given to planning policy guidance across the board, but our particular concern is about NPPG 14, which clearly states that ancient and semi-natural woodlands should be preserved.
The point about the Scottish forestry strategy was also good. The more we can raise the profile of ancient woodlands and increase their importance on the agenda, the better. It would be super to see in a revised Scottish forestry strategy particular attention being paid to the protection and better management of ancient woods throughout Scotland.
I am interested in what you say about NPPG 14. I do not have experience of it, but I have experience of NPPG 11, which is about encroaching on ground that is used for sport and leisure activity. Of course, the "G" in NPPG stands for "guidance", and that is the problem. By and large, NPPG 11 is adhered to; it has sportscotland as a consultee, which might not be 100 per cent effective but is fairly effective. My interpretation of your comments is that you are not exactly confident that when the Forestry Commission is made a statutory consultee, it will be able to provide the protection that you seek. What difference will it make if the Forestry Commission is a statutory consultee?
That will depend on the brief that it is given and how it reacts to it. If the Forestry Commission was given the task of fulfilling its biodiversity duty, and the fact that ancient woods contain more threatened species than does any other UK habitat—263 individual species—was clearly stated, it would be failing in its duty if those woods were being purposely destroyed. The issue then would be whether the Forestry Commission has the resources to respond to requests for information within an adequate timescale. Those are big questions. It would be fantastic if such commitments could be given.
The Forestry Commission would have to have the resources. If it did not have the resources to do the job, it would have to be given them to ensure that it could respond.
It is probably to do with other pressures. The issue is not at the top of the agenda. The Forestry Commission's primary drive is to generate income from the national forest estate, of which it has a vast proportion. That is time-consuming. The policy team is tiny; one person deals with all environment aspects. The commission has resources issues as well as other priorities that currently take up a greater proportion of time and effort.
When the Forestry Commission becomes a statutory consultee, I hope that that will change, because the fact that it will have to keep an eye on the situation—if it is not doing so already—will be highlighted. Do you accept that?
I would be delighted if that were the case. The definition of woodland that the commission is given will also be critical, because there are issues about the percentage of canopy cover and the minimum area that is classed as woodland or forestry. If the definition was perfect, the issue could be resolved very quickly. There will always be a tension when a developer wants to progress a project that will have an impact. We strongly advocate that that impact should be minimised wherever possible. We have experienced good joint working on such issues in the handful of cases in which we—a tiny team trying to cover the whole of Scotland—have been able to enter into constructive dialogue with developers.
The wording of the petition calls on the Executive to address the threat
Sure. I have the "UK Forest Partnership for Action" document in front of me. One of the five areas for action on forest restoration and protection is to
The Executive has signed up to that but it is not doing it.
Not yet.
You have met representatives of the Executive and raised the point. What was the Executive's response when asked why it is not fulfilling that part of the agreement?
We are signed up to the partnership agreement as well; it is an agreement among the industry, environmental groups and Governments, and it is UK-wide. We have tried to raise the issue more than once through parliamentary questions, and through meetings with MSPs and various ministers with responsibility for forestry. For some reason, the UK forest partnership for action does not seem to have any influence over policy implementation. I do not know why that is.
I understand that the partnership has not met since the document was produced, which is a great shame. There has been no follow-up action to measure progress.
I am interested in the commitment that the Executive has given, which you say is not being fulfilled. Have you received a response from the Executive that argues that it is taking action to fulfil the commitment or says that it cannot afford to do so?
The main reason that the Executive has given is that the matter will be dealt with at UK level. However, that is not appropriate, because forestry is devolved. The different countries of the UK must address forestry through their own processes. I feel strongly that we need to make progress on the matter.
Our database of woods under threat has been running for only 12 months, but 184 cases of potential damage to ancient woodland in Scotland have been brought to our attention in that period. If that rate of damage continues, we cannot wait 10 years for action, because it will be too late by then. As I said, if the rate of damage continues, in 50 years' time all our ancient woods will have been damaged. The matter is urgent.
Members have asked most of the questions that I intended to ask. Do ancient woodlands have special protection area status?
No. SPA status is given to important bird habitats, but special area of conservation status, which is similar to SPA status under the Natura 2000 scheme, could be given to woodland. A site must have SSSI status before it can even be considered for SAC status, but fewer than a quarter of ancient woods have SSSI status. I do not have the figures to hand, but we could easily find out how many of those woods have SAC status.
Why does not more ancient woodland have SSSI status? It is usual for Scottish Natural Heritage to be fastidious about pursuing the protection of areas that it considers worthy of protection, but SNH has hardly been mentioned. Why has SNH not sought protected status for such woodland? I do not always agree with SNH, but I know that the organisation is thorough.
You raise an important point, which reflects the difficulty that we face. The SSSI system was set up to identify examples of the best habitats and was never intended to be a comprehensive system that would identify and protect all important habitats. When SSSIs were devised, each area office of the then Nature Conservation Commission—subsequently SNH—designated one example of a wet wood, one of a bog, one of a riverine wood and so on. The offices were limited in how many areas they could designate, so the SSSIs were only a representative sample.
Do you think that all our ancient woodland should be adequately catalogued and then protected?
There is an inventory, which was produced in the early 1990s, so it is a bit out of date. That inventory was provisional and was based on two map-based pieces of evidence—General Roy's 1750s military maps of Scotland, which were produced for a specific purpose, and the subsequent first editions of the Ordnance Survey maps in 1860. A real opportunity is coming up. The Forestry Commission is talking about conducting a survey of all native woodlands in Scotland, largely because the minister was embarrassed that he could not report to Europe on progress on our woodland habitat action plan, as he could not be told how much woodland habitat there was and whether it was adequately protected and managed—hence the timing of our petition. At the moment, the Forestry Commission has no intention of recording the antiquity or age of woodlands—the length of time that they have been in place. If that were to be done, we would have a great opportunity to have an up-to-date field survey of all the ancient woods in Scotland. In fact, a booklet on ancient woodlands that SNH produced some time ago said:
SNH is a bit reluctant to designate particular habitats, but ancient woodland covers a tiny proportion—only around 1 per cent—of Scotland's land area. We think that that woodland is well worth protecting.
Does SNH think so too? If it does, I suppose that it would have protected that woodland already. If not, does that suggest that it is at odds with your position? I am being awkward, but I am simply trying to tease out—
You have the luxury of playing devil's advocate and you are right to do so. The difficulty is that SNH rightly considers the Forestry Commission to be the Government's forestry department. Over the past 10 years or so, since the inventories were produced, we have noticed a stepping away from woodlands as a priority, as SNH thinks that the Forestry Commission should undertake such a role. The Forestry Commission does not have a legal obligation with respect to nature conservation, which SNH has under European directives and so on. In a way, the issue falls between two stools. The Forestry Commission does not have the power to identify designated sites.
Under the planning system, it is thought that the only important sites are designated sites. SSSIs were designated as habitat sites, for example, as the planning system uses designations for a purpose for which they were not designed, which is pretty fundamental.
That is clear. Thank you.
Do members have any ideas about what to do with the petition? Obviously, we must write to the Scottish Executive to start off with, but it would probably be good to sound out organisations in the industry. It has been suggested that we should seek views from the UK forest partnership for action on why things are not moving forward. That would be useful.
We could seek the Forestry Commission's views.
Yes.
We could write to SNH. I would be interested to hear its perspective on the comments that have been made.
As the convener said, we could write to the Scottish Executive. I would like to know why we have not moved forward since 2002.
On the point that I raised with the petitioners, if the Executive has obligations under the UK forest partnership for action, why are those obligations not being fulfilled?
It would be useful to hear from people who have another interest in forestry—those who cut down trees.
We could seek the views of the Confederation of Forest Industries.
It would be interesting to hear its views on the matter.
We are members.
I suppose that cutting down trees occasionally is appropriate.
We believe that, too. That is part of sound management. Ancient woodlands do not have to be preserved in aspic—they can still be managed. The issue is sustainable management rather than depleting our resources. Trees grow and die and some can be taken out without any damage being caused. The issues are not incompatible.
We want to raise specific points with the Executive. Mike Watson's point is a start, but I am keen to explore how the Executive envisages the Scottish forestry strategy review that is to be undertaken, whether the issue in question will be included in that review and whether—as I suspect—the Executive's intention in bringing forward the Forestry Commission as a statutory consultee will meet the overwhelming part, if not all, of what the petitioners seek. There are two separate issues that we need to explore.
We will do that.
We are actively involved in the preparation of the new Scottish forestry strategy, which is at an early stage, and we are putting forward all those points to the people who are preparing it. If we can get that sort of commitment into the new strategy, we will be extremely pleased. If the Forestry Commission also adopts that policy, it will be well down the road to answering a lot of our questions.
We have a host of questions for a number of organisations, and we will let you know about the responses that we receive. We shall progress the matter as far as we can once we have more information from the bodies that we want to contact. Thank you very much for bringing us your interesting petition.
European Funding (South of Scotland) (PE850)
Our next petition, PE850, is by Andrew Wood, on behalf of supporters of the south of Scotland alliance. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to apply pressure on the UK Government to renegotiate the NUTS II—nomenclature of territorial units for statistics—boundaries with the European Commission, especially in relation to the south of Scotland. Andrew Wood will make a brief statement to the committee in support of his petition, and then we shall discuss it.
Thank you for allowing me to make a presentation. The supporters of the south of Scotland alliance work in the Cairndale group, whose remit is for rural development in Dumfries and Galloway. We liaise with the south of Scotland alliance, which is meeting in Brussels today with Eurostat and with members of the European Parliament. I believe that members have letters from one or two MEPs; there should also be a letter from Eurostat.
Thank you.
Good morning, Andrew. I declare an interest, because I know Andrew Wood. I did not even know what NUTS stood for until I read it in the committee papers: it is the nomenclature of territorial units for statistics. No wonder that it is also called NUTS.
I confess that I do not have that information at hand, but other regions in the EU have been reclassified and have managed to secure extra support. I understand from Eurostat that that is feasible. There is nothing to prevent that from happening. All that we require is not to have parts of Edinburgh and Glasgow included in the area. Their inclusion works against us when it comes to our gross domestic product, because it throws us over the 75 per cent of GDP limit. If those areas were taken out of the equation, that would assist us greatly and it would definitely allow us to get full status and support for the area.
Perhaps if we write to someone we can find out which other regions with a similar population qualify for NUTS II.
It is not imminent, but frankly we will have to act very quickly because, as we all know, politics is a very slow moving process. We have approximately a year to work in. That sounds like a long time, but it is not when it comes to politics. I urge the committee to act as promptly as it possibly can.
Minimum and maximum population numbers, which are set down in regulations, would ordinarily rule out the south of Scotland, but I accept that that is not a showstopper. However, have you considered what a reclassification of the south of Scotland would do to other areas in Scotland?
I am led to believe that it would have no impact because the areas that we are talking about taking out are already in a lower classification. A reclassification would not be to their detriment in any shape or form; it would enhance the south of Scotland and have no effect on the other areas that we are talking about.
I, too, have a timescale question. I hear what my colleague Sandra White has said, but I do not think that it gets to the nub of the issue. My understanding is that no NUTS review would be completed until after 1 January 2008. It is not the closing date for the consultation that I am interested in, but the practical effect of it. Given that the review will not be completed until 1 January 2008, surely it would be too late to influence the funds allocation for 2007 to 2013, which happens at the start of 2007?
Indeed. That is why we have to act as quickly as possible. I hear what you are saying about 2007 and 2008, but we do not want to act too late.
I shall clarify what I was saying. I think that this is the showstopper in your petition: irrespective of what we do, the regulations do not come into force vis-Ã -vis population until 1 January 2008, as the Eurostat letter with which you supplied us states. That will come too late to influence the funds allocation for 2007 to 2013, which is the basis of your petition, which will happen in 2007. Even if we made a submission tomorrow, the process is such that a conclusion will not be reached at European level until 2008, so it is too late. Am I wrong?
No. I am not suggesting that you are wrong; all I am suggesting is that if we do not act, we do not know what we are going to get. I hear what you are saying, but we have to try to get what we are asking for in the coming reassessment if we can. If we cannot, we must have it in place for the subsequent reassessment.
For 2014?
Basically, if it is not achievable in the current timescale.
My reading of the letter from Günther Hanreich of Eurostat backs up what Jackie Baillie just said. You said that if nothing can be done in time for the coming round of structural funding, something could be done in time for the subsequent round. If you believe in the case that you are putting forward, although you do not want a gap of seven years, it would still be worth pursuing after that.
I do not have an answer for you at this stage.
The information that we have is from our clerks, who are ultra-reliable. Given what the regulations state, it seems that the population issue to which Herr Hanreich refers is an insurmountable hurdle.
Yes.
I can see from the map how far south South Ayrshire stretches; it must be part of the south of Scotland. I wonder whether simply adopting two local authority boundaries is the best way to designate the south of Scotland area, although I understand that that has wider implications.
To return to your figures, I was led to believe that the 800,000 figure was not set in stone; it can be varied depending on the area.
There would have to be a big variant, would there not? There would have to be a complete departure from that principle.
Even at present we are not sitting anywhere near 800,000.
I accept that. The current NUTS II area must have a population of more than 800,000.
Not at present. Not as far as I am aware. I think that we are still short.
I am going by the map that we have here. The NUTS II areas of south-west Scotland seem to me—although it is difficult to be precise—to include Glasgow. Glasgow alone has about 600,000 people, so you must be in the 800,000 bracket.
I apologise; I did not realise that the area took in the whole of Glasgow.
I, too, am trying to understand the areas that we are talking about. For example, I have a specific interest in South Ayrshire, but does that area come under a NUTS III designation?
Yes.
It is therefore regarded as an area of even greater deprivation. Is that what NUTS III means?
Yes.
The only areas that your petition covers are Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. The other areas—South Lanarkshire, South Ayrshire, East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire—have different designations already, which entitle them to more European Union support than Dumfries and Galloway is entitled to.
That is right.
Thank you. That clears that up.
We are joined this morning by Christine Grahame MSP, who has an interest in this petition.
Yes. I have had lots of meetings about the difficulties in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders that have been caused by the NUTS II designation. Population is not paramount in designations; for example, the Highlands and Islands do not have substantial populations. The problem for Dumfries and Galloway is that its area brings in Glasgow, and the problem for the Borders is that its area brings in Edinburgh. That distorts the economic position of the areas.
We have that letter.
There is political turmoil at the moment because of EU funding, and I suspect that there will be more time to argue cases such as this one.
I do not doubt the veracity of what Christine Grahame is telling us. However, if a conclusion is arrived at even later than 1 January 2008, it will most definitely not influence the allocation of funds for 2007-13.
Because of the current political furore in Europe over funding, everything is up for grabs. Everything could change and these arguments should still be made. Funding may change in the coming year or so, although perhaps not during the UK presidency of the next six months.
I asked about the timescale, as did Jackie Baillie. The reply from Eurostat to Alyn Smith says:
Christine Grahame knows more about the matter than we do. What effect will the designation that the petitioners seek for the south and south-west of Scotland have on Glasgow and Edinburgh?
It will have no impact on them. As Andrew Wood said, to bring up Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, as it were, would not affect Glasgow and Edinburgh, which do not need such economic support. They are not beneficiaries in any event.
Do you mean that they are not beneficiaries of any funding?
To the best of my knowledge, although I cannot really speak on the matter, they do not have anything like the funding that the Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway have. In fact, it is hard to work out exactly how much European funding goes to the south of Scotland. You can see from today's Business Bulletin that I have asked a parliamentary question on that. Scottish Enterprise Borders could not tell me and nobody can tell it. It knows what goes into certain pots but not the total amount. I know how many millions the farming and business communities say that they will lose and I know the money that Scottish Enterprise Borders gets from European funding, but I do not know the totality of European funding. I suspect that it is a great deal, as there are many funding streams.
To be absolutely clear, I point out that it is not in any doubt that we can submit information at any time that we like. My comments are focused on the outcome that the petitioners want, which is key for us. Notwithstanding what Christine Grahame said, my understanding is that, whatever information we submit, it will not influence the outcome of the allocation for 2007 to 2013. We need to ensure that people have realistic expectations of what we can achieve. That is not a reason for doing nothing, but we must be realistic about what we can achieve, not unrealistic.
Scottish Enterprise Borders is certainly not of that view. Its view is that the argument to obtain the funding is still to be made and won.
Having heard from the petitioner and heard the discussion, I think that we could get some clarification on a number of areas. We must consider to whom we can write in order to get that clarification.
In the first place, we should write to Scottish Enterprise Borders or Scottish Enterprise. I suggest that we also write to the Scottish Agricultural College, which did a lot of work and produced figures on the loss of income to the south of Scotland post foot-and-mouth disease, BSE and the loss of objective 5b status. It should have that work, which is historical but could probably be updated relatively easily, and could probably give us some information on the matter. We could write to the Office for National Statistics and the south of Scotland European partnership, if that would be helpful.
We should also write to the Executive.
I would like an answer to the question about population. The European Commission has an office in Edinburgh, so we should simply ask it. Christine Grahame mentioned the Highlands and Islands. Its population is less than 800,000, but it is an established region.
That is correct.
To make the case for establishing another region with a lower population level would be a more difficult matter than simply saying that one such region exists already. I would like clarification on that.
I would also like clarification on the timescale.
I suggest that the committee write to the south of Scotland alliance. It is trying to establish the south of Scotland as a region on the same basis as the Highlands and Islands to get equity.
The south of Scotland alliance is the petitioner; Mr Wood is petitioning the Parliament on its behalf.
Yes, but more detail on the—
The south of Scotland alliance is the petitioner and there is no point in writing to the petitioner on the petition. However, we will remain in dialogue with the alliance and supply it with the information that we gather from the other bodies to which we write, once we have the responses.
Children's Services (Special Needs) (PE853)
The next petition is PE853, which is on services for children with special needs. The petition, which is by Ken Venters, on behalf of the Carronhill action team, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce legislation to require all proposals to close or alter facilities and services for children with special needs to be referred to the Executive and to require detailed consultation with the parents of the affected children. The petition also calls for the implementation of a moratorium on the closure of special needs schools until such legislation is in place. The petitioner is a representative of the Carronhill action team, which was set up in response to the proposed closure of Carronhill School in Aberdeenshire, which provides education for pupils with additional needs.
The background to the issue is that Aberdeenshire Council is working to upgrade and improve its whole school estate and has come up with options that could improve schools through the £200 million or thereabouts that will become available when the next tranche of money comes from the Scottish Executive. However, the council did not produce a plan and then consult on it; if it had done so, everybody would be in uproar. Instead, sensibly, the council produced options and has consulted on them.
For clarity, I point out that I referred to rural schools in connection with PE725 and PE753, which were specifically about rural schools, but which led us to consider the guidelines, which affect special needs schools, rural schools and all other categories of schools.
No. People have criticised consultations in the past because a council or health board has come up with a plan and then consulted on it. Aberdeenshire Council came up with a variety of options—A to E—and put them out for consultation. I support that, but there is a reasonable fear among the parents and the population of Stonehaven that the plan is to close Carronhill School. However, there is no plan to close Carronhill School; that is just one of the options. The idea behind that option is that money could be invested in special units in other local schools. The local community is completely against that, but it is just one option. What I am trying to say is that the result of the first tranche of consultation has shown that nobody supports the closure of the school. I find it inconceivable that the council would choose that option, having consulted and found nobody in support of it.
You said that various options have been offered. Is the status quo one of those options?
No. There is nothing wrong with the school's structure, but it needs to be refurbished. As a result, one of the options is to keep the whole school estate where it is and to refurbish it. I have to say that that was not one of the original options; it came about as a result of the first part of the consultation, which showed that there was no support for the option to build special units in local schools.
And I presume that, although the school is in Stonehaven, pupils from a much wider area attend it.
Indeed they do.
If the school were to be closed, what would be the nearest available school for the parents of those children?
The other option is St Andrew's school in Inverurie. However, as it is in the same education authority area, I suppose that we could say that it is also under threat. In my view, there is no real option for the parents and children of Carronhill School other than to keep and refurbish it—which, as I have said, is one of the options.
If St Andrew's school closes, what would be the option for the Aberdeenshire area?
The difference between St Andrew's school, which is in Nora Radcliffe's constituency, and Carronhill School is that St Andrew's real estate is just not up to scratch. Basically, it needs to be demolished and rebuilt somewhere. Options face all sorts of Aberdeenshire schools, including these two special needs schools. However, closing Carronhill School would leave the parents and children there with no facility.
So is Aberdeenshire Council proposing to send the children into mainstream education?
You must remember that this is an option, not a proposal.
Well—
No, but seriously—
If the status quo is not an option, there must be something else.
The other option is to build special units that are attached to mainstream schools.
Before I bring in Jackie Baillie, I should point out that we are here to discuss the petition, not to interrogate Mike Rumbles.
I am just here to support the petition.
I should also point out that we have to be careful here. After all, we do not judge a local authority's decisions. Mike Rumbles has told us that there is an on-going process that will allow the parents and the rest of the local community who are involved in Carronhill to have their say. It would be wrong of us to begin to examine that issue. Instead, we have to consider whether there is a problem with the consultation or the guidelines. We are focusing on generalities not on the specific question whether this or that school should or should not close.
That leaves me lots to say, convener. You cannot shut me up quite so easily.
Aberdeenshire Council's consultation, which is on the whole plan for Aberdeenshire schools, has focused on this matter, particularly in my constituency, because it is the big issue there.
I do not think that that is the Executive's policy; such measures are proposed only when they are suitable for the child. However, let us not debate that here. Does the specific point that I made about schools that are at 80 per cent capacity offer any comfort in this situation?
I do not think that the school is at 80 per cent capacity. I do not want to mislead the committee because I do not have that information, but the attractions of Carronhill School include the site, the facilities and the classrooms. It is probably not at capacity, although I am not sure about that.
As I said at the beginning of the meeting, I think that the kids and their parents should have given us evidence. Mike Rumbles is right—the problem is not just with this school. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to look at the
So why did we need to hear from a specific school to understand that?
Specific people lodged the petition, but it does not ask for action to be taken on Carronhill School. I do not want to labour that point, but I raised the matter at the beginning of the meeting because it concerned me.
Mike Rumbles is not here to answer questions. Sandra, I could not agree with you more that the problem is general. The issue with which we are dealing is to do with whether the guidelines offer protection to communities for their schools and the services that are provided. We have guidelines on that, but if they are breached in this decision or if the criteria for permission to close schools are breached, that is something that the Scottish Executive will have to look at; it is not for us to judge whether that has been the case. That is not the role of this committee. We have to ensure that the issues that are raised in the petition are properly addressed in terms of what we can do by asking the Executive or the Parliament to address them.
The petition calls on the Parliament
I am happy with that. We should write to the Minister for Education and Young People, both to address that point and to establish whether the protection that the petitioner is evidently seeking exists. Secondly, we should write to Aberdeenshire Council to get its view. That will also draw the council's attention—if its attention needs to be drawn—to the fact that the petitioners are here today.
I agree with that. I also wonder whether, if it is not too soon to do so, we should send the petition to the Education Committee, which has a review of schools in its future work programme. Alternatively, perhaps we should wait until we get responses to our letters.
I think that we should wait for the responses so that we know exactly what we are sending to the Education Committee. When we send petitions to other committees, those committees are happier if we have a specific purpose behind doing that, rather than simply seeking a way for the petition to be addressed. If we wait for the responses from the Executive and the local authority, we can then pass them to the Education Committee for consideration as part of its future work programme. We will ask the Executive whether it believes that the current guidelines are working or whether there is potential for new legislation.
I have another question for Mike Rumbles. From the discussion that we have had, there seems to be no suggestion that Aberdeenshire Council is doing anything other than acting entirely properly. Is that right?
That is correct. In my view, the process is absolutely correct. As I said earlier, the council did not produce a plan and say, "Let's consult on it." It did things the other way round. It said, "Here are the options that are before us. Let's consult on them." Obviously, one of the options was to close the school, and that obviously upset the parents because it is a very good school. I emphasise the fact that none of the responses to the consultation supported the school's closure. As far as I am concerned, Aberdeenshire Council is behaving in absolutely the correct way.
Do members agree that we should write to the Executive and Aberdeenshire Council?
I apologise to David Davidson. When he joined us, we were already concluding our discussion.
Roads, Pavements and Footpaths (Maintenance) (PE855)
Our next petition is PE855, which has been lodged by Leslie Morrison on behalf of Kirkside area residents. It calls on the Scottish Parliament
Thank you. I have just rushed in from the Environment and Rural Development Committee meeting.
I suggest that we give Maureen Macmillan the chance to read the response that all members of the committee have received from Highland Council this morning, which is interesting. I am sorry—the response is from one of the councillors in the area rather than from the council itself. The councillor seems to be suggesting that most of the work has been done or is in the frame to be done. She says that budgetary restrictions are an issue, not just in that part of the Highland Council area. On first reading, that response does not seem unreasonable—provided that the information is correct, of course.
The Local Government and Transport Committee, of which I am a member, has given extensive consideration to the matter. The Transport (Scotland) Bill will set up the Scottish road works commissioner, who will have the role of ensuring that there is good co-ordination on the amount of work that is required, that proper records are kept of that and that the standard of roads is maintained. There is a wider issue about the upkeep of roads and the amount of money that is available to local authorities to maintain the roads to a proper standard. I think that that is especially the case in rural areas, although John Scott will know more about that.
It is not specifically a rural problem. From the potholes that I drive over, I think that it is as big a problem in urban areas as it is in rural areas. The petition asks us to consider the generality of the problem. There is a road maintenance backlog that local authorities throughout Scotland are failing to cope with. I would not necessarily say that that was their fault, as the money is simply not available. It is well documented that the roads are deteriorating faster than they can be maintained. I am sure that the Executive must be aware of that issue, but we might wish to heighten its awareness of it.
The information that I have been able to glean from the petition has been useful to my consideration of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. It might be helpful if we sent the petition to members of the Local Government and Transport Committee for their information because it raises many of the issues that we have sought to address in the bill.
I knew that money had been earmarked for work to remove the cobblestones, but the last time that I spoke to the residents there was no word about any resurfacing being done. I am pleased that some resurfacing will be done, although I suspect that the £15,000 that has been allocated will be enough only for patching and for dealing with the worst puddles. Such roads need serious investment.
It might be useful to get an overview of the situation from the Executive.
We must be moving towards stage 3 of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Uniformity of provision should be a consideration because the quality of roads can vary dramatically as one drives from one local authority area to another. I do not know whether it is a realistic aspiration for the commissioner to have a remit to establish a standard for road maintenance, but I am aware that local authorities have different problems in coping with road maintenance.
Without going into too much detail, I note that that is exactly what the road works commissioner is intended to do. One problem has been that although utility companies must provide a record of their work on roads, local authorities do not need to. The bill was amended to ensure that local authorities, too, must give a record of work that has been done and show that it was to a proper standard, so that road maintenance is as uniform as possible. It will be for the road works commissioner to ensure such uniformity. A standard that is set in one local authority area must be pursued in all 32 local authority areas. I hope that the bill will address the issues that the petition raises.
Will the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities share its views with us?
Why not? We will obtain COSLA's perspective. Is that okay?
Thank you, convener.
Mordechai Vanunu (PE864)
Petition PE864 by Mick Napier calls on the Scottish Parliament to congratulate Mordechai Vanunu on his election as the 119th rector of the University of Glasgow on a platform of support for Palestinian human rights and opposition to all weapons of mass destruction in the middle east and to call on the British Government to exert pressure on Israel to release Mr Vanunu to allow him to visit Scotland and perform his duties as the democratically elected student rector at the University of Glasgow.
I signed the petition and various relevant motions. I support fully the university students and congratulate them on doing what they did. Four or five debates have taken place on the subject, which has been well covered. The students had the support of most people who spoke. The petition has served its purpose and should be closed. We have all been made aware of the situation.
I agree with Sandra White. The six motions that members have lodged on the subject have been supported by a broad spread of members from most parties. Only the Conservative party's members have not supported at least one motion. A clear majority in the Parliament is for the view that the petition expresses. We cannot do much else. I am very much in favour of the petition's sentiments, but the Parliament's view has been clearly stated in motions, to which we can add not much else.
I am not unhappy about petitions being lodged to raise the profile of an issue. If that was the petitioner's intention, he has achieved it. I congratulate him on the petition, which we will close, if members are agreed.
Community Sports Clubs (PE868)
The last new petition is PE868, by Ronald M Sutherland, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce legislation to create a right to buy for member-based community sports clubs that occupy or use land and/or premises for recreational or sports purposes. Before being formally lodged, the petition was hosted on the e-petition website, where it gathered 65 signatures. The usual e-petition briefing has been circulated.
As members will have noticed, my motion on the subject is mentioned in the accompanying paperwork. Mr Sutherland has been very supportive of the motion and we have been in contact about the matter. However, I have not been in contact with him on the particular issue that has been raised. I am not absolutely sure that the petition's proposal is feasible. I understand the sentiment behind it and I hope that we can achieve what is suggested, although I would like to get the opinion of various bodies on the feasibility of that.
Do you suggest that we seek opinions on the proposal?
The Executive would have to become involved, as a change to the existing legislation would be required. Sportscotland and the National Playing Fields Association Scotland have a view on the loss or potential loss of sports facilities and I think that we should write to them. By definition, the facilities do not belong to local authorities, but it might also be useful to write to COSLA and seek its view.
I entirely agree with Mike Watson. Members will recall our consideration of a petition from Bill Mann. Glasgow City Council has changed its rules and regulations regarding charitable status for sports clubs. The requirements have been lowered for those who are willing to put their facilities back into the community. COSLA could provide some helpful information on that. That might not be exactly what Mr Sutherland wants, but it provides another way of ensuring that sports clubs are kept in the community.
Are members happy that we should write to those organisations?
Next
Current Petitions