Public Petitions Committee, 23 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 23, 2001

Official Report 233KB pdf

---

New Petitions

The first petition today is from Stella Anderson on behalf of the Scottish Peoples Mission. It calls for the Scottish Parliament to return and restore the stone of Scone to the community of Scone. Robbie the Pict is here to address the committee on the petition.

Should I stand or sit?

You may sit down; we are very casual here. You have three minutes to address the committee. After two and a half minutes, I will indicate that you should be winding up. We will then move to questions from committee members, after which the committee will discuss the petition.

I have printed out a copy of what I am about to say, which I can supply to committee members. I will have to rattle through this; I have tried to read it in three minutes and that is pretty horrific.

On you go.

I appreciate being allowed to speak before the three minutes start, because that has taken up eight seconds.

They are starting—now.

Convener and ladies and gentlemen of the committee, the Treaty of Edinburgh of 1327, known by the English as the Treaty of Northampton of 1328, bears an attached instrument that assures the return of the stone of Scone, which was "carried away". Theft is admitted and the treaty guarantees restoration.

The stone of Scone's humble origin can be demonstrated even today. It seems to have started life as a rough lid for a subterranean store, latterly containing sewage. The abbot seems to have hosed down the lid and placed it on the altar as a decoy. I believe that the Knights Templar have an animated graphic that alleges a perfect fit between the underside of the stone of Scone and the original aperture, now covered by a grave slab called the minister's stone.

The real stone of destiny appears on the Kelso seal and in depictions of the coronation of Alexander III. Almost black, it is inscribed with letters and symbols and is a smooth ovato-oblong shape. It is likely to be a meteorite of basalt or hard limestone. The Sumerian, Scythian and Hittite forefathers of the Scots traditionally treated meteorites as sacred.

The real stone of destiny is unlikely to have left the Perthshire neighbourhood. That was the abbot of Scone's wee joke. The cludgie stane of Scone, on the other hand, is 336lb of calcareous freestone, mair frae Methven than Mesopotamia. So what on earth is it doing in Edinburgh Castle? It is guarded by the Anglo-British army, servants of the Hanoverian Queen of England. There is a charge of £4.50 to see it and of about £80 to get your car back if you did not park according to city orders.

Let the Scottish Parliament avoid mimicking the example of the Parliament in England, which has spurned polite Greek requests for the return of the Parthenon marbles with the indecency of imperialist plunderers and no good justification. However, this cultural and historical "stone of contention" has a serious legal facet. If the Parliament is not immediately minded to make proper cultural reparation, the Parliament must be reminded about legal reparation. So who legally owns the stone of Scone and under what law?

The current claimant, the English Crown, has a problem with the law under which Mr Blair might claim ownership. Any contemporary common law of England was annulled following the English Act of Union of 1706. By stark contrast, the authority of the common law of Scotland was specifically preserved by article 18 of the Scottish Act of Union of 1707. Subsequent legal frameworks deemed official by Westminster are irrelevant and impotent in the face of one simple fact of Scots common law: there is no statute of limitation applicable to theft or reset. No one other than the original owner can claim to own stolen property.

In 1327, we have an admission that the stone of Scone was stolen. The question of ownership takes us, ironically, to Moot hill in the royal city of Scone, the locus whence it was stolen. Every chief or noble who had cause to make representation to the king of Pictland, later Alba, brought with him a portion of home soil and deposited it at Scone. The area of Moot hill was a neutral, national common. Like the grounds from which it came, the stone was owned by historical Pictland and is thus now owned by the sovereign people of Scotland.

I therefore submit that to leave the stone of Scone locked up in the intramural kingdom of Lothian is not to return it to its lawful owners north of Antonine's wall—the ancient British Caledonians. There it should be placed in the local museum in Perth as an aboriginal heirloom.

So, can we have oor Perthanon marble back, please mister?

Do members have any questions?

The question of security arises. I do not know what security in the Perth Museum and Art Gallery is like; perhaps you could tell us. I, too, am concerned about the cost of looking at the stone. I take it that the cost that you mentioned is for an inclusive package, and that someone who pays it will see the honours of Scotland at the same time. I object to anyone having to pay £4.50—to pay anything—to see the honours of Scotland. We should deal with that point; I am sure that the Executive has the power to do so.

I had a meeting with Mr Michael Taylor yesterday in the museum in Perth, where I was immediately struck by the number of security guards. Mr Taylor guarantees that the stone will be well safe in the museum. Apparently, Tayside Regional Council passed a motion making an offer to look after the stone. Admission to the museum is free, by the way, and the council wants to keep it that way. It has a policy of relocating artefacts as close as possible to their point of origin.

In 1996, when the stone was about to be returned to Scotland, I wrote quite a bit about it and the arrangements for its return. Even then, the authorities were saying that security was the reason for its going to Edinburgh Castle, where it would have armed-guard protection. I argued those points, but I did not find out what the Earl of Mansfield thought. You are talking about the museum in Perth, but what about Scone Palace itself? Have you inquired along those lines?

Why are we worried about security? This is a 336lb lump of local sandstone. Once the joke is explained to the English, security concerns will not be nearly so serious. If it were the real stone of destiny, as opposed to the stone of Scone, I could understand the security concerns. The difficulty that Westminster is having is in accepting that the joke was on it. I do not think that there will be any problem at all with security. It will be a rare laugh. A tin could be put down for donations, which would perhaps assist the museum in Perth to build the extension that it is too strapped for funds to build. I do not think that the security question need trouble the public of Scotland and I do not think that we need to spend any more money on it. The amount that has been spent is absurd.

The public were not troubled; I was giving the official line that was taken at the time.

Members talked earlier about declaring interests. Michael Forsyth may see this from a different perspective.

Michael Forsyth did a good job.

Security is a red herring, I think.

He did a good job none the less.

It would be amusing to see someone attempt to lift the stone, which weighs exactly 3cwt—336lb. Take off with that and good luck to you—we will find you shortly.

It was done on Christmas eve, 1950.

I must admit that I thought that the stone should have gone to Scone—for reasons of tourism apart from anything else.

All right. At the moment, we are asking questions. We can discuss all the matters that arise later.

It was obviously a policy decision of Michael Forsyth's to have the stone placed in Edinburgh, but we do not need to pay too much attention to that, given what subsequently happened to him. However, a consultation exercise was carried out at the time, and the majority of those who took part said that they would prefer the stone to be in Edinburgh.

I am glad that you mention that. There were two consultations. One was a System 3 poll in The Herald, which sought the opinion of the usual number of people—between 1,000 and 1,100. Of those people, 68 per cent said that the stone should go to Scone.

The consultation exercise of the Scottish Office was conducted by private letters that were sent out. There were 113 responses, of which 29 said that the stone should go to Edinburgh Castle and stay there under lock and key under the protection of the British army. However, I admit that 70 of the responses said that it should go somewhere in Edinburgh. Such a consultation exercise may be open to abuse, of course. A telephone tree could be operated to encourage people to support one option or another. A cynic might suggest that.

There are no cynics on this committee.

If there are no further questions, we will move on to a discussion of how to deal with the petition.

I am much obliged. Will the committee consider holding local meetings? I have travelled six hours to come here to deliver a three-minute presentation.

Absolutely. We intend to do that. Will you leave copies of your papers with the clerk?

I will.

The suggested action, which refers to the fact that a consultation exercise was carried out in 1996, is that, although it is unlikely that the Scottish Executive would have any plans to reconsider the matter, we could request the Executive's views before we consider the petition finally.

My objection relates to the issue of paying. It is preposterous that we should ask the public to pay to see things that belong to them, which the honours of Scotland—into which category the stone of Scone fits—certainly do. The Perth offer, backed by Tayside Regional Council, is a good one. We should contact Tayside Regional Council—

It does not exist.

Well, whatever the relevant council might be.

I think that it would be Perth and Kinross Council. I was a member of Tayside Regional Council, which is long gone.

Perth and Kinross Council, in that case, should be consulted, as should the museum in Perth. The responses from those bodies should be placed on record to make sure that the situation is just as Robbie the Pict has described it to be.

Are you suggesting that, in addition to contacting the Executive for its response to the petition, we could ask Perth and Kinross Council and the museum in Perth what they think? The council owns the museum, of course.

Could we do that before—

We will do it before we dispose of the petition.

I still wonder why we are not contacting Scone. I can understand why one would want such a relic to be shown in Perth, but that would mean that the stone would still not be returned to Scone. Will somebody contact the Earl of Mansfield to ask his view? He operates a museum at Scone Palace.

Are we still going to contact the Executive?

We will contact the Scottish Executive and the petitioners have suggested that they have an offer from Perth and Kinross Council. We have had no contact with the Earl of Mansfield. If we contact the Executive and the council, the Earl of Mansfield's attention will no doubt be drawn to the issue and, if he feels strongly about making a rival offer, he can get in touch with the Public Petitions Committee.

I have a feeling that, if the Executive is contacted first, the issue will be washed away. If we get information from the council in black and white, the Executive might pay more attention to it.

Are you suggesting that we do not contact the Executive until we have contacted the council?

Yes.

I see nothing wrong with that. Before we contact the Executive, we will contact Perth and Kinross Council to get details of what it is offering to do in relation to the hosting of the stone Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE327, is from Duncan Hope on behalf of the Blairingone and Saline action group. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to request that legislation be revised to ensure that public health and the environment are not at risk from the current practice of spreading sewage sludge and other non-agriculturally derived waste on land in Scotland. Mr Hope is here to address the committee; George Reid and Scott Barrie also wish to speak to the petition. Mr Hope, you have three minutes.

I am the chairman of the Blairingone and Saline Action Group. I have with me David Johnson, a member of the group.

We are grateful for the opportunity to bring to the committee's attention the degree of public concern over the spreading of sewage sludge and other non-agriculturally derived waste. As the explanatory memorandum in support of our petition makes clear, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency concluded in 1998 that the current approach to the regulation and management of organic waste that is spread on land is inadequate and inconsistent and leads to practices that could pose risks to the environment, to public health and to animals and plants. Since that time, there has been no change to the regulation or management of the activities, and the risks remain undiminished. We believe that there is now increasing pressure to spread more such waste on land, given that landfill is a stopgap measure and incineration is strongly resisted.

Three issues are of particular concern to us: first, the fact that conflicting scientific opinion on the treatment required to remove the pathogenic viruses and bacteria in such waste remains unresolved; secondly, the fact that no regulations prevent the waste from being spread in close proximity to the public; and thirdly, the fact that the absence of a licensing scheme for such waste prevents regulatory action until a pollution incident has occurred. Those and other outstanding issues relating to the waste need to be addressed now.

Many people living close to the operations are offended by the foul odours that are produced, but of more concern are the health effects on them and their children in the short and long terms. People need relief from those concerns without delay and we seek the support of the committee to ensure that that happens.

Thanks. That presentation was well within the three-minute period and you should be commended.

We will now hear from the MSPs who have requested to speak on the issue.

Since 1997, I have been called to Blairingone many times. I have smelt the noxious odours and I have talked to villagers who believe that their health is being affected—I know their concerns about the application of sewage sludge and blood and guts to the land and their fear of contaminants. I was pleased when Lord Sewel commissioned a SEPA report on the subject. However, I was concerned about its conclusions, as I am concerned about the fact that, more than two years later, we are still awaiting an Executive response.

The Blairingone villagers are not NIMBYs; they know that dumping the stuff elsewhere is not the answer. They have studied and analysed the matter and, as part of the process, we have facilitated a colloquy in this building between the group, MSPs of all parties, East of Scotland Water and SEPA. Now we have submitted not only the petition but an explanatory memorandum of eight pages that sets out the arguments at some length.

The Public Petitions Committee is the link between the Parliament and the people. In submitting the petition, the group hopes at least to spur the Executive on to action and to help to inform the decision-making process. It might be appropriate to take further evidence from the Executive, East of Scotland Water and SEPA and, further down the road, it might be appropriate to examine the situation in Blairingone and in other similar communities in Scotland.

There are no big battalions in Blairingone, but neither is it a little backwater on the road from Kincardine bridge to Kinross. The villagers recognise that the problem is local, but the issue is national and affects every one of us. You, convener, I and every member of the committee will each produce some 28kg of dry solids of sewage sludge in the next year. That is the equivalent of 880 pint glasses full of raw sewage sludge. It has to go somewhere. Quite rightly, it cannot continue to be disposed of at sea and all the evidence is that the volume of spreading will double in the next four years.

It is in all our interests—including the interests of the sewage contractors—to ensure that we have regulations that are proactive, not reactive, and a system that is demonstrably safe, environmentally sustainable and clearly enforceable.

Thanks very much for that valuable information.

There is not much that I can add to the comments of George Reid and the petitioner. It is important to realise that the issue is not simply to do with the complaints of a group of people about a local problem. It is true that the immediate problem relates to them but, as George Reid said, the issue is nationally significant. We will have to do something about our sewage problem. What we are discussing today may or may not point the way forward, but there are huge concerns about the impact that the pollutants in the soil and in the water can have on communities. It is important that the Scottish Parliament discusses the issue and that the Executive takes the issue on board.

I thank every one for their graphic descriptions. Mr Hope, are there existing guidelines? There must be.

There are guidelines in the code relating to the prevention of environmental pollution from agricultural activity, but they are not statutory.

You rather graphically say that blood and guts are being thrown out on to the land. I cannot believe that.

Apart from sewage sludge, all the waste matter that I talked about is classed as exempt waste and no licenses are required before it can be spread.

Is not the waste pelletised?

No, it is put on raw, although I expect that some works have pellet-pressing facilities.

My understanding was that such products were pelletised or injected into the soil. I find it hard to believe that in this day and age raw chicken guts are put on to the land.

They are injected into the land.

As raw chicken guts?

Yes. Furthermore, if they are injected into land that has field drains, the chicken guts come down those drains and into the water courses, as has happened at Blairingone.

In honesty, I would be more concerned about the heavy metal aspect of this type of pollution, but I am interested in what you have to say.

When was Lord Sewel's review? Someone said that the Scottish Executive had not responded to that review. How long has it had—a year or two? It seems to me that an action in court would clarify everyone's minds wonderfully quickly. I suggest that someone in the area who would qualify for full legal aid raise an action on the ground that their enjoyment of their property has been affected by deliberate nuisance. A good case for that could be made. As a test case, the Law Society of Scotland would probably be rather sympathetic. Having said that, convener, I always find that, when one gives free legal advice, no one ever takes it.

The point of this part of the proceedings is for you to question the petitioners, not to offer them free legal advice, Dr Ewing.

The SEPA report was published in October 1998 and nothing has been done with it since.

I want to ask about the use of waste from abattoirs. I was under the impression that, because of BSE, that was covered by legislation. Is that the case or is there a loophole?

That kind of waste is classed as exempt waste. It may be that the waste from the BSE-related cattle cull has to be treated differently and might not end up on land, but ordinary abattoir waste—blood, guts and the paunch contents, which is where scientists have found the E coli 0157 bacteria—goes on to the land.

Is there any concern about health in the area arising from the blown dust? I know about a case in another part of Scotland in which parents who moved to that area claim that their child's health was devastated by dust blown off the fields. We do not know for sure whether the dust caused the child's health problems. Is there any indicator of such a problem in the local public health?

One child in the village has had scarlatina on four occasions in the past two years. Children have had rashes. Last October, a boy of 13 was so badly affected by weeping blisters on his backside, which were the size of 50p pieces, that he had to lie on his stomach for a week—he could not put his trousers on.

Another child almost died, having become ill less than 24 hours after playing in a field next to his home into which, unknown to his parents, thousands of gallons of human sewage sludge had been injected. That child succumbed to rubella, measles with encephalitis, viral meningitis with photophobia, general metabolic breakdown, rashes, blisters and seven other viruses including E coli 0157 all at the same time. We cannot say that that came from the field, because no one has gone out to investigate. People in the village have suffered eye infections and other problems that their doctors have said could be viruses.

Since 9 August 1999, a composting operation has been under way six days a week. Nobody has tested the mixture that is stirred up daily and the clouds of steam and odours rising from it to see whether it contains viruses or bacteria. I have been inquiring through SEPA and no one can tell us because no one has been there to test it.

Have you called in the local authority public health department?

Not to my knowledge. We called in the environmental health department and SEPA.

Ah, SEPA.

There is a word to describe SEPA in Blairingone, but I will not mention it here.

We have had the SEPA experience.

I welcome George Lyon to the committee for the first time.

My apologies for being late. The traffic was terrible this morning.

No problem.

The background note to the petition indicates that SEPA cannot take decisive action because it does not have the appropriate powers.

SEPA does not have the necessary power—it can act only when a pollution incident has occurred.

Is it right that the problem emerged after the sale of the site to Northern Hydroseeding?

Yes. Before that it was an opencast coal site; we never experienced the illnesses when the coal was dug. We put up with an opencast coal site on our doorsteps for eight years. We were told that it would be returned to nice green fields and that a bypass would be built—we got nothing.

Was it the application of sludge and sewage to the fields that started the health problems?

That is called beneficial waste, which is supposedly intended to reinstate the site. In our opinion the site is being used for waste disposal.

Whatever the new company is doing, the dates are important. The operation of sludge boats was stopped on Hogmanay 1998. It would be after that that the people of Blairingone and other parts of Scotland started experiencing the problem—when we started landfilling human sewage.

No. We began experiencing problems in March 1997—one month after the site was taken over.

So the company was landfilling before the sludge boats were stopped.

There was a trial plot in 1996 for Scottish Coal.

Can we find out more about SEPA's attitude? SEPA says that, under current regulations, it can act only after a pollution incident, but surely it can make recommendations.

At this stage we are questioning the petitioner. We can discuss the petition afterwards. Perhaps the petitioner has an answer to that question.

If SEPA does not make recommendations, what is it there for?

It has taken SEPA four years to substantiate that there are odours in Blairingone.

It is worth returning to the SEPA review, which was commissioned by Lord Sewel. The review was published in 1998 and contains some powerful recommendations and conclusions. I am not saying that those are entirely in line with what the action group seeks, but they come close. The problem is that nothing has happened since the publication of the review.

SEPA recognises that the current regulations are inadequate.

Yes, it does.

What has been the response of the owner of the land to your campaign?

He is opposed to it. He is a waste disposal contractor.

Are you saying that he has been hostile, or that he has not responded?

Back in April 1997, we had a meeting with the landowner through the community council. That was when the complaints started. We said that the solution was in his hands—he should stop spreading sewage sludge next to our homes. His parting words were: "I am here to stay. I will be here a long time so you had better get used to it. I'll do whatever I like."

That is clear enough.

It is worth pointing out that we are not saying that the Snowie group or the contractor are operating outside the law. The law is lax. There is no doubt that his operations are tightly controlled—in our view, they are more tightly controlled than they used to be—but he is a commercial operator, who is operating to the limit of what he is allowed to do for commercial purposes. We cannot blame him for that; it is what he is allowed to do that gives rise to our concerns.

Thank you. The discussion has been useful and informative.

Members will have read the suggested action in the papers that they received before we heard from the petitioners. The situation appears to be more serious than we anticipated. I suggest that we pass the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee and ask for further investigation. I take George Reid's point that we should be a spur to action. It is a serious problem.

I would like to read the SEPA review.

We can obtain copies of it for all members.

I agree with the convener's proposal.

Can we find out whether the Executive intends to introduce relevant legislation?

It has been suggested that that would be a matter for the Transport and the Environment Committee to address, as part of its investigation. We pass the petition to the committee. It then becomes its responsibility to take the matter further. Our responsibility is to ensure that the committee acts on the petition.

I am happy with that.

Is it possible to direct the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee? Saline is a national issue.

We could recommend to the Transport and the Environment Committee that it involves the Health and Community Care Committee in any investigation.

There is desperation in finding somewhere to put sewage since the stoppage of the sludge boats in 1998. Contractors are making large sums of money. In the interim, until the new sewerage stations are built—they are not ready yet, although Europe gave us 10 years—we could be setting up enormous health problems for the future.

Is it agreed that we pass the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee and suggest that it involves the Health and Community Care Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Before I call the next petitioner, I ask George Lyon whether he has any interests to declare.

I have no interests to declare.

The next petition is PE330, from Mr Rob Gibson on behalf of the Andrew de Moray Project. The petition asks the Scottish Parliament to urge Historic Scotland to give greater publicity, interpretation and investment to sites and buildings of national importance and, in particular, to erect directional signs to key places of interest associated with Andrew de Moray, William Wallace, King Robert the Bruce and the wars of independence. Mr Gibson is here to address the committee.

The Andrew de Moray Project works closely with the Society of William Wallace. We are both small charities. We are seeking an urgent investigation into the priorities and investment policies of Historic Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has taken over responsibility for that agency. We feel that there is a need to review the co-ordination of the assets that Historic Scotland has at its disposal in order best to interpret the heritage of Scotland, for both Scottish residents and visitors.

We are concerned that there are many sites of major national importance that require far greater publicity and interpretation. I do not want to go into too much detail, but we think that some of the materials that Historic Scotland produces are not up to scratch in terms of taking account of the latest research and ensuring co-ordination between different sites associated with the same story in an area. We note the multimillion-pound expenditure on the visitor centre at Urquhart Castle, which is creating what is, in essence, a viewing platform for the Loch Ness monster—I do not know what that has to do with our history. In the meantime, the nation's story is left in relative obscurity, despite the well-attested ruins and documents that paint a picture of stirring events at key times in our past.

Historic Scotland's priorities should be urgently reviewed to address the glaring gaps in its coverage of the wars of independence sites. For example, there is a link between a battle in Aberdeenshire at Culblean near Kildrummy Castle, Dunfermline Abbey, Ormond Castle on the Black Isle in Ross-shire, and many other sites. There has been no co-ordination of the information about those sites to allow people to tour Scotland and get a feel for the overall story. We have a specific interest in the wars of independence, but there are other aspects of Scottish history for which the same could be said.

Ormond Castle at Avoch in the Black Isle has a key place in the national independence struggle of the 13th and early 14th centuries. Andrew de Moray raised an army there, cleared the north of Scotland, joined up with William Wallace and achieved a stunning victory at Stirling bridge. As Andrew de Moray was killed at that point, he was much forgotten in later writings. However, current historians have rectified that. Although there are only traces of the structure of Ormond Castle—because Cromwell took away the stonework to build his citadel in Inverness—there is still a need for interpretation and signage. People can walk on the hill. Historic Scotland has a management agreement with Rosehaugh estate. The only interpretation that has taken place was carried out by the Andrew de Moray Project and, in a small way, the Rosehaugh estate. Like many other sites in Scotland, Ormond Castle deserves a better deal from the public purse.

The agencies that overlap, such as Historic Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage, should co-operate to interpret fully the built and natural landscape together. That might save money. We are asking the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to take up its responsibilities in that respect and give a steer to Historic Scotland.

Thank you.

Has your society met Historic Scotland to discuss your criticisms of its priorities?

We have met Historic Scotland at a local level. The hill at Ormond Castle was covered in conifers, which were removed in 1997 under the management agreement. We had considerable discussions with the Historic Scotland officers who were responsible for the area at that time. The management agreement was only to safeguard and preserve the site. There is no investment in interpretation and signage.

Has your society been in touch with the Scottish Tourist Board, perhaps with a view to creating a cultural tour? They have wonderful cultural tours in Ireland.

That is the kind of thing that we would like to happen. We have approached the issue from a community perspective. Over the past 70 years, the community has dealt with the potential represented by Ormond Castle, near the village of Avoch. The local knowledge is there. The site has national importance and Historic Scotland should be doing more at it and several related sites, so that people have a proper picture.

The erection of signage is far beyond our means. There is already a plethora of brown signs that guide people to wildlife parks and Hugh Miller's cottage in the Black Isle. We are aware that it is difficult to introduce many more signs without the countryside being littered with them. There is a need to prioritise. Historic Scotland should grasp the issue. There are many aspects of work of that kind that require reprioritisation. We have spoken to the Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board and it is sympathetic to our interests, although aware of the road sign problem. It is a national issue.

What is the cost of signage? I have a figure in my head. I have a feeling that signage would be prohibitively expensive.

I can confirm that it is very expensive. Decisions were taken about particular types of attraction, which were appended to the brown tourist sign initiative. No overview was taken of which were the most important sites in the area. It was a case of serving the interests of current attractions, which were organised on a commercial basis.

Would I be right in saying that the decision was made on the ability to pay?

Yes, there was an element of that. Our problem has been that discussions with the estate have been helpful to a limited degree. We are well aware that the estate's management agreement with Historic Scotland restricts what the estate can do. The initiative must come from Historic Scotland.

We are aware that the people employed by Historic Scotland are excellent at speaking to children in schools in the quiet period and interpreting issues. However, no one is responsible for spreading the word about places such as Ormond Castle in the Black Isle. Various jobs have to be done on interpretation and signage, which currently are not being done.

Is part of the problem the fact that, although Historic Scotland provides comprehensive signage and interpretation for the properties for which it is responsible, it is not responsible for all historic properties in Scotland?

I am well aware that it is not responsible for them all. We must make the most of our built heritage, which is attractive to people from abroad and is essential to allow our citizens to understand their past. I think that the Scottish Parliament is missing a trick if Historic Scotland is not given instructions to get out and review that. As far as I know, the matter has not been the subject of debate at the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. Historic Scotland is a major agency—a public face of Government in Scotland—and the issue should be debated.

There is plenty of evidence to show that many places require far more interpretation than they are getting. At the same time, Loch Ness in our area is known around the world, yet it is receiving a multimillion-pound investment, which cuts across the interests of the local village and deprives other areas of the investment that Historic Scotland should be making in far more important matters.

It has been suggested that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will consider examining the investment policy of Historic Scotland as part of its 2001 programme. Have you received an indication that that will not happen?

We approached Mary Mulligan in May 2000. She said that the committee had been busy; we respect that. She suggested that there might possibly be a debate, but we have heard nothing since then. We understand that the committee has a new convener.

We are concerned that the matter could go on and on. We are aware of the part that Urquhart Castle plays in the story in which we are interested, but we are concerned about large amounts of money being spent in an unbalanced fashion. The issue must be pinned down quickly.

I was one of the people who tried to stop the investment at Loch Ness because I thought that it would be dreadfully damaging to the economy of the surrounding district. All the communities in the surrounding district opposed it bitterly. It is just a place for people to try to see the monster.

The recommendation is excellent and we should press the committee—

We have not reached that stage yet. We are still on questions.

I am not trying to do down one investment, but we are aware of the excess at Loch Ness and of the underinvestment in interpretation and signage. Scottish Natural Heritage puts up interpretation boards, which are paid for by the same agencies that Historic Scotland taps into, but the two agencies do not cross over. Money could be saved by interpreting the landscape and the natural heritage. Many sites could receive some interpretation.

There are no more questions. Thank you for answering our questions in such an open and informative way. We will now consider the petition.

Winnie Ewing has said that she thinks that the recommendation is excellent. The recommendation is that we pass the petition to Historic Scotland and ask it to comment on the general issues raised in the petition and for specific information about the publicity, interpretation and investment in the sites that have been referred to, which relate to Andrew de Moray, William Wallace, King Robert the Bruce and the wars of independence. We will also ask for details of Historic Scotland's policy on providing assistance to sites with such associations that are not in its care, such as Ormond Castle. We will pass the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee for its information. I do not think that the matter is on its agenda.

I have taken an interest in this issue since I was elected to the Scottish Parliament. Although I agree with the recommendation, I suggest that we could take some additional action. The issue is not for Historic Scotland alone; signage is a much bigger issue. We must consider tourists who come to Scotland. We should write to the Scottish Executive to ask for its views on road signage. My understanding, from the inquiries that I have carried out, is that there are eight different policies across Scotland; there is no national cohesion. That is a matter of concern.

The issue affects places of interest in the care of Historic Scotland and important places for travellers, who need to know where to find facilities for their daily needs when they are in Scotland. Many of our best facilities are hidden down small country lanes. The current policy in Scotland is to restrict signage on motorways and the trunk road network. I know from work that I have done in my constituency that there is exasperation on this issue. The matter warrants referral to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and a response from the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, because she has responsibility for tourism policy and its co-ordination.

The Minister for Transport also has an interest. Until now, only the safety aspect of road signage has been considered; the broader picture has not been examined. Can we write to both ministers to ask them what the Scottish Executive's view is on the general issue and—as the recommendation suggests—on the petition?

I have been advised that to do all of that would be to spin away from the core of the petition, which concerns Historic Scotland and the sites associated with the wars of independence.

Helen Eadie has raised important issues, but her suggestion could lead to the committee using the petition as a stepping stone to pursue its own interests, which is not what we are here to do. We could write to the minister who is responsible for Historic Scotland to find out about the Executive's policy. The Executive is responsible for replying on issues related to Historic Scotland anyway.

I hear what you are saying, but I have sympathy with Helen Eadie's comments. Signage for many of the historic and tourist attractions throughout Scotland is woefully inadequate; you need travel only a small distance on the continent to see that. The cost of signage is prohibitively expensive. That should be reviewed. Given that the minister is trying to encourage tourism, we should ask her to examine the issue and produce a co-ordinated policy on signage throughout Scotland.

I am advised that the minister responsible for Historic Scotland is Sam Galbraith, who is not responsible for road signage or tourism.

I am uneasy about using a petition on Historic Scotland and historical sites relating to the wars of independence to go into the wider issue of the cost and inadequacy of signage for tourists. Those are important issues, which members can pursue in their own right, but we are here to pursue the petition. I would be happier if we sent the petition to Sam Galbraith to ask him to ensure that Historic Scotland responds to the points that have been suggested and to set out the Government's—or the Executive's—policy.

If the majority view is that we broaden our approach, we will do so, but I think that that would be to move away from what the committee is meant to do.

I agree, but in another way I disagree. Even if we come to a successful conclusion on the Andrew de Moray Project, a large number of people will still not be able to find the site because they are not being correctly pointed off major roads. I have asked the Executive a number of questions about this. I am a Scot, born and bred, but I find it difficult to find some towns and villages. As soon as you come off the motorway, you realise that you have been following the wrong sign. Heaven help our tourists; I do not know how they find half the places that they manage to find.

Through the convener's good graces, we should, if possible, ask the Executive, second to the petitioner's concern, to consider the wider picture. We should have a simplified system, which would encourage more tourists to come in the future. The current situation is infuriating.

If we write to Sam Galbraith to ask him to address directly the issues raised in the petition and to respond on behalf of Historic Scotland, it has been suggested that we could also ask him to consult colleagues about the general issue of signage to direct tourists to such sites and about its cost.

I agree. When I travel around I see a lot of historical sites, which local people have told me about; nothing is written about them. It is up to Historic Scotland to work with the other agencies that can give backing and funding. Someone has to take responsibility. We should make it plain that Historic Scotland must deal with the matter and that the minister must speak to his colleagues to pull the work together.

When we write to the minister, could we ask him to examine the investment policy of Historic Scotland?

Yes. That is part of what he will be asked to do.

Is it agreed that we write to the minister to ask him to respond to the points in the petition—especially those associated with the wars of independence sites—and to consult colleagues on the cost and inadequacy of tourist signage?

Members indicated agreement.

I should point out to members that it has taken almost an hour to get through three petitions; I hope that we can make better progress.

The next petition is PE321 from Mr Alexander Good about a change to local taxation methods. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to abolish the council tax and to replace it with another method of local taxation. Mr Good suggests that it would be fairer to fund education, police and fire centrally than it is to fund them through local government.

It was suggested that it was highly unlikely that the Local Government Committee would want to consider the petition further. However, since then we have realised that the Local Government Committee is carrying out an investigation into the financing of local government services. It is suggested that we should pass the petition to the Local Government Committee for it to consider as part of that investigation. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE323 from Mr R Watkin. I should declare an interest, as the petition comes from Montague Street, Dundee, which is in my constituency. I have not been involved in the planning decision to which the petition relates up until now.

The petition is about third-party right of appeal on planning decisions. It calls on the Parliament to change current legislation in such a way as to give equal rights to developers and objectors to developments and to take appropriate action to prevent any development at 8a Montague Street, Dundee. As members will see from the suggested action, it is not for us to interfere in the decisions of Dundee City Council on a planning application.

On the general point about third-party appeals in planning cases, the suggested action is that we pass a copy of the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee for it to consider as part of its proposed inquiry into planning law, which will examine third-party rights of appeal.

I agree with the recommendation.

I would like to know how soon the Transport and the Environment Committee will be examining those issues. Does anybody know?

The inquiry is on the back burner.

Can we do anything to bring it nearer the front? This issue comes up in petitions time after time. It is a burning issue throughout Scotland.

Do we have information on the number of petitions that we have received on the matter? It is a large number.

We will come back with the number and tell the Transport and the Environment Committee that we are dealing with a lot of petitions on the matter and that we think it should deal with the issue.

Would not the right of appeal be covered by the European convention on human rights?

That has been raised in previous petitions.

We have passed a series of petitions to the Transport and the Environment Committee, which is meant to be considering the matter. As I said, it has the inquiry on the back burner. We should get details of how many petitions we have received on the matter and write to the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee to suggest that it should address the issue sooner rather than later.

The ECHR is often a catalyst for getting matters put on the front burner.

Perhaps we could draw that to the attention of the Transport and the Environment Committee. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE325, from Catriona Windle, on behalf of the Stafford Centre mental health project, which calls on the Parliament to investigate how the level of funding that is provided to the Stafford Centre might be increased to allow for the re-establishment and expansion of its services, thus enabling the provision of essential support to those who are most at risk of suicide and self-harm.

Members will see from the information that has been provided that resources to the centre have been reduced in real terms, so its services to people who are at risk of suicide have had to be cut. The committee cannot become involved in the funding decisions of centres, but it is suggested that we could seek comments from the Executive on whether the funding that was announced in the recently published Scottish health plan will have implications for centres such as the Stafford Centre. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE328 from Mr Mohammed Younus Shaikh on the review of water and sewerage charges. The petition calls for the Parliament to review arrangements for the billing and collection of water and sewerage charges to ensure that they are affordable for those who claim income support permanently.

Members will know that the Minister for Environment, Sport and Culture has announced the establishment of a scheme that will cap the amount that people on council tax benefit pay in water charges. He has said that the Executive does not propose to devise another means of identifying those who need help. Instead, it will work on the basis that eligibility for council tax benefit is a broad indication of low income and represents a reasonable qualification for benefiting from the cap on charges. The details of the scheme's operation are being considered in a consultation exercise that was launched in November. I suggest that we pass the petition to the minister for inclusion as part of that consultation.

Would it be appropriate for the petition to go to the Transport and the Environment Committee as well, in the light of its inquiry into the water industry?

Yes, we could pass the petition to that committee for information.

Is that recommendation agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

How close to a conclusion is that consultation? I presume that people pay the increased charges at the moment. That is an anomalous situation, because the charges are now significant. The sooner that the results are received and acted on, the better.

When we pass the petition to the minister, we will ask when the consultation finishes and when recommendations will be presented to the Parliament.

We could also ask when recommendations will be implemented.

The next petition is PE329 from Mr William Christie. It calls on the Parliament to amend the relevant legislation to make licensing board procedures fairer and more equitable.

On 7 December, the Parliament debated alcohol misuse. The Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care said that

"the time has come for a comprehensive review of licensing laws. An independent committee with a fairly wide-ranging remit will conduct the review. Full details of the membership of the committee and how the review will be conducted will be announced in due course."—[Official Report, 7 December 2000; Vol 9, c 789-90.]

Therefore, we could agree to seek the views of the Scottish Executive on whether the issues that the petition raises will be considered by that independent committee.

I am content with that suggestion.

Is that recommendation agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The last new petition today is PE331, which comes from Tricia Donegan. It calls on the Parliament to investigate why drivers who have made deliberate decisions that cause risk to the lives of others are classed as careless drivers when prosecuted, even in the event of a fatality.

Long-time members of the committee will know that Ms Donegan submitted petitions PE55 and PE299 on closely related issues. The committee agreed to pass them to the Lord Advocate and the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for responses. A response was received from the Lord Advocate and was copied to the petitioner and the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for further consideration. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee agreed to suspend consideration of the petition, pending publication of research by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions into road traffic legislation. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee also agreed to write to the Lord Advocate about guidance that has been issued to the procurator fiscal.

It is understood that the DETR's research has recently been published. As PE331 is closely related to the other petitions that Ms Donegan submitted, it is suggested that we do nothing more than link PE331 to the previous petitions, on which a response from the Lord Advocate is awaited. All the petitions could be reconsidered when we have that response.

I have just been handed new information, hot off the press. The Lord Advocate's response to PE299 has been received, but because it is detailed and because the committee has not seen the Lord Advocate's response, it is suggested that we reconsider PE299 and PE331 at our next meeting.

I do not think that what the petitioner says is accurate. I do not think that it follows that a charge of only careless driving would be made in such circumstances. It is for the Crown in its various forms to decide whether the charge is careless or dangerous driving or homicide. The petitioner has not been accurate in fact.

That may become apparent when we read the Lord Advocate's response, which will be distributed to members and considered at our next meeting.