Current Petitions
The first item on the current petitions paper is a response to Mr Kevin Hutchens's petitions PE42 and PE43. At its meeting in December, the committee agreed to pass these petitions to the Minister for Children and Education for comment. There then followed a lengthy period of inactivity, during which the Executive passed the petitions to the Department for Education and Employment at Westminster and that department passed them back to the Executive.
We pursued the matter persistently with Executive officials. The petitioner contacted the clerks at regular intervals to inquire about progress. A response was eventually received from the Executive on 17 August, during the summer recess. It was passed to the petitioner on the same day, as he had asked for a copy of the reply to be sent to him as soon as it arrived and wanted to refer to it in the material that he is preparing for a conference on the issues raised in the petition. The petitioner seems to be happy with the response, and the suggestion is that we take no further action. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE190, from Mr Peter Saunders. It concerns the handling of a petition submitted against a planning application and calls for the Scottish Parliament to halt the work in progress at John Wood's hospital, Upper Largo and to demand that Fife Council restore the site to its original state.
We agreed that the clerks write to the petitioner to request further clarification of the claims that he made in his petition regarding alleged misleading information. As I indicated to members previously,
"Technically, the petition is inadmissible as it calls for the Parliament to do something that it does not have the power to do. However, the petitioner is concerned that Fife Council planning department has provided misleading information to the local development committee during the planning process."—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 23 May 2000; c 466.]
The council has now provided details of the information presented by its east planning department that was considered to be misleading. A copy of the information is attached. It relates to what the petitioner considers to be misleading comments about how much of the proposed new building would be visible above a boundary wall.
Should members wish to view them, the clerk has copies of the planning assessment and of the plans that have been referred to in the material that has been submitted. Members may recall that the petition referred to the fact that the planning authority had ignored the petition against the planning application.
It is not appropriate for the Parliament to become involved in individual planning cases, which are matters for planning authorities. It is suggested that the petitioner be advised that, if they wish to pursue a claim of maladministration on the part of the planning authority, they should contact their local government ombudsman.
Having been in a planning authority, I think that that is quite right.
I agree.
Is that course of action agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE214, from Mrs Anne Dundas, on behalf of various patients—and their friends and relatives—of the Scottish cardiac transplant unit. The petition calls for the Parliament to investigate the current recruitment crisis in the cardiac transplant unit at Glasgow royal infirmary and establish what action will be taken to re-establish the cardiac transplant service as soon as possible.
We passed the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee for further consideration, with the suggestion that that committee consult the Minister for Health and Community Care on the issues it raises. We also agreed to write to the local NHS trust to ask for its comments.
On 20 September, the Health and Community Care Committee agreed to clarify with the Executive the present situation regarding staffing and recruitment at the unit. It sought the Executive's views on the future sustainability of the unit in relation to heart and heart-and-lung transplants. A response has been received from North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust. It provides background information on the events that led to the current recruitment difficulties and on the efforts being made to rectify the situation. A copy is available. It is suggested that the trust's response should be noted and passed to the Health and Community Care Committee, to be taken into account as part of that committee's considerations.
Is that okay?
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is the big one.
Just a minute, convener.
Sorry, Sandra, do you want to go back to the last petition?
No, I mean—
The decision is just to send the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee, as it is dealing with it.
That is okay. I will wait before I ask questions on it.
I have one point on that last petition as regards the action to be taken, particularly about the harvesting of organs. Given foregoing petitions, this matter must be dealt with sensitively at the very least.
Do you wish some comment to that effect to be made to the Health and Community Care Committee?
In the light of foregoing petitions, we will assume that that committee will deal sensitively with it, but the point is worth noting.
Yes, it is perhaps worth pointing out the earlier petition.
We now come to consider how to progress with petition PE227, on Glencoe. At this point, I welcome Mary Scanlon and Fergus Ewing to the committee. Fergus came with the committee to Glencoe on 2 October. Members will see from the papers before us that we have a very large amount of information on the subject of this petition, including the information received on our fact-finding visit to Glencoe last October.
It is suggested that we give careful thought as to whether any action should be taken in respect of the petition. It is clear from the information that has been gathered that the main concerns of the petitioners are the proposal by the National Trust for Scotland to construct a new visitor centre in Glencoe and its proposal for a woodland grant scheme. It is also clear that the proposals have already been given the necessary approvals and that the Parliament does not have the power to reverse those decisions.
Furthermore, it is important to note the following key points in relation to the options that might now be open to us. First, the NTS is a body corporate established under the National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Act 1938 and a registered charity. The legal team's advice is that the Parliament has no remit to examine the operation of the National Trust for Scotland or its internal policies.
Secondly, it may be possible for the Parliament to pursue an investigation into the public funding that the NTS receives from the Scottish Executive and/or Executive agencies, either in the form of direct funding or via grant applications. However, such an inquiry would seem to go further than the action requested by the petitioners.
Thirdly, it would be possible for the Parliament to conduct an inquiry into the economic and environmental impact of the particular developments referred to in the petition on Glencoe. The land-use policies of the NTS in Glencoe and elsewhere in Scotland could also form part of such an inquiry.
We will have to consider carefully whether there is merit in taking further action based on the information that we have gathered. As I have said, as far as I can determine, the petitioner's main concerns are the effect of the proposed developments on the village of Glencoe and what they claim to be a lack of consultation on the proposals. Approvals under the relevant statutory procedures have already been granted for the visitor centre and the woodland grant scheme and there is nothing the Parliament can do to reverse them.
As that is consistent with our line on previous petitions concerning planning and other issues, we must address whether we should ask a subject committee to conduct an inquiry into any of the wider issues. If that is our decision, we will have to be very sure that such action is justified, because subject committees have particularly heavy work loads and we do not want to be seen to be burdening them with further work unless there is a genuine reason for doing so. In reaching our decision, we should also bear in mind the fact that the NTS is a charitable, non-profit organisation.
I am unhappy about not doing anything. Several issues arise, including the fact that more and more bodies seem able to do stuff that Parliament can do nothing about. That should not be the case. The Parliament should investigate environmental issues and, in particular, the impact of this development on the environment. Furthermore, I would like the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to consider this issue from the point of view that Glencoe is an historic site; indeed, it could investigate how we deal with historic sites such as battlefields. I think that I am correct that this planning application was dealt with only at a local level, and that when there are issues of national importance—[Interruption.] I see that Steve Farrell is about to say something.
Steve Farrell has advised me that there are procedures for calling in local planning issues that have a national impact.
Well, that is the direction that I want to go in. Any development on such a site of international importance raises environmental and cultural issues. This is not just any old planning application about any old bit of rural Scotland—not that there are any old bits of rural Scotland. As a result, I would like the petition to be passed to the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.
I apologise to the committee for not being able to make the visit to Glencoe—I was at a funeral.
Christine Grahame has covered my first point. Far too many historic sites are not given the importance they deserve and are built on, sold off and so on. I want the petition to be passed on to the two committees that Christine suggested and for the same reasons.
Secondly, I do not see how the NTS, which receives money from this Parliament, can say that we have no remit to examine its operation. That situation should be investigated. I am not suggesting whether such bodies do a good job or a bad job; the fact is that they seem to be unaccountable to anyone but themselves even though they receive money from this Parliament. Perhaps Steve Farrell could clarify which subject committee we could pass the petition on to for consideration of that matter. If this Parliament is passing on public money to such bodies, it should have some say in how that money is spent.
It is not that I am a fount of knowledge on this matter; somebody just whispers the answers in my ear.
The advice is that the only money it receives from central Government is grants for specific purposes, not for its general activities. It is accountable for how that money is spent. We can pursue that matter, but it is not what is at issue.
You mentioned three issues, one of which is that we have no remit. Why do we have no remit? It may be possible for the Parliament to investigate the public funding, and it would be possible for the Parliament to conduct an inquiry into the economic and environmental impact on Glencoe. I would like those points to be picked up.
Except that the petition does not call for an investigation into how the NTS is funded, so we would be going beyond the remit of the petition if we did that.
I, too, apologise for not managing to go on the visit. I had been on an oil rig the previous week, and had fallen and sprained my ankle, so I apologise, but I was crippling around. However, I visited Glencoe during the summer holiday, and had a good look round, so I am not speaking without experience.
If the local community feels strongly about this, one way forward would be to write to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, asking that the planning application be called in, because there are significant economic, planning and land-use issues, as well as issues relating to cultural sites, which Christine Grahame raised. We are sensitive to Scotland's heritage being put at risk, particularly through tourism. If we are to develop sites, we must do so sensitively. I am not minded to turn round the considered view of a local authority, unless there are bigger issues that a minister should consider. That is why I support the view that the application be called in.
I will explain again, because it has been whispered in my ear, that there are procedures for calling in local planning decisions that have national import, but those procedures can be gone through only during the planning process, before approval. This application has been approved, so it is too late to call it in.
Okay. It has been suggested that the petition be sent to the Transport and the Environment Committee, but there are problems with that. The Transport and the Environment Committee already has 36 petitions to deal with. It also has the Transport (Scotland) Bill and the water inquiry, so I wonder if we are being realistic in expecting something to come back from that committee.
From my mailbag, I know that there are calls for changes to be made to the planning system. At the moment, an applicant or a developer can appeal against a planning decision by the Minister for Transport and the Environment, but someone who lives in the affected community cannot. The Transport and the Environment Committee is considering that issue.
A large number of the 36 petitions that are before the Transport and the Environment Committee deal with that issue.
I have a great deal of difficulty with this. No one has mentioned the impact on the community of the jobs that will come from the siting of the new building. That is my big fear. I was one of the few committee members who went to Glencoe. We saw the outline proposals, and I do not think that they will have a huge environmental impact on the site, which is claimed to be of great significance but which has already been destroyed. I do not think that there will be a huge environmental impact at Inverrigan, because the house is off-site. Further, the woodland grant scheme as envisaged will not be hugely detrimental to the character of the area. The major issue is jobs.
I agree that, sadly, our hands are tied in that the time is past for objections.
As far as I understand it, competition has never been a ground for refusing a planning application in the past. None the less, my sympathies are with the local community because there will be job displacement.
I draw members' attention to the Executive summary of the proposed Glencoe NTS visitor centre economic impact study. The last paragraph, E27, states:
"displacement analysis indicates that these improvements are considered likely to be gained at the cost of employment in local tourism-related businesses that have become increasingly fragile with the decline in visitors to the Highlands since 1996."
That is the key issue.
I join other members in apologising for not having been able to go on the visit. Highland Health Board and the health trust had a meeting in Inverness that day, which I attended.
Having witnessed the NTS's behaviour in Glencoe, I do not think that this is the last petition that the committee will receive on the issue. I was shocked yesterday, when I attended the meeting of the parliamentary ombudsman, to learn that we can put in complaints that can be dealt with about Scottish Natural Heritage and the Crofters Commission, but that the NTS is a law unto itself. That concerned me greatly.
I was told, as the convener outlined earlier, that because the NTS is a charity there is no way to appeal. The NTS has enormous control and influence over Scotland's rural and historic sites; it is incredibly influential. It worries me that there is no comeback to this organisation, which I have found to be high-handed and arrogant. It has created enormous divisions in a remote rural community where getting on with your neighbour is almost everything. You see the same people every day when you go to the shops and the post offices. The anger that the NTS has provoked with its bullying, arrogant, high-handed approach and its scant regard for local business has been incredible. Fergus Ewing and I attended a meeting in Glencoe; you could almost cut the anger with a knife. Any organisation that can cause such anger in a remote rural area cannot be trusted.
I appreciate the problems that the committee faces because of the NTS's charitable status. I ask the committee to consider the issue sympathetically and more fully, although I appreciate the work load of other committees. I would be sad if we walked out of this room today letting the NTS get away with its behaviour. Because we do not have redress by means of the ombudsman, convener, I ask that you and the committee give the matter greater consideration. This is the end of the line for local people.
For several reasons, I urge the committee to agree that there should be an inquiry.
This petition is having an impact not only in Scotland, but in the international diaspora of the clan MacDonald. I have received many messages of concern, from around the world, about what is seen by some as the desecration of a sacred site. Alistair MacDonald, the petitioner, repeated those comments on the radio this morning.
Like John Scott, I believe that whether the NTS, or anyone else in rural Scotland, should receive further public assistance when the effect would be to kill off existing local businesses that operate in the same sector is an issue of increasing importance in rural Scotland. That point was raised when the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee visited Inverness last November.
The economic impact assessment study, to which John Scott referred, concluded that there would be substantial impact if a grant were to be given to the NTS by the local enterprise company. The local enterprise company has not yet decided on that, so the issue is live. The approach that seems to be being taken as to whether we hold an inquiry is flawed. The thinking is, "Och well, decisions have been taken so it is too late to do anything." Surely the Parliament should be examining decisions that have been taken to establish whether they were right, so that we can learn for the future and decide whether, as Christine Graham suggested, the planning process should be altered to allow local communities and individuals, in rural Scotland in particular, to have a greater say.
A proposal that might be advanced would be to make community councils a statutory consultee. The fact that a decision has been taken to grant planning permission is not a reason for the Parliament not to consider the issue. Indeed, perhaps it would be easier to consider such an issue once the decisions have been taken. Moreover, the conditions to which planning permission has been made subject—such as that relating to the route of the path from the proposed new visitor centre to the village—are still of great contention.
I feel strongly that my constituents expect the Scottish Parliament to stand up for them—to stand up for David against Goliath. There has not been fair or proper consultation. If we fail to recommend that a committee examine the grievances in detail, we will fail the people of Scotland in this very serious case.
This committee has the power only to make recommendations. We have to be realistic about what we recommend. It is suggested that we send the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee on the grounds of the potential damage to the environment that the developments will cause, but it must be remembered that that committee has received 37 petitions from us and has written to the Procedures Committee to complain about the number of petitions that the Public Petitions Committee has referred to it. There is nothing to stop us sending the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, but the likelihood that it will treat it as a priority—let us be honest about this—is very remote.
If it is the view of the committee that we should refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, that is what we will do. However, the petition may not go much further. We can try to persuade that committee, but it will have other priorities and will keep putting us off—of course, the time scale for the development must be taken into account.
Concerns have been raised about the National Trust for Scotland, which seems to be unaccountable in many ways, having control over many important historical sites, so a better option may be to submit the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. We will need to take advice on whether we can do that, as the petition did not ask us to.
Did you not also give us the option of considering the finance? That is the real key.
The problem with going down that road is that we would probably discover that the finance has been given to the NTS by specific grants, which it is spending in accordance with the requirements that have been placed on it by the Parliament. The NTS is probably not doing anything wrong, so there are no grounds for an inquiry. I am quite happy to accept the committee's decision if it wants to send the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee so that it can hold an inquiry, but that does not mean that that will happen.
Sending the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee is probably the only recourse that we have. That committee can then decide whether the environment and the historic sites are being damaged.
I only visited Glencoe and do not understand the details as well as Fergus Ewing and Mary Scanlon do, but I was not convinced that huge damage was being done. There is more potential for commercial damage, but there is a counter-argument to that, as the economic impact study said that the commercial impact of the new visitor centre was exaggerated. The existing visitor centre is of low quality and should not be acceptable in one of the major historical sites in Scotland. We should not support the present facilities as they are not good for tourists.
I, too, have an excuse for not going on that visit, as I was at another meeting.
With respect, convener, it is not up to us to decide whether damage is being caused. I have heard all that has been said about the Transport and the Environment Committee, but we cannot go down that road, as that would mean that we would start to schedule our work according to—[Interruption.] Steve, may I finish before you give the convener that wee tap?
Our function is to decide to which committee we should refer the petition.
Yes. I suggest that we should send the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, so that that committee can consider the environmental impact of the proposals. The petition should also land on the desk of whoever becomes the Minister for Transport and the Environment after this week's reshuffle. Who knows—we might have an environment minister to whom we could send the petition. The urgency of the situation should be drawn to the attention of ministers.
We should also send the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, so that that committee can note its contents, because the petition involves national historic and cultural sites. The NTS is in the special, privileged position of protecting Scotland's heritage, and its operations also seem to be privileged.
If we are rebuffed by the Transport and the Environment Committee, we will have to put on our tin hats.
We could send the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee and ask that committee to be honest, to tell us what priority it is likely to give an inquiry and to let us know if it will conduct an early inquiry. We cannot simply leave the petition. The situation is developing and we must have a response, although it is for that committee to judge whether it is worthwhile—
What about sending the petition to the Minister for Transport and the Environment?
We could send it to the minister for comment and say that we are also sending it to the Transport and the Environment Committee to ask that committee whether it will conduct an inquiry. We can take both steps.
If we are to send the petition to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, we should also send it to the Deputy Minister for Culture and Sport: historic buildings are in Rhona Brankin's remit, rather than Sarah Boyack's.
The convener is right. We must ask the Transport and the Environment Committee what it will do. I am a member of that committee and I know about its mammoth work load. To do otherwise would be unrealistic and unfair, as it might raise people's expectations. We should consider whether a different route could be found to achieve the same objective.
I am advised that the official route is for the petition to be sent to the relevant department, because civil servants brief ministers on the implications of petitions.
It might be more appropriate to send the petition to the Rural Affairs Committee. While the petition is fairly wide-ranging, it refers to
"an increasingly common complaint arising from the growing conflict in Scotland between small rural communities and powerful bureaucratic conservation groups".
That seems to give the Rural Affairs Committee a clear locus.
However, members seem to have the view that the Transport and the Environment Committee should consider the petition initially. If that committee decides that the petition is not within its remit or that it is too busy to conduct an inquiry, the Rural Affairs Committee could be considered as a follow-up.
We could do that. We could ask the Transport and the Environment Committee to consult the Rural Affairs Committee for its views on the petition.
Could the petition also be sent to the Minister for Rural Affairs?
We could ask the Transport and the Environment Committee to consider whether it might be more appropriate for the Rural Affairs Committee to deal with the petition.
If we are to write to ministers, could we also consult the Minister for Rural Affairs? That would follow Helen Eadie's suggestion.
At this rate, we will be writing to everyone in the Scottish Parliament. We must try to focus our activities.
It is for the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Rural Affairs Committee, if they so wish, to make recommendations about how such issues should be dealt with in future.
To address the bigger issues that were raised by Fergus Ewing and Mary Scanlon, if those committees believe that the petition might require changes to the legislation, it would be up to them to pursue that. According to our present structure, that work is not within the remit of the Public Petitions Committee. One must be realistic and accept that the NTS has done nothing illegal, as far as I am aware, in order not to raise expectations unduly.
No. The NTS has acted within the legal procedures that are available to it and has been given proper planning approval for the Glencoe proposals.
The situation is, unquestionably, unhappy.
I agree.
Are we agreed that, in the first instance, the petition should be sent to the Transport and the Environment Committee? We will ask that committee to inform us at an early stage whether it intends to carry out an inquiry in line with that requested by the petitioners. We will also ask that committee to consult the Rural Affairs Committee, as part of its consideration of the petition.
At the same time, we will inform the Minister for Transport and the Environment of the action that we are taking on the petition and ask for her comments through the department. We will also write to the Scottish Executive education department, asking for its comments on the role of the NTS in controlling so many important historical sites in Scotland.
We were also going to write to Rhona Brankin.
Yes, we will write to the minister as well.
We do not want to tread on anyone's toes, but in the letter to the Transport and the Environment Committee, we might ask whether the committee could deal with the matter quickly. However, the petition might be more appropriate to the Rural Affairs Committee, which might have an agenda that would allow the matter to be dealt with in the near future. The issue must be addressed quickly. This may sound like a stupid question, but when a Parliament committee initiates an inquiry does that automatically stop external procedures?
It cannot stop a planning application. The NTS already has planning approval.
So we could be holding an inquiry while the development was under way. The matter is extremely urgent.
That is why we need an early indication from the Transport and the Environment Committee of whether it will take heed of the petition.
I am being far too polite—I have had my hand up for ages. I do not disagree with the comments that have been made. I wanted to send the petition to the Rural Affairs Committee in the first place, but I will follow the wishes of the rest of the committee. The National Trust for Scotland does not fall within the Parliament's remit, but that would not prevent a member from raising the issue in a members' business debate.
Not at all. Members can raise whatever issues they like for such debates.
I am grateful to the committee for considering the matter. In view of your recent remarks, convener, it is not surprise that you should side with David, rather than Goliath.
We will have to wait and see who the real Goliath is.
The next response that we have received is on PE228 from the Anderston Tenants Association, which petitioned us on Scottish Homes and its double-glazing programme in the Anderston area. I have received a reply from Scottish Homes. It is clear from the letter that Scottish Homes has made some progress in its double-glazing programme in Anderston. It has included such work in its current capital programme and the one for next year. The letter indicates that discussions are taking place with the Scottish Executive on what will happen in relation to the double-glazing of the remaining housing stock after the proposed creation of an executive agency. Scottish Homes confirmed the position on its programmed work with the petitioner. It is suggested that we pass a copy of the letter to the petitioner and that no further action be taken.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The final petition is PE246 from Kildalton and Oa community council, Kilarrow and Kilmeny community council, the Kilchoman and Portnahaven council and Councillors J Findlay and R Currie. The petition deals with the designation of south-east Islay skerries as a special area of conservation.
I have received a letter from the chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage, voicing his concern that SNH was not given an opportunity to explain its position on the issues raised in the petition. Members have a copy of that letter. The letter provides information on the consultation process carried out by Scottish Natural Heritage on the designation proposals and counters the claim made by the petitioners that that process had been inadequate. SNH has also provided background information on the designation of special areas of conservation and what such designation means for the areas that are affected. We are asked to note the contents of the letter in our consideration of the petition.
What is our course of action?
We will pass a copy of the letter to the Executive. We are waiting for the Executive to reply to the points that were raised in the petition.
The letter says that
"The SNH's role is advisory."
However, the chairman goes to some lengths not to say what its advice is. That point is crucial to the whole issue. It is the advice that SNH has already given that is causing the ruction.
I assume that the Executive will have to make clear what that advice was when it responds to the petition.
Okay.
I am sure that the Executive has a copy of SNH's letter, but we must pass it on as we have received it officially.
The clerk tells me that we have not asked for a response from the Executive; we have asked the Executive to take the petition into consideration as part of the consultation process. Perhaps we should ask the Executive to inform us of the outcome of that process. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I am sorry to go on about this, but this petition is the tip of an iceberg. A much wider problem is being raised. I must declare an interest as I have lodged a motion on the matter. Somewhere approaching a million acres of Scotland have been designated as SACs during the past three months—without consultation and, by and large, without any scientific basis. That has been done merely to use up quota because it appears that more land should have been designated over the past 20 years. Because designation has not happened, it is now being done in a rush, arbitrarily and without scientific back-up.
Has the Rural Affairs Committee dealt with this?
No. We agreed to copy the petition to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, asking that it be considered as part of the consultation process on a south-east Islay skerries special area of conservation.
The committee also agreed to draw the minister's attention to the views, expressed by committee members in the Official Report of the meeting, that local opinion on this matter should be taken into consideration.
I am reading that note now.
We can do the same with the Official Report of this meeting, so that John Scott's comments, in particular, can be drawn to the minister's attention.
As I recall, the petition shows that every local community appears to be against the subject of the petition. Is that correct?
Yes, those are the names I tried to read out earlier: Kildalton and Oa community council, Kilarrow and Kilmeny community council and the Kilchoman and Portnahaven community council, as well as Councillors Findlay and Currie.
Perhaps we could ask the minister to comment on John Scott's comments on the point raised in Scottish Natural Heritage's letter of 30 September. It says:
"The designation of SACs is required to meet the UK's commitments under the European Union's Habitats Directive".
That is the point: what is the motive or purpose here? Is the designation justified, or does it just make up the numbers?
It is to make up the numbers.
Perhaps we should ask the minister to comment on that.
Will it be clear from the Official Report what we are asking?
Yes.
I think you would be asking Sarah Boyack—
Yes, but if Sarah Boyack reads the Official Report, will it be clear to her what we are asking?
We want her to comment on the imposition of the designations in a general sense and on this one in particular.
I will ask her to respond to John Scott's comments in particular, so that the committee can be better informed on this matter.
Do we have any other business?
Have we finished our discussion on the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
The next item is the convener's report.
Before we consider that item, can I raise a couple of points about the progress of existing petitions?
Of course.
Petition PE39, from Mr George B Anderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to debate section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with a view to making the serving of fixed penalty fines to litter offenders mandatory. The notes on the progress of petitions say:
"The Committee also agreed to write to CoSLA to commend the experience of Angus Council, which has received a reduction in littering from a limited joint deployment of a litter warden and a police officer. The Committee noted that Murray Tosh MSP intended to approach the Minister on the subject of local authorities being permitted to keep income generated from litter fines."
Do we have any more information on that? Can we follow it up?
On petition PE102, from James Ward, did the clerk receive a letter from the clerk to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee? I seem to remember that one of the points we raised about sequestration was to do not with improving the information available to individuals or whether it was compatible with the European convention on human rights, but whether the jurisdiction for recall of a sequestration could be moved from the Court of Session to the sheriff court. At the moment, it is possible to petition for recall only at the Court of Session. That point is not made in the notes.
That was taken directly from the minutes.
Was it taken from the minutes of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee? Can that point please be checked, as it is important?
Yes we can do that.