Current Petitions
Scottish Borders Council<br />(Budget Cuts) (PE467)
May I move a motion?
A motion?
That we consider the Scottish Borders Council petition next.
I was just about to make that suggestion. Is it agreed that we consider PE467 next, given that Christine Grahame is here for that?
Members indicated agreement.
I see that Jamie McGrigor is here too. The petition on deer, to which I believe he wishes to speak, will be considered next. Christine Grahame has been here for quite a while.
It is very interesting, John: I have withdrawal symptoms from not having been on this committee for some time.
Petition PE467 was from the Borders Action Group, and concerned the impact of the Scottish Borders Council's cuts on education. We agreed to write to the Executive and to Scottish Borders Council, asking them for their comments on the petition.
We have received responses from both the Executive and the council. The Executive says that it is for the council to establish its own expenditure priorities within its available budget. It notes that the council has now set a balanced budget for 2002-03, and further notes that the independent Accounts Commission for Scotland has investigated and reported on the recent financial failures of the council and has instructed it to take remedial action. The controller of audit will report on the council's progress in implementing the report's recommendations at the end of the current financial year. The response also points out that the Accounts Commission has the power to hold public hearings into any matters raised by the report.
Scottish Borders Council has responded by saying that it is to set up a working group to consider the options for operating the swimming pools, as referred to in the petition. It says that there is no proposal to close any community centre within the approved budget. It is considering alternative methods of funding contributions to voluntary organisations, and that will involve consultation with swimming pool user groups, community education staff and users and voluntary organisations.
The council confirms that on 6 March it accepted the resignation of the council leader and appointed a new leader, who has pledged to consult the Borders people.
Do you wish to make any comments on the responses from the Scottish Executive and Scottish Borders Council before we move on to the recommendations before us, Christine?
Yes. This is the first that I have seen of the responses. I acknowledge the idea of operating the swimming pools through a trust or trusts. Most people might not feel that that will be any good, but the proposal gives the council some time. I know that no community centre will be closed. The voluntary organisations are still in limbo, however, as they have not been told about their funding. Some redundancies were announced. There are still 50 to 60 redundancies in continuing education on the cards, which are not mentioned. There is still £3.9 million of cuts on the table.
I am interested that no comment has been made about using up some of the reserves. It is felt by many that the council should be touching some of the £1.8 million of reserves in order to lessen the cuts. The inspectors went in and started to look at the situation last week. Furthermore, the devolved school management budgets are being cut. Given all that, I think that the responses are selective.
They are not only selective, but brief. They are two of the briefest responses that the Public Petitions Committee has ever received—each one was only one page long.
It would be interesting to ask Borders Against the Cuts, Jock Houston—the Borders secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland—and continuing learning groups what they think about the responses. There is a whole lot missing.
We have two courses of action open to us. We could note that the council has now produced a balanced budget, is meeting its statutory responsibilities, is trying to find ways in which to prevent swimming pool closures, is being investigated by the Accounts Commission and has been instructed to take remedial action to resolve those difficulties. On that basis, we might decide to take no further action because the council is now addressing its financial failures and it would not be appropriate for Parliament to become involved.
Alternatively, we can refer the petition to the Local Government Committee because the responses are inadequate.
We could also go for a third option, which is a sort of halfway house: we could seek the views of the petitioners on the responses that we have received from the Executive and the council before deciding what to do.
I know that it is not up to me to suggest what the committee should do, but I think that the petitioners should consider the responses. They have a great deal of faith in the Parliament and although they recognise the autonomy of local government, they need to know that when it is going wrong they can come to the Parliament and that the problems will be addressed. The Local Government Committee will need to set its work timetable if it is to slot the matter in, but the committee should first seek responses from interested parties to see what they think, given that nothing has changed.
I suggest that we write to the petitioners asking for comments on the responses that we received and, in the meantime, refer the petition to the Local Government Committee for information. We can decide what to do on the basis of the response that we receive from the petitioners. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I think that I will come back to the Public Petitions Committee. Thank you all very much.
Animal Welfare (Red Deer) (PE455)
The next petition is PE455 from Mr Alex Hogg, on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, and is on the subject of unnecessary suffering caused by the current policy of shooting red deer out of season. Members will remember that we wrote to the Executive and the Deer Commission for Scotland, asking them to respond to the petitioners. They have now done so. The Scottish Executive response refers the committee to the response from the Deer Commission, as it is content with what the Deer Commission is doing. The Deer Commission has sent a detailed response. Jamie McGrigor is here to speak to the petition.
I must declare an interest because I own a hill farm on which there are red deer and therefore I have a small commercial taking from the management of red deer. Roe deer and, in particular, red deer are a big part of Scotland's natural heritage. Stalking and the management of red deer herds provide employment in the Highlands. Venison is a good source of lean, healthy organic meat. Herds of red deer are a big tourist attraction—after all, the original monarch of the glen was not a slightly dishevelled landowner in a crumbling mansion, but a red deer stag, much painted by Sir Edwin Landseer. Red deer and roe deer are very important to the Highlands.
The petition says that the Deer Commission for Scotland, which is the statutory body that is charged with the conservation of this part of Scotland's heritage, appears to be passing the buck in terms of its responsibility to fulfil that role. There appears to be a policy, which is, to some extent, associated with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Forestry Commission, to reduce the numbers of deer greatly. Both of those bodies are shooting deer out of season. Regardless of whether that is being done under the auspices of the Deer Commission for Scotland, the result of the shooting of heavily pregnant hinds is the destruction of almost fully developed foetuses. I cannot believe that that is acceptable. Furthermore, the starvation and prolonged death of calves whose mothers have been shot while they are still totally dependent on them constitutes unnecessary suffering and should not be sanctioned by the Government or by Government bodies.
For many generations, deer have been managed professionally in Scotland. Herds of red deer have been culled by means of shooting the old ones, ensuring that the numbers stay at the correct level. What is going on at the moment, however, is indiscriminate slaughter. The slaughter is exaggerated by SNH's new regeneration programmes that involve replacing forestry fences with stock fences, over which adult deer can jump. If the mother is shot when it is in the forest, having jumped the fence to eat the young trees, the calves will starve to death. A further problem is that, whereas young trees used to be protected by proper forestry fencing, which used parallel wires, they are now protected by fencing that uses a rectangular mesh, which is dangerous for capercaillie and black game.
I could argue all day on this point, but what I basically want to say is that the situation in the north of Scotland has become aggravated. There are strong feelings between managers of red deer and officials from SNH and the Forestry Commission. The matter must be debated, which is why I agree with the petitioners that the petition should be referred to the Rural Development Committee for its urgent attention.
The Scottish Gamekeepers Association has responded to the response of the Deer Commission for Scotland. I do not know whether everyone has received that.
I do not have it.
I rather assumed that all members had read it. I can read it out, if you like.
No. I simply want to point out that a representative of the Deer Commission for Scotland passed a copy of that body's response to a representative of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association at a meeting and that there is nothing wrong with that.
A number of issues must be resolved. One relates to the killing of deer out of season. The Deer Commission for Scotland states that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association is not providing examples to support the allegations that are being made.
I will quickly provide some examples.
Not to me. The Deer Commission for Scotland wants examples and claims that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association has not provided any. We must clarify the situation, as the two sides are saying conflicting things.
The Deer Commission for Scotland intends to set up a review of legislation and will invite the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to submit evidence to that review. We have to decide whether that is the proper mechanism by which the Scottish Gamekeepers Association can pursue the matter or whether the petition should be sent to the Rural Development Committee.
I read through all the pages of information that we have in front of us. The petitioners seem to be saying that the law is that the landowner does not need a licence—he can jolly well shoot deer—but any other person needs a licence from the Deer Commission for Scotland. Am I right?
We are talking about seasons. As far as I know, the statutory season for shooting deer is from 15 July to 20 October for stags and from 21 October to 1 February for hinds.
Any landowner who perceives a threat to his interests or his land has the right to shoot deer. Is that the case?
As far as I know, that is not the case, but that is not what the petition is about; it is about shooting deer out of season. The Forestry Commission shoots stags for 11 months of the year and it shoots hinds practically all year round. That goes completely against the professional management of red deer.
Yes, but my legal point remains. The Forestry Commission is the landowner. The Deer Commission for Scotland's response to the petition states, rightly or wrongly, that primary legislation would be required to alter the right of the landowner to shoot in the close season.
The cruelty to pregnant deer is terrible. The cross-party animal welfare group might want to investigate the matter; I do not see why it should not do so. However, I think that there is doubt about the law on the matter; I cannot understand the law. I think that Jamie McGrigor is suggesting that good people obey the rules for the close season.
The close season is a matter of law.
There are many exceptions to the law on shooting in the close season.
The Forestry Commission can get a derogation to shoot outside the close season in order to protect young trees.
Who gives the Forestry Commission the derogation?
I am not certain. It must be the Deer Commission for Scotland, because it is in charge of the conservation of red deer.
In the papers from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, a distinction is made between the way in which private landowners and the Deer Commission for Scotland and the Forestry Commission use their right to shoot deer. The point has been made that the Forestry Commission seems to have carte blanche to shoot deer as and when it considers that to be appropriate.
As I see it, there is an open season and a close season. The suggestion is that no shooting of red deer should take place during the close season. Most people would agree with that and I am sure that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association would as well. However, over the past two or three years, the Deer Commission for Scotland has proposed a fairly extensive cull of red deer because of what it sees as overpopulation. Many estate proprietors and people who have an interest in deer management argue against that and say that there are concentrations of deer in particular areas, but not in others. The Deer Commission for Scotland, as the body with responsibility, has more or less imposed its will on private estates. Consequently, large numbers of deer are being shot.
A private owner shooting out of season to protect his land will ensure that that is done properly and that, if there is a calf at foot, it will be disposed of as well. The Deer Commission for Scotland and the Forestry Commission are not as discriminating in exercising their rights to cull. They carry out a mass cull; numbers are their target, not the welfare of the animals.
That is where the distinction lies between private landowners and the Deer Commission for Scotland or the Forestry Commission shooting deer out of season. The Scottish Gamekeepers Association has presented a legitimate case. It could provide evidence that would convince the Deer Commission for Scotland that the shooting of deer out of season must be curbed.
I direct members' attention to the final sentence of paragraph 34 of the Deer Commission for Scotland's response to us. It states:
"even if no authorisations were issued, most landholders could continue to shoot in the Close Season; only a change in primary legislation could change that. DCS have asked SGA for examples of unacceptable out-of-season".
Paragraph 26 is also worrying and reminds me a little of having a repeat prescription whereby you do not need to see the doctor again. It says:
"The principal criterion in deciding whether to issue an authorisation is that damage or danger to the public is occurring."
However, there cannot be many cases where deer pose a danger to the public: the animals run away.
Paragraph 26 continues:
"This involves a site inspection by a DCS officer … on the first occasion, although repeat authorisations may be issued".
If we read that paragraph carefully, we have to doubt the whole procedure of authorisations and wonder why and to whom such authorisations to shoot in close season are granted.
As we are by no means experts in this area, we have to decide whether to accept the Deer Commission for Scotland's recommendation that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association should participate in its review of current legislation in order to address the problem or whether a separate inquiry should be set up instead by referring the petition to the Rural Development Committee. That is the choice that faces us.
I suggest that we refer the matter back to the petitioners and find out whether they feel that the review will be useful. If the petition went to the Rural Development Committee as it is, the committee would simply conclude that, as a review was under way, it would not carry out any further work on it.
The matter is difficult. We received the SGA response only today and I have not had the chance to read it properly. However, the clerk has had a quick look. On the DCS's comment about the need to review the legislation, the association says:
"we wonder why it has taken them so long to recognise and acknowledge what we have been trying to tell them for over 2 years. A review of …the … act is essential, as an investigation by the Rural Development Committee will show."
The problem is that the SGA wants both things. Although it is quite happy to participate in any review by the DCS, it also wants the Rural Development Committee to address the problem. Whether that will happen is up to that committee; we cannot force it to do so. However, we can refer the petition to it.
I have no problem with that. I am just saying that I am a member of the Rural Development Committee and know its work load. If a review is under way on a particular issue, it is likely that most committees would decide not to get involved until that review was completed and members could scrutinise the outcome.
Is it agreed that we write back to the petitioners on those lines and seek clarification on that issue?
Before we move on, I should point out, apart from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, the deer management groups that have been established have an interest in the preservation and management of deer and would provide a professional view on the association's suggestions. We should recommend that whichever committee calls for more evidence should also ask those groups to submit some.
Is there a way of contacting them?
Yes. The umbrella organisation is the Association of Deer Management Groups, which is based in Inverness, I think. Is that right?
Yes.
The clerk tells me that he can find out where the groups are and ask them for their views.
Can we also pass the papers to the cross-party animal welfare group for its interest?
Yes. Is the suggested course of action agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Planning System (PE439)
The next petition is PE439 from Mr and Mrs Flanagan, which calls for safeguards to protect the rights of the public in relation to the planning system. The petition followed a case in which the council refused to defer planning permission until investigations had been carried out into a failure to adhere to previous planning conditions. The committee agreed to write to the Executive about the issue and we have now received its response to the petitioners' three main suggestions for improving the current system.
The first question was the old one about whether the Executive has any plans to introduce a third-party right of appeal, to which its simple answer is that it has no intention of doing so. On whether compensation should be provided for damages caused by developments that were approved by planning authorities, the Executive's response is that, under the present procedures, the ombudsman can recommend that compensation be paid when maladministration has occurred. If the people who are affected are not happy with the ombudsman's decision, they can seek redress through the courts. On whether there should be a body that monitors planning decisions that are taken under the present system, the Executive's view is that planning decisions should be taken at as local a level as possible, which seems not to have been the case in relation to petition PE479, with which we dealt earlier.
The Executive points out that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill, which has been passed by the Parliament, will create a one-stop shop for all kinds of ombudsmen. The Executive hopes that the bill will increase the transparency and accountability of the ombudsman service in carrying out its functions.
The petitioner still has an opportunity to submit a response to the Executive's consultation on public involvement in the planning system, although the Executive has expressed views against the introduction of third-party appeals. The response covers compensation and how it can be awarded and mentions steps that are to be taken to improve and streamline the ombudsman system. Do we agree to send a copy of the Executive's response to the petitioner and to take no further action?
Members indicated agreement.
Water Boards (Consultation) (PE441)
Petition PE441, which is from Mr Dereck Fowles, is on consultation by Scottish water boards. He was disturbed by the actions and decisions of West of Scotland Water in terminating sheep farming by the side of Loch Katrine. We agreed to request comments from the Executive on the petition. The Executive's response points out that sheep were removed from Loch Katrineside to protect public health following a cryptosporidium outbreak in 2000. That was done on the advice of the outbreak control team at West of Scotland Water. The authority has met with interested parties. When the new treatment plant at Milngavie, which is to be completed in 2005, is finished, livestock might be reinstated.
The Executive points out that the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 improves the accountability of the sector and its responsiveness to customers and communities. A statutory code of practice, which requires Scottish Water to consult local communities, is in place. Consultation is required at appropriate points, such as before decisions are made on large projects. Consultation must occur in a reasonable time scale and proper information must be made available. Scottish ministers and the new water customer consultation panels for which the bill provides are involved in approving the code, which is published and readily available. Scottish Water must measure its performance against the code.
We cannot intervene in the case of the petition. Although West of Scotland Water was prompted to make the decision by a matter of public health, it is unfortunate that adequate consultation procedures were not followed. It is encouraging to note that the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 introduces a statutory code of practice that requires Scottish Water to consult local communities. That meets the petitioner's objectives. Do we agree to send a copy of the Executive's response to the petitioner and to take no further action?
Members indicated agreement.
Predatory Birds (PE449)
Petition PE449, from Mr Alex Hogg on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, asks for an independent investigation into the impact of predatory birds on waders, songbirds, private stocks of fish and game birds. An earlier petition on the licensed culling of raptors—PE187—was passed to the Rural Development Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee.
In February 2000, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions UK raptor working group published its findings. Although the Scottish Gamekeepers Association was involved in the consultation for that report, it strongly disagreed with the claims about the low numbers of raptors and the lack of damage that they do. The Transport and the Environment Committee concluded petition PE187 by suggesting that the DETR report be amended to reflect the nature of the SGA's involvement. The Transport and the Environment Committee strongly recommended that the SGA become a member of a newly formed moorland working group to allow its concerns to be addressed.
The committee agreed to request comments from Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Homing Union. Members have the details of the responses from those bodies. We have also received a response from the RSPB, which offers to make available to the committee any scientific support that we might require.
The Transport and the Environment Committee set up a working group, which is chaired by Alex Neil MSP, to develop a research project to consider further the concerns of the Scottish Homing Union about the effect of raptors on its birds. That working group will address the issues that the petition raises. The moorland forum, which SNH will set up shortly, will provide an opportunity for groups such as the SGA to become involved in discussions that are related to conservation and management issues.
It is suggested that we copy the petition and the responses to Alex Neil MSP and ask him to confirm whether the concerns that are raised in the petition are likely to be addressed as part of the research commissioned by his working group. We could also ask his view on whether the petition raises any new issues that would merit its being referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee. A copy of the petition could be passed to the clerks to the Rural Development Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee for information only at this stage.
As I am involved with Alex Neil in the work to help the Scottish Homing Union, I will add that last week it was announced that the organisation has received a significant sum of money—£160,000, I think—to enable it to undertake proper research. The fact that people have lacked evidence that specifies how many predatory birds attack pigeons and SGA livestock has been part of the problem. The award represents a major step forward, because such evidence will help the Scottish Homing Union enormously.
Are we agreed on the proposed action?
Members indicated agreement.
We have already dealt with petition PE467. A small report at the back of the current petitions document deals with progress on several petitions. At the committee's next meeting, a full paper will be presented giving the up-to-date position on all outstanding petitions.