Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 03 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 3, 2002

Official Report 131KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Cramond (Roman Remains) (PE9)

The next piece of business concerns correspondence on the Roman remains at Cramond. Members will have before them another letter that we have received from Ronald Guild, who is in the public gallery today. I thank him for his enthusiasm for ensuring that the committee and the other relevant public bodies do what they should be doing in relation to this matter.

Mr Guild has shown exemplary patience—patience with an edge, fortunately—while this process has gone ahead.

A number of developments over the summer gave us substantial cause for concern. The first is the fact that the planning information with which we were presented indicates that there is a real and present risk to part of the site as opposed to the long-standing risk that has been caused by neglect. The second one is the major fire that removed a large part of the complex belonging to the university, which opens up the possibility of a wider spread of development than we might have expected.

At the root of the matter—I think that the committee will agree—is an incredibly slow response from the City of Edinburgh Council. I know that it has other priorities but it seems to me that we have assisted in helping the council, largely through the work of Mr Guild, to identify not just a difficulty but a major opportunity to make something of a unique site within Edinburgh that will diversify the tourist area. The council is required only to take a grip on unsympathetic development and dangers to the site. Nobody is asking it to do major excavation or make changes in the short term, although some planning of how the site can be used is now required.

Given that this is the third year that we have had the petition in front of us and that we and Mr Guild have stuck with it, the time is probably right to go back to the City of Edinburgh Council, perhaps with Mr Guild, and ask what it intends to do. We have no ultimate right to force the council to do anything, but we can embarrass people into thinking about whether they are doing the right things. We can put more pressure on responsible bodies on this important issue.

Well, Michael, you have made a strong case with valid points and I think that you should take up your suggestion, on behalf of the committee, to go with Mr Guild and meet with the City of Edinburgh Council, if members are agreed.

Members indicated agreement.

I am happy to do so.

---

Film Industry (PE442)

Petition PE442 calls on the Parliament to facilitate the setting up of a film industry in Scotland. We must consider what action to take—if any—in regard to the petition. I ask for members' comments.

We support the petition entirely and should be doing something about it. The question is what. We intended to have a study of film and television training in Scotland, but I do not know whether that will now be feasible this year given our work load and the short time that we have. The Executive seems to think that it is doing the job, but there is no great evidence that it is. I cannot see how the Education, Culture and Sport Committee can be active on the issue this year, but we could leave it as a legacy for a future Education, Culture and Sport Committee, suggesting that it look seriously at the issue and hold an inquiry.

The issue is serious and I suspect that the situation is not helped by the ever-changing cast of ministers who deal with the enterprise and culture portfolios. There are decisions outstanding but, again, because the industry is an area of commercial interest, events are moving more quickly than they would if we had been relying on Scottish Government action.

It strikes me that the issue needs electrification and zeal brought to it. I wonder whether the committee might be willing to invite Sir Sean Connery to come and give oral evidence. That would attract attention to the issue and put it on the agenda. Some people may think that I am being flippant, but I have a serious point to make. The debate needs someone such as Sir Sean Connery—who, after all, was a great supporter of the creation of the Scottish Parliament—to be drawn in and put at the top of the pile. My suggestion is not made tongue in cheek; it is a serious idea to motivate people to look at the issue.

Sir Sean Connery is one of the petitioners.

Like Mike Russell, I recall our discussion about the training of young people to encourage them into the industry. We need to look at that issue. I, too, could make a list of people from whom I would like to take evidence, but I will not do that right now. It probably makes sense to make space for whoever is on the next Education, Culture and Sport Committee to come back to the issue, because we have a fairly extensive work programme in front of us and I do not think that we will have the time to do any more.

I have less sympathy with inviting Sir Sean Connery to appear before the committee, mainly because I suspect that that would be used for purposes other than those of petition PE442.

Moi?

Do not look so shocked, for goodness' sake. [Interruption.] If Brian Monteith wants to break into films, who am I to disillusion him?

You should be explicit.

Some of the things that the petitioners are calling for are not within the Parliament's competence. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to take a position—supportive or otherwise—on all aspects of the petition. I note from the Executive's response, which was provided some time ago, that a review of Scottish Screen was being undertaken. I am not sure whether the conclusions of that review have been reported. It would be valid to consider that review before we take any decisions. I concur with the comments that other members have made about the huge amount of work that the committee has to do before the Parliament is dissolved. In light of our request for information on the review of Scottish Screen, the issue could be left to a future Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

Jackie Baillie's comments were not at all transparent. Perhaps we could leave an even better legacy to our successors if we were to do a little work on the petition. Therefore, I am in the unusual position of supporting Brian Monteith. Mr Howard Campbell and Sir Sean Connery should be invited to attend a committee meeting to speak to their petition. That would not be an unusual situation. Mr Guild is an example of a man who has lodged a petition with the Parliament and who continues to attend. We should invite the petitioners to speak to the committee.

I would prefer to have film stars who are resident and actively working in Scotland to give evidence to the committee, rather than those who live in Los Angeles, which was confirmed at an earlier meeting.

What a parochial view.

Absolutely not.

Do members agree to the course of action that Mr Mike Russell has outlined? There are two contrary views. One is that we should invite Sir Sean Connery and the other is that we should not. I, along with the clerks, am responsible for timetabling our meetings. Given our timetable and the work that we have before the dissolution, I am less than keen to add anything else to our overburdened agenda, particularly an issue in relation to which the time scale could spiral out of control. It is not realistic to invite two people to give evidence on petition PE442. Dealing properly with the petition, rather than simply becoming involved in a publicity exercise, would be a substantial piece of work. I am not suggesting that it would be a publicity exercise for any individual member. It is my honest opinion that we do not have the time to do meaningful work on the petition. In light of members' comments, the issue would be worthy of full consideration by a subsequent Education, Culture and Sport Committee and it could be included in our legacy paper to the succeeding committee.

In the meantime, we should write to the minister to find out what is happening with the review of Scottish Screen. If we get through the work that we have, I would be willing to reconsider the matter at a later date, if members wish to do so. At the moment, I am reluctant to carry out work on the petition, given the work that will be entailed in the protection of children bill, which should be our priority.

I would not be in favour of a division on the subject in our first meeting after the recess. After we have completed stage 1 of the protection of children bill, would it be possible for us to consider whether a gap has appeared in our schedule that would allow us to take evidence on the petition?

I am happy to agree to do that. In the meantime, we will write to the minister to ask about Scottish Screen. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We will consider those matters that fall within the committee's competence. The tax issues and the setting up of a Scottish film industry do not fall within the competence of the Parliament.

We would be entitled to take a view on those matters.

You are well aware that to do so would be entirely unhelpful.

With the greatest respect, the Parliament is entitled to take a view on any matter on which it chooses to do so. The committee might choose not to take a view on the matters that have been mentioned, but it would be entitled to.

If you want to have an argument, I will put the issue of what to do with petition PE442 to a division. I suggest that we move forward in a spirit of consensus rather than a spirit of division, as we have done before.

The consensus position is that we will reconsider the matter after stage 1 of the protection of children bill.

Yes, we will reconsider those issues that fall within the direct remit of the Parliament.

I will live with that just now.