 Good morning and welcome everyone to the PPC meeting and could I ask everyone to switch off their mobile phones and electronic devices as they do interfere with the sound system? We have received apologies from David Torrance. Agenda item number one is consideration of a current petition. The first item is an evidence session with the Scottish Government and Historic Scotland as part of the committee's consideration of petition, PE1523, by Jess Smith on giving the Tinkers harp for Gail back to the Traven people. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions and may I welcome Fiona Hyslop, Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs and Noel Foyutt, head of historic environment legislation to the Scottish Government and Barbara Cummins, director of heritage management, Historic Scotland to the meeting. I also welcome Mike Russell, MSP to the meeting who has a constituency interest in this petition. I now invite the cabinet secretary and then Mr Cummins to make a brief open statement from which we will then move to questions. Thank you, convener. Good morning. I'd like to just say a few words to set the scene before handing over to Historic Scotland to talk about the details of this case. The contribution of the travel community to Scotland's life and culture deserves to be valued and appreciated as a whole. It represents an important and often neglected strand in Scotland's story. The traveller's lifestyle is to move lightly through the land, which leaves little by way of physical traces, and that is why I think we all agree that Tinkers heart is so significant. It represents a rare tangible monument to that community's long presence in Scotland's landscape. This petition asks ministers to direct Historic Scotland to investigate what actions can be taken to ensure the restoration and preservation of the Tinkers heart. I'd like to talk briefly about when ministers should intervene and when they should not. With the strong support of all parties, we have firmly established the principle that our national collections and other bodies that make curatorial decisions should make those decisions free from ministerial interference, that is free from ministerial direction. With the support and encouragement of MSPs of all parties, we have applied the same principle to Creative Scotland. In the bill to create the new body Historic Environment Scotland, which Parliament itself approved on November 4 last year, that principle was also recognised. Neil Bibby MSP and Liz Smith MSP in particular were keen to test Historic Environment Scotland bill in respect of ministers' power of direction. All members were entirely agreed that it is not the job of ministers to direct what should be scheduled, collected or granted. Those are matters for expert judgment, operated against established operational criteria, criteria set out in this case in the Scottish Historic Environment Policy, which has been developed through public consultation. It has been suggested that the Tinkers heart should be scheduled. It is important to remember that scheduling is intended for a specific purpose. It is a means of recognising nationally important sites with a view to protecting them against deliberate damage. Scheduling is an end in itself. Convener, I think that it is important to point out that scheduling does not change ownership. Neither does it bring added public rights of access nor in itself does it automatically bring restoration and preservation as requested in the petition. The petition seeks action. Action to restore or preserve our heritage does not depend on scheduling. Public and charitable resources, including funds, are available to support communities who wish to care for and provide access to important monuments, but those can only be mobilised with the agreement of the owners of the sites. Historic Scotland can do much, but it cannot compel local co-operation. With your permission, convener, I would like to hand over now to Barbara Cummings, the director of heritage management at Historic Scotland, to outline what has been done and what further action is in hand. Barbara Cummings Thank you, cabinet secretary. Thank you, committee, for inviting me to attend today. I welcome the opportunity to explain our position. Historic Scotland recognises that the Tinkers heart is of significant cultural heritage interest. We have been positive and supportive since the case was brought to our attention in 2012, for example ensuring that it is properly recorded, attending local meetings and involving Archaeology Scotland's adopt a monument scheme, which we part fund. The petition calls for preservation and restoration of the heart with the implication that it should be laid out in good order for visitors as a physical reminder of the important contribution of the traveller community to the history of Scotland. We would be supportive of such an initiative. However, there is little that Historic Scotland can do to change the current situation. We have been called upon to schedule the site, but that would not achieve the aims of the petition. Those could only be achieved by constructive dialogue and the site's owner and the local community's co-operation. The chair of the local group, Here We Are, says that the community is well aware that the heart is a special site, but they and the owner want it preserved as it is. The new fence that they have installed means that the heart is now protected from cattle damage, which was previously a concern. Historic Scotland can and does encourage co-operation, but as the cabinet secretary has said, we cannot enforce it. Turning specifically to the question of scheduling, there are over 300,000 recorded monuments in Scotland of which only about three to five per cent are actually scheduled depending on what part of Scotland you are in. We take very seriously the strength of concern about our decision not to schedule the heart, also reflected in this committee's strong interest. We are very aware that this monument is associated with and especially important to a marginalised and underrepresented group in Scottish society. Many monuments do not meet the criteria for scheduling, but few monuments, if any, have challenged us as this one has. Just before Christmas, John Finnie MSP asked several questions in Parliament about equalities issues and specifically whether an equality's impact assessment should have been undertaken when assessing the tinker's heart for scheduling. In view of the exceptional circumstances pertaining in this case, we now consider that an equality's impact assessment of the tinker's heart decision should have been undertaken. Equalities impact assessments should not be carried out retrospectively, so we have decided to set aside our earlier decision and start again with a fresh team. I cannot prejudge the outcome of the reassessment and it is important not to raise expectations, but I believe that this is the right way forward. We will inform all those with an interest in the sight of our intention to revisit the case. I would be happy to report back to the committee on progress in this work. We expect the scheduling reassessment to take around three to six months, so I would be in a position to provide an update on progress in June 2015. I hope that you will agree that this course of action responds to at least some of the concerns of the public and this committee. We remain ready to help in whatever way we can. We will now move to questions. You said in your introduction that historic Scotland acknowledges that tinker's heart has cultural heritage significance. However, it does not meet the current criteria for a schedule monument. Can you then maybe advise what types of sites and ancient monuments in archaeological eras act 1979 designed to recognise and protect and what is the practical effect of a listing monument? It is correct that, when we assessed the tinker's heart, we did not consider it to meet the criteria for scheduling, but we will be looking at that again. That may continue to be our conclusion, but we may come to a different conclusion in that respect. Generally, the effect of scheduling and the act is simply to recognise monuments of national importance. The legislation does not set out what that means. That is set out in Scottish Historic Environment Policy, which sets the criteria under which we assess scheduling. One of the characteristics that a monument can have is the associated characteristics, and that is clearly one of the very strong elements in relation to the tinker's heart. One area that we will be looking at very closely again as to whether or not that has been applied correctly, in particular taking account of the equality impact assessment that we will undertake in parallel with this and whether or not we are adding sufficient weight to those associated characteristics in this instance. The guidance to me seems rather complex. As the guidance has to distinguish between associations, contextual and intrinsic value, how do those concepts help us to identify and recognise sites of national importance, and why does the guidance ascribe a higher value to intrinsic qualities over others? In terms of intrinsic value, there has to be a physical thing, an item to consider and to schedule it as a monument. I suppose that is the first thing. Can you identify a site, a structure, a piece of evidence of man's intervention? That is where the primary concern of the intrinsic value comes in. Are we applying that too strongly to the detriment of the other characteristics in this instance? That is a question that we will revisit given the interest that has been shown in the fact that we need to consider whether or not we are ascribing too high a value to one characteristic of the scheduling criteria over another. I would not want to prejudge that at that moment in time, but I am prepared to accept that that may have been the case in the past. So you are agreeing that you are going to review that and look back at that? We will review that again, yes. Cabinet Secretary, perhaps in your presentation you did kind of touch on this, but I will give you the opportunity again to expand. Do you have any plans to either extend the breadth of sites eligible for listing under the guidance or alternatively create a separate national policy on the recognition, protection and promotions of sites of culture importance, which do not meet the current criteria of a listed monument? One of the things to be aware of is that we are in a process of transition from the merger of Historic Scotland and Arkham. I talked about the bill that we went through, the Historic Environment Scotland bill, which set out what ministers should do or not do in terms of direction. The Historic Environment Scotland act also makes changes to improve procedures around scheduling and listing. That is going to require a new set of regulations to be laid. There is actually a public consultation currently under way. It was launched on 19 December. The consultation ends at the end of March. The consultation is an opportunity to consider afresh the impacts of heritage management work on a range of interests, including equalities, business and environment. We want to ensure that Scotland's heritage is managed in a way that meets the needs of the 21st century. Your initial question about the value of intrinsic and associative characteristics and where values like each generation probably associates what is important—what is nationally important—in different ways that might have been done in previous years. As Barbara has said, the issue has been challenged in ways that other monuments may not have done because of its particular characteristics. It might be an opportunity that, if the committee felt and had a view about it, the consultation that is currently under way would be a good and ideal opportunity for the committee to express its views to what it thinks in terms of that consultation. How many of the existing listed monuments are originating from minority cultures in Scotland? That petition is about a minority culture being recognised within the wider context of Scotland. Are there, at the present time, any listed monuments that can trace its origin to minority culture in Scotland? That is not the way that we have recorded the monuments that we have scheduled or the buildings that we have listed. We would be able to identify, in particular, listed buildings associated with minority cultures, but it is not the way that we have recorded things as they have evolved over time. In relation to scheduled monuments, quite often we do not know the origins of the creators. It is evidence of human activity. We do not know who those humans were. It would be very difficult to identify that. It is something that we will have to consider in the future about how we capture the information of the groups that are represented in the historic environment. That is something that we will have to do in the new organisation as Historic Environment Scotland. Remember that monuments are thousands of years old. How do we know what was the minority at the time of hundreds of thousands of years old? That is quite a challenge in historical terms, but it is a point that is very much going forward of what we can do to try to go forward. That is why the invitation to the committee is to say that this is an important issue. The petition raises the issue. That is a good way to inform things going forward, but we cannot necessarily unpick what has happened over thousands of years in the past or reschedule or renominate or reclassify things retrospectively, but what we can do is try to deal with things going forward. That petition provides us the opportunity to do so. I fully understand that some of the standing stones that exist in Scotland predate the pyramids. In terms of trying to find out who the original builders of those sites were, I am well aware of the history of some of the sites, but in some of the modern and listed monuments, clearly we know, in some respects, who was the architect, who commissioned the work and what the original purpose of that building was. It is really just to try to find out whether or not Historic Scotland currently keeps a record of where that listed monument may have originated from and the purpose of that building. As I said, we have many buildings throughout Scotland that we can trace back and talk about in the past 300, 400, 500 years. We also know in terms of the Antonine wall who constructed that. It is really just trying to get to the situation where Historic Scotland can give us, particularly in the modern context, some idea, the significance to minority cultures within Scotland, where that listing came from. We would certainly include that information in the data that we would capture in terms of when a building is listed, you get a list description. That will tell you where the property is, what it is and a history of it. The architect, as you say, perhaps who commissioned it, what its use was for. If a particular minority group had commissioned it or had a history of use in it, that would be part of that history of that building. That is a relatively recent phenomenon. The full data is being produced as part of a listing proposal. With the advent of computer systems, it is certainly possible to search through records now. We are constantly trying to upgrade the search facility on the listing search that you can carry out on our website so that key words can be brought out in that. The nuances of that are defining what minority communities are, because certain communities may well identify themselves as a distinct entity that we do not necessarily realise that they would want to be identified in that sort of way. Where we have a group like the Traveller community, well-known, well-documented and well-considered, that is something that you can pull out, but you may well have individual groups that would want to search for their background, what is the physical evidence of their background in Scotland, that we cannot provide that material easily. There are over 47,000 listed buildings in Scotland, so to search through individual records to pull that out is very difficult, but we are constantly trying to update our data to make that searching easier. However, that is going forward, which means that there is a legacy of older decisions that are made by our predecessors, where that is not possible. Does Historic Scotland actively seek out interested groups in the relation to listed monuments? I am thinking about where we have got really easy with historic church buildings that are listed. In fact, some relatively modern church buildings are listed buildings, but in terms of some of the other monuments, do you actively seek out those minority groups or individuals who may have a particular interest in being associated with the monument? We have not done specifically in the past. We tend to focus on themed areas. At the moment, we are undergoing a review of courts and prisons. Part of that is because the public estate is considering its assets and disposing of things, so where we think that there is an issue, we will address that. Clearly, there are communities that are poorly represented in terms of the historic environment and what is designated at a national level. That is an area that we are giving active thought to considering for the future as part of those thematic reviews. I thank you very much indeed. Cabinet Secretary, I was hoping that Barbara might be able to answer this question. We have got trusts up in Scotland, and I am just wondering what level of engagement you have had with them. I am also wondering whether you actually had direct contact with some of the boards, with your own board, in terms of how you would want to see this progress and possibly finishing the whole process with some sort of national conference in which we bring all those ideas together and publish a report that would be meaningful. I am not quite sure that I understand. Is this in relation to the tinker's heart itself? It is in relation to what we are trying to achieve in terms of identifying heritage and heritage sites and also in terms of how we keep those sites, because I think that more and more it is becoming quite evident that we will need help from the communities, businesses and others. I am just wondering what level of engagement you have had with the trusts to try to achieve that goal? It might be that I could assist a little. I think that it is fair to say that, to date, communities have, in effect, self-identified and asked to be involved with processes, as in this case. There is quite an active community heritage, community archaeology network across Scotland. We have an annual conference every year. Last year it was held at Creef. There are ways in which communities can come together and have that discussion with the professionals, if you like, already. I think that that could will develop. It is only one sector. There are other people who feel that community engagement should be different. It should not all be focused on archaeology and doing projects. It should be more about recognition of life ways and so on. I think that there are already forums in which that could take place. That would be the first way to use the existing mechanisms by which community groups come together to speak to professional archaeologists and others who are interested in the sole area of work. It might be quite a complex area, but to draw attention, Scotland, for its first time ever, has its first-ever historic environment strategy. As part of that, I have pulled together a historic environment forum, which has everybody's interests from community planning, from different areas of interest, bringing them together for the first time collectively. There is a whole lot of different work streams underneath that and different parts of the historic environment community are helping to lead to areas. National Trust, for example, are very much involved. They have great expertise in education, etc. One of the strands is about community engagement. The strategy was launched last year and we are bringing everyone together. Some of the points will be about what we do for the country as a whole in looking at themes that we might want to take forward. That provides an opportunity for a better engagement, both at a national level and to get voices heard that might not have otherwise been heard within our historic environment. We are looking at developing our first conference following the historic environment strategy. I cannot predict what subjects there will be, but the idea is that we have to separate that perception of the historic buildings that are between us and Scotland, our national trust or whoever, and the communities that live there. A real driver for change is the knowledge that local communities often have better than some of the other professionals around that. How do you engage that better? That is at the heart of what we are doing. It is called our place in time, our historic environment strategy. That might be a vehicle to take forward what the committee member is suggesting in terms of that opportunity to share that experience. That is very helpful. I am looking at historic Scotland leading in a way. I was just wondering the level of engagement that you currently have with the various trusts in Scotland. At the end of the day, if we are going to get a pound of flesh, we need to make sure that we are engaging with everybody and everybody has access to yourselves and vice versa. I am just trying to pry out that level of engagement that you have currently or do you feel that you need more opportunities to develop that engagement? Yes to both. We do currently engage with local trusts. As Mr Foyette said, that tends to be by themselves selecting. An issue comes to our attention or we are in an area doing a particular piece of work and we engage with a trust over a particular site or work that they are undertaking. Perhaps they come to us for grant funding for a particular project. There are many means by which they will approach us for our support and we always try to do that. In some cases, it can be simply the act of supporting verbally and providing staff time for work. For example, one of my members of staff is working with the friends of I'm I Fort who had a parliamentary reception here recently just to celebrate the work that they are doing. The trusts are doing all the work. They are driving that but with the support of Historic Scotland local businesses and local authority. It's about bringing people together often is the role that we can play. As I said, one of the key things is about promoting co-operation but we can only promote that co-operation and we can't compel it. Would we like to do more? Absolutely. That's one of the things that Historic Environment Scotland and through the Historic Environment strategy, we'll be considering how we do that and with the resources that we have. Finally, chair, if you don't mind, just the last thank you chair. That's exactly what I'm driving at. Whether we can support you that, I don't know but it's that level of engagement that I'm interested in. I think that that's important. I don't want trusts to feel that they've had lip service. Therefore, I think it's important that that level of engagement needs to be recognised of how deep that really is to justify that level of engagement. I don't think that lip service is good enough for what we're trying to achieve. Interlinked. First, are you satisfied that current heritage protections are sufficiently promoted to protect the diverse heritage, including the contribution of minority cultures? As a follow-on from that, what equality safeguards exist within the current guidance, especially for those communities where written records etc are not so easily available and finally, as a consequence of public sector equality duty requirements, do you anticipate any changes and if so will they have any effect upon the heart? So it's basically what we currently do, minority rights, any changes as a result of public sector equality? If I may be starting, I'll ask Barbara to ask that kind of final point. I mean that's what I'm saying in terms of looking at the, you know, alive and actively now in a consultation which is about saying going forward what's going to be important in terms of scheduling and listing and how we can improve procedures around that and do we need to make sure that equalities issues are probably more forefront than they might have been in the past in 1979 when some of the legislation that we were referring to was first established. Obviously, SHEP, which is the historic environment policy, was early 2000s initiated and then refreshed in 2011. So one of the things I'm inviting the committee to do is that, you know, obviously the lessons that can be learned from this petition can be fed into that. We can certainly do that, but it might be helpful if the petition committee itself decided to. But in relation to the final point on equality duties, do you want to? Yes. We will be setting up new processes and procedures to set up the new organisation Historic Environment Scotland, so we'll be revisiting the services we deliver and the processes that we undertake to deliver those services. As part of that, we will have to undertake an equalities impact assessment of those processes to ensure that they are robust, that we aren't undervaluing particular areas or disenfranchising particular groups or parts of our community, so that that is our intention. Clearly, this case accelerates that in relation to the scheduling process, and I'm sure that we'll learn a lot from that. Community, thank you very much indeed. Just in terms of the issues in relation to the tinker's heart and whether or not given the issues that have been raised, because I was quite interested in a comment made by the Cabinet Secretary in her opening remarks, where she indicated that it would only go ahead if there was agreement with the owners of the site. That is very important for many communities who are trying to achieve their ambition to recognise a historic monument, to preserve that historic monument into the future. However, if there is no agreement with the site owner, then what can be done by Historic Scotland to ensure that the co-operation of the site owner to ensure that the monument can be recognised and preserved, because particularly in relation to the petition, there have been things that have happened to the site in the past, particularly the cattle gaining access to the site, the damage that was caused by the cattle. While the current owners have taken some work under hand, the difficulty is for the petitioner as they feel that there is still much to do in preserving the site and recognising that as a historic monument for the travelling community in Scotland. I think that that comes to the nub of the issue for this petition, because as I said, we can reconsider the scheduling, which is what is happening using the criteria that Barbara has set out. That is what is going to be done as a new process going forward. In terms of restoring and preserving the site, which is what the petitioner actually says, what does that actually mean in terms of what does restoration mean and what does preservation mean and what does it look like for all the communities involved in the travel community and the local community. In terms of trying to make any improvements that people are talking about or even maintaining what is there in a satisfactory way, you need the co-operation of the owners. The vast majority of monuments—remember, we have 300,000 in terms of the monuments that we have—are in private ownership in some shape or form. The co-operation that exists is probably the thing that you do not hear about. It is the very good co-operation that takes place and the role that owners have in looking after their own monuments or, indeed, work increasingly in that, refers to Hanzalaam Alex's point about the local trust or communities. The adoptive monument process, for example, which was set up by Historic Scotland, which is run by Archaeology Scotland and funded from Historic Scotland to do that, is precisely about trying to get better community—it is not necessarily about who owns it but who cares for it, because what you want is cared for. That happens in the vast, vast majority of cases, but if you do not get co-operation from an owner—and it is highly unusual to be in that situation, highly unusual because the vast majority are doing this in day-in, day-out—it is really difficult. Now, what Historic Scotland can do, and Barbara Cymru can maybe talk about this a bit more, is to facilitate conversations. The process that Historic Scotland is embarking on may help in the facilitation of the conversations, so there is a common understanding. To get progress going forward, there needs to be co-operation and a new arena or a new space for the local community, the landowner and the travelling committee to come to some agreement as to what is needed. That would be the way forward for the particular issues in this petition. However, as the current secretary, I would not direct Historic Scotland in any particular site that it currently looks after. I cannot direct it for a site that it does not look after. What I can do is provide advice to my experience as a current secretary of a number of years in this area, that a lot of it is about good communication, good relationships going forward and perhaps the process of looking at the scheduling in a new light, bearing in mind the qualities and duties that Barbara Cymru referred to. That might be an opportunity for people to have those discussions but in a new position. I would like to welcome the decision to review the scheduling. That is very helpful, but I have the advantage of having been at the site actually there this morning. I drove past it, but I was there last Monday. I have some photographs that I would be happy to provide to the committee. The reality of the site is that it is rather different from what we have heard. Kate Howe, convener of the landowner, wrote to the committee on 14 December, and she said two things that I think the committee might want to consider. One is that, as you are aware, neither the Scottish Parliament nor our Galambute Council feel that the site is of sufficient historical interest to merit a listing. That is her understanding of the listing process, that this is not important enough. I think that that does say something significant. She then says that I can assure you that the site is well looked after and protected against cattle. I consider that enough has been done to ensure that everyone wishing to visit the Tinkers heart can do so. The pictures that I have show a rather different story. There is an agricultural trailer parked virtually next to the heart. There is a sign on the gate that does not have an apostrophe with Tinkers, but let that pass. It says that Tinkers and other local people used to be married at this spot as it was a central meeting point. That is not true. That is not the reason. It was done because it was there as a sacred site for the travelling people and others. For example, Isabella Brody Langlaarton and John Luke Cole Cottage were married here in 1872, rather cleverly choosing two people who were not travellers in order to advertise the site. The heart has recently been refurbished and protected, thanks to Ardnoe's state and here we are. To refurbish a site of this importance, presumably would require some professional assistance. Was any sought from Historic Scotland? Not that I am aware of, no. A site of this importance has been interfered with by a landowner who now thinks that he is sufficient unto the day, essentially. I am also a surprise. I wonder if Barbara Cummins would address this. I am surprised by the remarks that you made that, whilst I do appreciate that this is a difficult issue, Historic Scotland is powerless. When people interfere with scheduled monuments and historic buildings that are scheduled, the law can be used. I suppose that one could call in evidence the endless case of Chirham Castle or one could call in Rowallan Castle. There would be the possibility of preventing further damage to this site and perhaps then helping the landowner to have better access. At the present moment, it does not matter what the travelling community thinks. The landowner has said what she thinks is that this is over and done with. Am I right about the protection of sites? Yes and no. If a site is scheduled, then it is protected from deliberate damage. If it is not scheduled, then it is not. There is no obligation. There is protection under the planning system from change through the planning process, so it has to be taken account of as part of that decision making. However, it does not require consent to carry out works to a monument if it is not scheduled. If it is scheduled, it needs schedule monument consent to intervene in any way to restore or to excavate, for example. At the moment, works could be carried out to the monument without consent, so going ahead without involving us in the works that have undertaken so far, there is no breach in the law in that at the moment. You would not regard it as good practice, however, on any schedule monument, for example, to build a metal case around it, park an agricultural trailer next to it and have an inaccurate sign on a gate that does not tell you the truth about the monument. That would not be the standard that Historic Scotland would aspire to see our monuments treated in that way. There would be little that we could do if it did not intervene in the scheduled area. If you are on agricultural land, there are activities that are undertaken around monuments on agricultural land all the time that have the potential to impact on your enjoyment or your appreciation of a monument that we cannot intervene in. With respect, what I had to ask you was if there was an agricultural trailer park next to such a site, if there was an aesthetically ugly metal container around it and if there was a notice that did not tell you the truth, that would not be good practice. It would not be what we would want to see in our own sites, indeed. I was certainly pleased to hear in the cabinet secretary's opening remarks that she acknowledged the importance of the tinker's heart. It is clear from her comments of the scheduling of the monument rest fully with Historic Scotland. However, I also noted Barbara Cummings's comments that scheduling would not achieve the aims of the petition. However, I was pleased to hear that there are exceptional circumstances in this case, and it was heartening to hear that the case will be revisited. There seems to be a degree of intransigence from the landowner, as Mike Russell has alluded to, and it is unfortunate to say the least that she has not been more accommodating. I was struck by comments made by my colleague Mike Russell in the national newspaper just a few days ago. Mr Russell is here, if I could quote a paragraph from the piece. He mentions that the heart needs the creation of proper access, which would be easy as there is a disused road right next to it, which could be made into a small parking area. The installation of sympathetic information boards, upgraded surroundings and proper care, and the salient point in that paragraph is that a progressive landlord would give the small area involved to a trust made up of travellers and local people, and that solution needs to be taken forward. Clearly, if the landowner were to gift or lease the site to allow access for the travellers and their trust, that would go a long way. I personally believe to resolving the issue on the ground. Historically Scotland states in the letter to the committee that financial assistance is available to the owner of the site of the heart to care for the site, and presumably that would apply to any trust that is allowed to take over. What is the process for applying for these funds and what some can be applied for should either the landowner or a trust wish to apply? How long is a piece of string? It very much depends on the project that comes forward, what it is for, what support it has and what it is trying to achieve. If it is the betterment of the monument, we have funded all sorts of projects from local community bodies for them to improve the monument itself, the interpretation and protective measures around it. We have funded all sorts of things like that and it does not generally involve large sums of money to achieve those things. The formation of a parking area on the disused section of road, the old road? For example? I do not know if we would fund the creation of a car park that generally new work is not necessarily associated with the monument itself. As part of a wider project, if there are funds required to achieve an overall project that includes that, it could be part of that package. We have not seen something come forward for us to respond to. We have various grant funding programmes that can be applied to, but it requires the co-operation of all parties. A private landowner must give their permission for a grant funding proposal to be successful. As the cabinet secretary said, part of the conversations that we will be starting now with us revisiting the case will create a different environment where different conversations can have and more co-operation can be fostered. I would certainly help to move things forward. If you are satisfied that sufficient funding is available under the current heritage protections to maintain the protected listed monuments, you all know that we are in challenging financial circumstances. Any support from the petition to increase my budget would be greatly appreciated. However, the reality is that we have to manage the constraints that we have. One of the things that I have been absolutely clear about in recent years, despite a significant reduction in my budget, I have one of the smallest budgets, so reductions can have an even bigger impact. What I have done is managed to maintain the grant that is spent from Historic Scotland. That was an important part of what I wanted to do, because grant spend is spent in local communities. It usually involves local contractors, whether it is in building merchant or whatever, in local areas, and it also helps to ensure that skills and training can be continued in a difficult environment. Within challenging budgets, I have managed to maintain the grant spend that goes out to outside organisations, whether it is through large organisations such as the National Trust or small organisations such as the Trust. I would not micromanage what grants. Again, I refer to that in my statement. I cannot tell and should not be telling Historic Scotland which particular projects or trusts to fund or not fund. What I can do is provide the overall pot to allow them to do that. It has been extremely challenging. There are challenges ahead in terms of our estate, both cared for by Historic Scotland or, in other cases, when they are not, funding and preservation. Our heritage, our built heritage, is at the heart of our tourism industry. People come to Scotland to see what we have, so it is really important that we protect that. Any support that I can get from this petition or, indeed, MSPs generally for the built environment would be gratefully appreciated. On the overall pot from the Scottish Government, has there been any assessment made of what funds will be needed now and in the future to protect Scotland's listed monuments? That is the big million dollar question. We are currently assessing across the country what is required and it is a large amount because what you cannot have is obviously big health and safety issues for a lot of our properties. If there is any concern about them, they may need to close, so therefore constant investment is required. We also are co-operating, and I referred to the Historic Environment Forum that I talked about earlier. The National Trust has gone undergone review itself of its own properties. The methodology and the lessons learned from them are being shared across with Historic Scotland in terms of their work. Yes, that work is being done. It is also an issue that I have engaged with the relevant committee of the Parliament, the Education, Culture and Committee. I am just one salient point that, if I may just put on record, it was noted in some of the papers that we received that the tinker's heart and the old road that has been stocked up actually would have been provided to the current landowner free of charge such as to get that on the record when it was stocked up. When the road was stocked up, the old road, it was owned by Ergyll and Beard Council, but then it would have been transferred at that point free of charge to the current landowner. We would need to double check this because it is quite common that public roads, the land underneath the road remains in the ownership of the landowner. The council uses it for as long as it is needed and then returns it to the landowner. I think that it is to the road surface and the work done to the heart was probably done by the council, but the landowner probably retained ownership of it. I think that it is a solemn, is the correct legal term, throughout the period from beginning to end. Okay. John Mosner. Sorry for coming in again, but I just want to get on the record while we have miscomings here in the cabinet secretary. In response to one of the questions earlier, you said that you would expect the co-operation of all parties to take this forward. The cabinet secretary referred to agreement with owners of the site. Clearly, what we have been provided with in response is that there seems to be some intransigence by the owner of the site to accommodate what the petitioner is looking for. I know that all the issues that have been raised in the petition may not be accommodated because of some of the damage that has already been to the site, but what happens in the event that the owner of the site is not prepared to co-operate, is not prepared to work in partnership with the people presenting this petition and the community that they represent. What powers does Historic Scotland have or the Scottish Government to ensure that what the petitioner is looking for can be best preserved other than the situation where we just leave it to the owner to decide what happens to the site? I think that Mike Russell alluded to earlier in his comments that the site is not being presented at its best at the present moment, so what hope have we for the future that the site will be preserved in a way that is appropriate and meets the needs of the travelling community in Scotland? Quite clearly, the needs co-operation of the land owner, I also suggest that the local community and the travel community can try partite and propose always the way forward, but in terms of what can be done, the only ultimate thing that you can do is to take it into compulsory ownership. That is highly unusual. I have asked officials to identify if that has ever happened before. That is nothing that we have done either by the local authority or by Government, but there has been absolutely no precedent that we can identify of that having to be taken completely. I think that that is the ultimate. I do not think that that is highly, highly, it is the point of last resort and has not happened in any other cases. What you can have, and I think that Angus MacDonald alluded to this, is some kind of a trust issue or guardianship or other options are available. In terms of when you have unco-operative land owner as well, we have got a land reform bill currently being looked at, you have got community empowerment legislation about what that means and these issues. Therefore, I think that what the petition does is that it raises one specific case, but it is quite distinct and unique for lots of different reasons. It has to be treated as such, and that is why I welcome Historic Scotland's decision also to revisit on a new basis. I do think that there are bigger issues here to do with what happens with landowners and their relationship with local communities, which will not be resolved by Historic Scotland in this one individual case and will not necessarily be resolved by the petition itself, but that begs bigger questions and bigger issues. I would say that my job is to manage the whole of the historic environment, to work with all the good practice that takes place, with all the landowners, and I would not want to compromise my relationship with them by doing something in one case that would jeopardise that very fruitful and productive relationship that we are building with the wider sector currently. I want to point out to the committee convener that there is a trust established by the travellers in Scotland who have shown great willingness to work with the Here We Are team, for example, who have a close association with Mrs Howe and her family, but are very keen to work with the community and that there is a vehicle available to undertake this task and to take it forward. I think that the role of the committee in encouraging that would be helpful. So do I think the role of Historic Scotland in encouraging the landowner to be more cooperative? I know that the Arkham's had met with the landowner. I do not think that Historic Scotland has met with the landowner yet, and I think that it would be very useful if they did meet with the landowner and try their charms on them. As there are no further questions, I will now ask the committee to decide what action it wishes to take on the petition. Members have a note by the clerk that sets out possible course of action on what the members' views are. Do we have any views, colleagues? Yes, convener. Clearly, it would be good if we could get a paper from the clerks to cover everything that has been discussed today. However, I would be keen to keep the petition open until the issue has been revisited by Historic Scotland and we find out what the outcome of that is. I believe that, as Cummings mentioned, it was three to six months timescale. I will also pick up on the cabinet secretary's suggestion that the committee feeds into the consultation and perhaps write to the rural affairs committee to highlight the issue in advance of the land reform bill going through the parliamentary process. The committee is willing to write to the landowner to encourage co-operation. I do think that perhaps it is a little bit of gentle persuasion to the landowner that this is might use the cabinet secretary's evidence, too, that this is highly unusual that the landowner would say that they considered enough had been done to ensure that everyone visiting a site could do so and to point out the difficulties there. Historic Scotland were also doing that. One might call it a two-pronged attack. I am very interested in comments from Historic Scotland in terms of legal recourse to protect sites in Scotland. I think we want to ensure that, if all other efforts fail, there is some sort of legal recourse in which sites could be protected and if you could come back with some recommendations in that area it would be very helpful. I think that sometimes people can damage sites without realising and we have to give people that opportunity to redress that. I would be surprised if owners of heritage sites would not want to maintain them because it is probably just as important for them as it is for anybody else. I think that we need to work hand in glove with people but I think that if all other efforts fail, all other reasonable efforts fail, I think that perhaps there may be a recourse from a legal point of view to protect Scottish heritage for the future. The rest of the member agrees on the proposals that have been put forward. The committee agrees that it wants to write to the winner. I thank the cabinet secretary and Barbara for attending. The next item of business in consideration of three new petitions and the committee agreed to hear from the petitioners on all three. The first new petition is PE1540 by Douglas Fieland on the Permit Solution for the A83. Members have a note by the clerk and the spice briefing and the petition. May I welcome Councillor Fieland and his colleagues, Councillor Donald Kelly and Councillor John McAlpine from Argyll first to this meeting. Mike Russell is also staying for this item and as he has a constituency interest and also in attendance is Jamie McGregor MSP, who also has a constituency interest. I now invite Councillor Fieland who I believe is going to start on behalf of his colleagues and then we'll take it for there. Thank you convener, firstly just to thank you and the committee for the opportunity to present the petition here. I think also a special thanks to Michael and to Jamie for their support for today. I think that that illustrates the level of support that we have. We have cross party support from both Michael, Jamie and other MSPs and also our MP Alan Reid. We also have support from Argyll and Bute Council, from our community councils and our business community, so effectively we are here advocating on behalf of Argyll and Bute although it's in name by myself. So I think that's an important point to start off with. Equally so it's important to point out that the tremendous amount of work that the Scottish Government has done to this point. There's absolutely no doubts that when we came two or three years ago I don't think we would have had as much as we've got within the A83 had it not been for the intervention both of, well initially it was the petitions committee and also the Scottish Government as well, has to be recognised, there's no doubts about that. I think where we're coming from is presenting some evidence now to the committee to say actually what has been agreed and what has been put in place. It's just to question how vulnerable that is in terms of Argyll and Bute and is that a permanent solution? We believe not with some of the evidence we'll put forward and obviously answer any questions that may be put to us. Just to give you, there was a meeting of our task force which was on the 14th of January 2015 and it was in relation to our last event, the landslide which was in October 2014. A report was given back and specifically there was some specific mention made of the netting, which was to protect the roadside. I'll just read, it was from Eddie Ross who was from Bear Scotland who stated, 2,500 tonnes of material came down from the hillside. Eddie Ross made reference to the fence being struck during that event. Eddie Ross indicated that the previous largest landslide amount was 1,000 tonnes. He confirmed that 1,700 tonnes of material was caught by the fence, including boulders, ultimately saving the A83 carriageway structure. Eddie Ross then indicated that the fence was designed to withstand 1,000 tonnes, so it successfully held more than was anticipated. I think that's quite a poignant point because although it was the 1,000 tonnes, we can't predict the size of the landslide and here we have a 2,500 tonne landslide and the effects that that had. From that, there were other consequences of what had happened on that particular incident. Michael brought that up in terms of the bottom that the old military road had been flooded on two occasions, so that our contingency plan had then been cut off, which then meant the 65 miles round trip that we had to get into, basically. Not only had that been cut off, there was also, particularly at night times, if there's been a landslide that has to do with risk assessments and if there are risk assessments, that obviously takes time. That's totally understandable for safety reasons and so forth, but I think that it's the unpredictability of the events of now. We're hearing that the nets can take 1,000 tonnes and we've had a 2,500 tonne fall. What effects will that have and what other sizeable landslides and landslides will there be? I think that that's important as evidence because that's factual and actual evidence that the committee can hear. Also, I think that, as I say, we've advocated that it's a permanent solution. We believe that this is not a permanent solution despite all the hard efforts and hard work that's been put in and the evidence is now there in some of the reports that we have had. I would now maybe ask Donald if he would also add to that with your permission, convener, just to add some more information and obviously then happy to take any questions from that. Thanks, convener. Just to add to the points that I call the Councillor Fyland has made there. Obviously, Argyllin bute council signed up to the single outcome agreement and we suffered greatly as everybody knows in this chamber from depopulation. The 83s remain a arterial route in Argyllin bute and because of the problems that we have and continue to have with the rest and be thankful, it is certainly putting off business travelling and moving into Argyllin bute. It's creating a situation whereby for businesses who work and live within Argyllin bute, an uncertain business situation, we have on a regular basis flashing lights on the 83 on the rest and be thankful whereby even if we don't have a landslide there is a pre-warning of a landslide so this creates a lot of uncertainty. Those lights could be on maybe every time it's wet, those lights could be on and we've got an email that's widely publicised by Transport Scotland to say risk of landslide. Well, numerous businesses have been affected by that because people have just said that they're not travelling. Tourists especially and even students have travelled to university and things like that. They've been put off by that because it's too onerous to actually maybe travel the other way. They don't link up with other buses, trains at the other end of Glasgow for example. The key thing here is that we came here in 2012 and we did have four component parts, the petition three of which are being addressed, but the key one was for a permanent solution which at that time the committee agreed that it would take forward a permanent solution for the 83 at the rest and be thankful. We've had, despite the measures that have been put in place, basically a piecemeal approach to the situation whereby each time there's been a landslide, there's been a further piece of netting added at that particular location to try and resolve the situation and that's been on going on for three years. We're in a position where in the community basically they refer to it as a stick-and-plaster approach. So it's totally, you know, we've had 10,000 people for Argyllin Bute signed the petition, over 400 businesses signed the petition from outwith and within Argyllin Bute. All the community councils, all the MSPs that represented the area, the MP, Chamber of Commerce etc etc etc, at that time these people are still there, they're still looking for a permanent solution. And the bottom line is if this situation had occurred in the Royal Mile in Edinburgh, for example, it would be resolved by now, it would be something done. They feel very aggrieved in some respects, you know, I take important councillor file and said regarding the money that's been spent, but when the report was done by Jacobs, they were commissioned to do the reports with various options put in the table and obviously they went for the cheapest option, which is still obviously causing problems. And I've asked at task force meetings, we can back a couple of task force meetings to consider for the task force and for the Government to consider working at one of the other potential options, so it's there in readiness should a major landslide occur in the 83, which basically cuts us off. And I was told, no, we'll just continue with this approach at the moment. So as far as we are concerned as Argyll, first we will continue to campaign until such times, as we have a proper solution to that problem. Thank you. Really, at this point in time, I welcome any questions you have. I'm quite happy with what my colleagues have said, you know, I think they've summed up very well. Questions? The last meeting, thank you. I mean, as you know, I support the intention of the petition, but the last meeting of the task force was attended by the council's deputy leader, Ellen Morton. She had a presentation from the new minister who accepted the principle of continuous access, which I think is what we're talking about. And who also, in response to a point that I made, the committee agreed to meet, the task force agreed to meet earlier than July, which we had scheduled to, and to start the consideration of an alternative route to put that in place. So I think a lot of what you are arguing for is already happening, but it just, in terms of the council's position, now that the council is fully represented on the task force, is it perhaps possible for them to use the task force, because I was conscious of the fact that the task force wasn't yet being used in this way, to put forward that strong argument from the council's perspective, as well as from the elected MSP's perspective and from the community perspective that there now needs to be the planning put in place for that alternative route, because there isn't an agreement yet on what that alternative route should be. Some have been ruled out, like the tunnel, but there are still some options. The forest road is one, the upgrading of the old military road, one of those and a lid over the road, the Donald Clarke option, as it's called, because he writes letters about it every week to the papers. Would your group, as part of the administration, and you are part of the administration, where Gallunbut Council is part of the administration, then start to use the 83 task force for that purpose? I would say yes, Michael. That would be the first thing. I don't think it was unfortunate on that particular day myself and Donald couldn't make it. The weather was particularly difficult and bad, and there was no doubts about that. We have had a regular attendance, and we have been there on that occasion. To answer Michael's question, I think that avenues that we have a possibility to explore are what we are doing. We are using the democratic process exercise and our right to ask for the support also of the committee, as well. I suppose that, from the evidence point of view, it was extremely effective, even though the task force was there in place with the committee, it is extremely effective to allow us to move to where we are at. We would certainly use that, Michael, but I would still... I think that the only point of difference, convener, is whether continued investment in mitigation, which is not finished yet, should take place before there is further planning for an alternative permanent route or whether the two things should go in parallel at the moment. I have to say whatever position the committee chooses to take. I agree with Donald, Douglas and John that mitigation, although necessary, needs to happen at the same time as planning for an alternative route. I think that that is the agreement. I think that, if that point is made to the committee, that would be the most effective thing. I think that I am right in saying that, isn't it? I fully appreciate what Mr Russell is saying there and take it on board. The bottom line is that, when we came to the committee three years ago, the committee agreed that an alternative solution would be the objective. It has taken another three years of disruption within Argyll and Bute, and we are still in a position to have an alternative solution. It needs to be fast-tracked, because we continue down the line without pushing and pushing hard. I am fully taking the important mic. I think that we need to have an end-game here, an end-time. We need to actually timeline how it has got to move forward, because if we don't do that, I fear that another 10 years will still be in the same position. I thank the convener for my late attendants earlier. Following on from what Mike Russell said, I remember the previous petition. I think I joined the committee after it and had a long-running history at that point in any event, but I am slightly unsure as to what you are asking us to do. When I look at your petition, it seems that what you are asking us to do is to urge the Scottish Government to find a permanent solution. I am quite sure that the committee will be quite happy to write to the Scottish Government encouraging them to do exactly that. However, I do not know that we are really being asked to do here, or, as far as I can see, is to become some arbiter as to what a permanent solution might be. To those members of the committee who are perhaps slightly less familiar with the area, I understand it. Of course, I would be bereft if Jamie McGregor and Mike Russell were prevented from arriving at Parliament because of some landslip on the road. It would be a great loss to us all, I am sure. Like others, I have been on this road and been diverted. I understand that, for people who are less familiar with the area, if you are asking us to find a solution, if that is what you are asking us to do, I do not know that we are the ones to do that. Certainly, as we did with the previous petition, we are very keen that a solution should be found, because it is a problem of enormous long-standing. However, I am not clear from the submissions that I have received of any more detail other than, as Mike Russell rehearsed, the various kind of outline options that have previously been advertised. What exactly do you want the committee to do? As far as I am concerned, we are back to basically square one. I see that coming back to the very start of the petition. We have had an attempt to find a permanent solution that the committee agreed to three years ago would be the ultimate goal of the committee. The attempt has failed until now, because we have a situation in which we have a piecemeal approach to landslides, which are adversely affecting the whole community within Argyll and Bute. When the work continues with 82 as well for a problem there and a problem with 83, that is exactly what we are basically cut off completely. I think that I would be urgent to write directly to the Government and put a bit of pressure on the Government to come up. We may be one of the solutions that have already got on the table, because they are not moving that forward at the moment. Minister Keith Brown, when he was responsible for that remit, basically said at a task force meeting that we have done the red route as I call it, that is the work on netting the rest be thankful as it is at the moment. At that time, and this was given back a couple of meetings, he basically said that that is as much as we will be doing at that moment in time, which to me is not acceptable, because we are still under the same situation as we were when we first came to petition this. I am sorry if I am repeating myself, but I feel very strongly about this. There is a lot of dismay within the wider Argyll community how this has been moved forward. It is adversely affecting businesses, which is affecting jobs. I mentioned the single outcome agreement. It is affecting tourism. We are trying to portray Argyll and Bute open for business in a positive way, but this is just—regardless of much—works done elsewhere to move in pinch points, road surfaces, etc. This is the arterial route, and this needs to be addressed. I do not want to pre-empt the discussion. I know that Jamie McGregor would like to get into it, but it does seem to me that what all the committee can do at this stage is right to the Government and Transport Scotland, and perhaps having considered what they have to say, take further evidence if we feel that would assist in trying to move the matter forward. However, I am at a loss beyond that as to what we can usefully contribute at this point. That would be very, very welcome, because it further endorses, for my mind, that you are helping and assisting the residents of Argyll and Bute as a committee, as a cross-section committee. If it is simply just to do that, to get that level of support, it just endorses the whole issue. You have taken it seriously, but it is to continue to, as Donald says, get to the end point, which is the permanent solution. Therefore, to have your support, it would be absolutely welcome. Thank you very much, convener. I am most grateful to have this opportunity. I would like to make a short statement, if I may. I want to support Councillors Kelly, Freiland and McAlpine, as I did three years ago. I commend them for their continuing and impressive efforts to maintain pressure on the Scottish Government on this major strategic transport issue. I have been doing that myself. The A83 trunk road is a key artery into Argyll and Bute, and the repeated closures of this trunk road, because of numerous landslides at the rest and be thankful, leaves much of Argyll and Bute cut off. Closures hit businesses across Argyll and the inconvenience local residents and commuters, and it is very bad for tourism. They also send out negative measures to all sorts of other visitors and those who would consider investing in the area, and we cannot afford up there for this to continue, not least as we face a very real problem in terms of trying to tackle predicted depopulation in Argyll and Bute, which was the subject of my own Member's debate in Parliament just last month. A first-class road network is key to tackling depopulation. If anyone disagrees with that, then let them speak now and say why they disagree. The irony is that the rest and be thankful, as it's called, the rest is at the top, not halfway up, and that's where people are getting stuck, and it's not good enough. We recognise that some investment has been made by the Scottish Government, and we now have a relief road that can be used in emergencies under a convoy system in the event of landslides closing, the rest will be thankful, but it takes sometimes hours to activate it and the convoy system is painfully slow and time consuming. Also, the A819 between Inveraer and Dalmali, which I know very well, is most unsuited to being a constant diversion, especially for heavy lorries. What we have is a sticking plaster solution and the petitioners are entirely right to call for a permanent solution. It might be a canopy option, and we should look to the European continent where countries have been able to use canopies or tunnels to protect vital road links, for example in the French Alps. The Scottish Government could do worse than start by doing a costing for the canopy for the 400 metre section, which I believe has been referred to as the Donald Clark solution. Private estimates suggest that this canopy might only cost—it might be less than five million pounds. There is a strong feeling within Argyll and Bute that if a trunk road in a central belt had encountered similar repeated problems, then a permanent solution would have been found already. The Scottish Government needs to—I think that Jackson got to the nub of it—ask for what they are asking for. That was put very well by a 90-year-old constituent, a Mrs Valerie Cox, who lives near Loch Healped, who handed me this card. It says, Men the rest, and we will be thankful. I think that that is what they are asking the Scottish Government to do. Is there no any further questions or statements? You mentioned the problems with the old military road and the flooding that has taken place. Has there been any discussion at the task force meetings about resolving the issues of the flooding? I know that it is not a permanent solution, but it is just that if you get the situation where there is a landslip and there is flooding on the old military road, then what action is being taken apart from the 65-mile detour that people have to take to get into the lodge? Remember that petition well, when we discussed it originally, and there were issues about the economic arguments. It is not just about the transport and the route argument, it is about the economic arguments that I think Jamie McGregor alluded to in terms of the issues for tourism, for local businesses, for the community itself to be able to go about its business freely. However, if the alternative route is subject to flooding, then what action has been taken to resolve that? Yes, they have relayed part of the old military road to lower the surface of the old military road, raise the surface of the road and improve drainage on it, so they are hopeful that it will not recur again. Sometimes these things happen. There was a particularly dreadful night where there was so much rain that the naturally flooded the alternative route. However, they are reasonably confident that they will not happen again. The old military road, just for people who do not know, lies directly below the rest and be thankful. Everything that comes in the rest and be thankful, not everything, but most of it ends up in the military road at every time. Therefore, albeit it is a bypass road and it has worked in some shape or form, there are still problems with that. I should say that I did travel the road quite frequently when I was a child, because my grandmother came from that part of the world, so I am well acquainted with it. The issue for me is trying to make sure that we do get a permanent solution. The last time this petition or some of the petition came to committee, the committee was unanimous in its support to allow us to go forward. We thought at that time that there had been agreement with the Scottish Government and the task force to actually take it forward. However, if the permanent solution has not been identified, we need to put pressure again. Not only on the Scottish Government, though, but there has to be co-operation and joint working with Argyll and Bute Council to ensure that whatever solution has worked out is one that has worked out jointly and in co-operation. Argyll and Bute Council has to take on board as well, because it cannot all just come from the Scottish Government side. There has got to be co-operation from the council as well. Are there any further questions? If not, then can I ask the committee to decide what action it wishes to take on the petition? I am all right to the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland on the first instance, highlighting the matters that have been raised. Referring the fact that that is a recurring petition is one that we had discussed before. Very much with a view on the back of whatever we hear to potentially considering taking oral evidence to further date. Just for a record in Jackson Mungo, is it too urgent for the Scottish Government to look for a permanent solution? To remind them that we have previously urged that and that our understanding was that there was a consensus around the view that that should happen, we are looking for them as an update on where they think that whole process has now evolved to. This is a follow-up to that, convener, and I agree completely with Jackson Mungo in terms of looking to the Scottish Government. However, I would also want some type of timeline from the Scottish Government in terms of what they are working towards as a permanent solution. It might also be to try. I am not sure whether the task force meetings have been alluded to in terms of comments made and whether or not the task force could meet more regularly to look at the solution to that issue. I am keen that it is a solution that has come to and arrived at in partnership, not one that is decided by either Transport Scotland or Argyll and Bute Council. It has got to be something that works for the community for everybody concerned. I would look to the Scottish Government to give us some indication of a timeline that it is working towards, rather than just an open-ended permanent solution. There are three parties to this, essentially. There is the Scottish Government responsibility for the roads through Transport Scotland. There is Argyll and Bute Council, which is a key player and has evolved in the task force. There is the wider business community, which is represented on the task force, the timber transport group that represents the task force, the chambers of commerce that represents the task force and a variety of others. It would be useful for all three to hear from the committee to ask what their views are and what the solution is. Jackson has a key point. I do not think that there is any longer any dispute about the fact that there needs to be additional capital spent on a permanent solution. There is no agreement on what that permanent solution will be. It is a variant of something in this major report, but it could be a combination of two parts of it. I think that the other thing is to urge an early agreement on what that is, because then Donald's point about investment in drawing up those plans can go ahead even without capital having been identified. That is a key point that there is no capital identified for this, but I think that the Scottish Government should be persuaded to spend some money drawing up the detailed plans for the option and identify the capital while they are doing that, and that is what I have argued at the task force. I think that that is a useful step forward. Everybody agreed? Thank you. I thank Councillor Kelly, Councillor Feiland and Councillor McAlpine for attending. Next petition is PE1544 by Olivia Robertson on increasing the maximum sentence for convictions under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006. Members have a note by the clerk in a spice briefing on the petition. May I welcome the petitioner, Olivia Robertson, to the meeting, and I invite Ms Robyn to speak to her petition for around perhaps five minutes after which we will move to questions. Good morning. I would like to firstly begin by illustrating why I started this campaign. I am sure that you will all be aware of the social media site Facebook. Being the user of this site, I have come across a number of disturbing videos of unimaginable animal abuse that has caused me great distress. The issue here that really bothers me about these videos being online is that the people committing these heinous acts are proud of what they are doing. They see it as entertainment and something to show off to others. I have no doubt in my mind that they see this type of abuse, know that they are going to carry out this type of abuse to further animals after those videos have been shown. First, under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2006, the maximum sentence for dogfighting or causing an animal unnecessary suffering is 12 months imprisonment. Under the same act, cruel operations, mutilation and administer of poisoning hold the maximum sentence of six months imprisonment. I would like to draw attention to the logic of that. Putting an animal through cruel operation, mutilation and or administer poisoning to them is still putting an animal through unnecessary suffering. So what purpose does having the sentence serve for applying the suffering in a different way? On 10 February this year, the SSPCA publicly released statistics for sentences handed out by the Scottish Courts for animal abuse cases. It has been stated that this has been the highest record number of animal cruelty cases. The article provided that there has been a 66% increase on animal disqualification orders since 2010, rising from 38 to 63, 12 of which have been for life. Fines have totaled to £23,000 and there has been 35 community service orders. However, those numbers barely reflect the extent of animal cruelty cases with a total of approximately 78,000 cases intended by inspectors and animal rescue workers covering neglect, cruelty and abandonment. One of the most harrowing cases that the SSPCA dealt with last year, and you might have heard about it, was when a man admitted to taking someone's dog, tying the dog to a tree, covering him in lighter fluid and setting the light. That man received only a nine-month prison sentence. I would like to read out a statement by the chief superintendent, Mike Flynn, of the SSPCA, who has said, The number of people banned from owning animals in Scotland is now at a record level, and some of the cruelty we encounter is unimaginable. We rely on the public to be our eyes and ears, and while it is reassuring that so many people are willing to stand up and speak out, the violence and abuse of animals that we are dealing with is unacceptable. I have worked for the society for 28 years, but the cases reported to us continue to shock and disgust me. The incident involving the burned dog in Fife was particularly harrowing. It is disturbing that anyone could carry out such a barbaric, premeditated act on a defenceless dog. Furthermore, to reflect the leniency of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal, another article from the SSPCA I read, was a man admitting to throwing a cat over his fence after he found the cat to be injured and held in his dog's mouth. He failed to do anything to provide treatment for the cat and caused further injury. After the cat was found over the fence, the cat had been found to suffer hypothermia, shock and nerve damage and later passed away. This man received a £300 fine. Psychological studies have revealed that violence to animals is a symptom of deep mental disturbance. Research in psychology and criminology shows that people who commit acts of cruelty to animals do not stop there and many move on to humans. A statement from Robert K. Restler of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States, who has developed profiles of serial killers for his work in the FBI, says that murderers very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids. Another psychology research, a survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats, found that all of them had high levels of aggression towards humans as well. Another study, a police study in Australia revealed that 100 per cent of sexual homicide offenders examined a history of animal cruelty. To researchers, a fascination with cruelty to animals is a red flag in the backgrounds of serial killers and rapists. Again, back to the FBI's wrestler, he describes it as, these are the kids who never learned it's wrong to poke out a puppy's eyes. To conclude on this, too often are people convicted under this act, perceived as getting away with murder. In today's society, violence towards animals is on par with violence to anyone and it shouldn't be accepted. It has a devastating effect on the family and the community. I actually experienced this first hand last week when my family cat was aggressively kicked. He suffered a broken pelvis and lost function of his bowels and urinary tract and we had to put him down last Wednesday. To put it bluntly, my family was absolutely heartbroken and this was just caused by a stupid, brutal and cruel act. I'm sure if anything does happen to this person that he'll just receive a petty sentence, while our family cat is gone forever from our lives and we can't bring him back. I just feel that nobody in our community should have considered this an acceptable thing to do. We are a nation of animal lovers. There are approximately 22 million pets in the UK and having a pet poses an emotional connection in bond and losing anyone, whether it be a human or an animal, is difficult. Anyone responsible for this loss of life needs to be appropriately dealt with. The courts need to recognise the seriousness of this offence and recognise the similarities between animals and vulnerable people. Should someone cause suffering to an animal without much thought, what reassurances are that they won't continue to abuse a child or a vulnerable person who also may not have a voice or be able to defend themselves? Australia has taken the lead with standing up against animal abuse, having raised the sentencing to seven years imprisonment. That is sent an appropriate message that the offence is indeed serious. It will not be tolerated and they will be held accountable for their actions. Violence is never acceptable, be it towards a human or an animal, and steps need to be taken to further protect the public from these violent and aggressive people. The campaign is not just about raising the sentence. It is to prevent animal abuse happening in the first instance. The steps that I would like the Scottish Government to take is to amend the Animal Health and Welfare Act to include a higher sentence to deter the crime and convey the seriousness of the offence, create an automatic lifetime ban for owning animals for convictions under this act, promote better welfare education, recognise the psychological welfare of animal abusers and take steps to tackle this. Finally, recognise the effect that these crimes have on the greater community and recognise that animal abusers have the full capacity to continue violence to children, vulnerable people and the general public. Will the committee have any questions? Are there any of the judiciary involved in sentencing or indeed any of the Crown or Procurate Fiscals have ever expressed concern about the inadequacy of the sentencing powers? I am not sure. I know that there has been other campaigns to try and get that increased, but I am not aware that the Crown would have had any, unless they would have amended it. You know other questions? Can I then ask the committee to decide what action it wishes to take on this petition? We have a note from a clerk suggesting possible actions. I am quite happy that the petition has been brought before us at some time, I think, since we probably have looked at this and at the legislation at the time. There is a useful chart based on a question raised in 2010 that the clerks have submitted. I think that it would be helpful to seek to get that brought up to date, and with that information to ask the Scottish Government for its views on the petition and what practice it feels has been its operating success. I am not sure what its views will be on some of the recommendations that have been made, but I think that it would be perfectly sensible for the committee to establish what view the Government takes about the success of the legislation that passed and for us to consider it in that light. Can I support Jackson's call to write to the Scottish Government? When we are looking for figures, can I ask if it is possible to get the Scottish Government to break those figures down into what type of animals were involved in the offence? I am aware that local farmer, not far from where I live, was banned from keeping livestock for life because he is cruelty to the livestock that he kept, but he can keep horses and ponies. Based on the petitioner's comment about if they are causing cruelty to one form of animal, what is stopping them from translating that into forms of cruelty in terms of the other livestock—or, it should not call them livestock—the horses and ponies that they keep? It is really trying to get the Scottish Government to break that down so that we can actually see whether or not the offences being caused and listed under this are for animal welfare in the wider sense or how that impacts on domestic animals. Clearly, the petitioner is concerned about dogs, cats and other domestic animals in the welfare, but some of those offences might incorporate much wider offences under the animal welfare legislation. I think that writing to the Government would be appropriate. I think that we need some clarity in this. I am certainly not aware of what common law offences you would prosecute under that you might do in some other scenarios. Therefore, there might be a gap in the law, and it might be interesting to know there. It might also be worth asking the SPCA what they think, because I think that there are some issues that are still applied to the legislation, not simply in sentencing powers but on what they can do. I know from speaking personally to Mike Flynn the difficulties that some come to them in the storage of animals pending outcome of a court case where the animal is not signed over. I think that there are broader issues, not simply the actual sentencing powers, and it might be worth hearing from the SSPCA, as well as the Government, as to whether there is perhaps in due course some review, not simply on level of penalties, but how the law operates in practice. Can we then agree then that we will write to the Scottish Government asking for your views? We will also ask for a breakdown in the figures, and we will also write to the SSPCA. Can I thank you for your attendance? Thank you very much for having me. I will now suspend for a couple of minutes, please. The third new petition today is PE1547 by Ian Gordon and the Salmon and Trout Association Scotland on conserving Scottish Will Salmon. Members have a note by the clerk, the updated spice briefing on members' deaths and the petition, and I welcome Andrew Graham Stewart, director, Salmon and Trout Association Scotland to the meeting. I invite Mr Graham to speak to the petition for around five minutes from which we will then move to questions. Good morning and thank you convener and thank you to the committee for this opportunity to give evidence this morning in support of our petition. Looking around the room, I think many of you here, like myself, are old enough to remember when salmon were truly abundant. That was back in the 1960s and 1970s. Back then, wild salmon was widely available in fishmongers, restaurants, etc. Sadly that's no longer the case. So what has happened? As most people I'm sure will know, young salmon, when they're about six inches long, leave their rivers of origin and migrate to sea each spring. In the 1960s and 70s, for every 100 young salmon that migrated to sea, some 25 to 30 would in due course, after one, two or three years at sea, return to our coasts. Marine survival, as it's known, was then 25 to 30%. In stark contrast, now marine survival is less than 10%. In the river Bush in Northern Ireland, which is probably the most closely monitored salmon river in the UK, marine survival has fallen to less than 3% in the last two monitored years. What has caused these declines? Changes in the marine environment, pollution, parasites, particularly parasites from fish farms on the west coast, predators, fisheries, bycatch and probably most important of all, problems in our young salmon finding food whilst they're at sea. The latter point is probably due to climate change and as I'm sure most people will agree, climate change is here to say and despite what Lord Lawson might say, it's not going to be reversed and if anything it's likely to get worse and the impacts that it's producing will get worse. The result is to quote Marine Scotland Science writing in January 2015, quote, the overall strength of the Scottish salmon stock, that's all populations combined, has declined markedly in the last 50 years due to increased mortality at sea. Coinciding with this decline has been a great reduction in the coastal salmon netting industry. This is acted as a quote buffer, as Marine Scotland Science puts it, allowing the number of salmon reaching their rivers of origin to remain reasonably healthy. However, worryingly, we are now seeing significant falls in the numbers of reaching key rivers. The River North Esk is very closely monitored by Marine Scotland Science. There's a counter on the lower river. It counts all the returning adult fish as they come in from the sea. The five-year average from 2007 to 2011, in terms of the upstream count, was just over 14,000. The average for the last three years, 2012 to 2014, is 9,300. That is a 35 per cent decline on the previous five-year average. I emphasise that this is slightly at odds with the impression given by the briefing prepared by Spice. We've now had three poor or very poor years in terms of salmon runs. Although the writing has been on the wall, the Scottish Government has been slow to react. They've been reluctant to employ the powers they have. However, in the last six months or so, there's been a sea change in their approach, indeeding a willingness to address the problems. We welcomed that. A year ago, the Scottish Government set up the Wild Fishers' Review. It was reported in September 2014. It tacitly spelled out the problems, recommending that any harvesting must be sustainable and that there should be no exploitation without a licence to kill. At a meeting that I had with a senior civil servant at Marine Scotland in November, he agreed that we do indeed have a problem. There is no longer, I'm pleased to say, a denial of the problem. The Scottish Government is now starting to take some remedial action. In recent months, they've rushed through a statutory instrument for this season, which has just started. This is that there should be no killing of any salmon before April 1. This is a recognition that the earliest running fish are the most depleted. However, we believe that this is somewhat unambitious. On the basis of the 2013 catch figures, the number of salmon killed in Scotland before the end of March was just 200. If the ban on killing salmon was extended to the end of June, that would save 6,500 on the official figures. In our response to the Salmon and Trout Association Scotland's response to the consultation for this measure, we urge ministers to give urgent consideration to introducing another order in time for the 2016 season that there should be no exploitation or killing of salmon before the first of July. That is what we've now re-emphasised in the petition. The Scottish ministers are now consulting on the license to kill system to be brought in for 2016. We support this, but we believe that it should be allied to a presumption against any killing of salmon before 1 July. There is simply no surplus of early running salmon to enable a crop to be taken. The second part of our petition addresses the issue of mixed stock fisheries. These are indiscriminate coastal fisheries for salmon, which exploit salmon before they reach their rivers of origin. They are indiscriminate because we do not know if a fish being caught are from river stocks where there is a sustainable surplus. At the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation in June of 2014, I should mention that Scotland is a member of this organisation, NASCO, through its membership of the EU. All salmon-producing countries are members of this organisation. It's an important conservation organisation that meets for a week every summer. At the June 2014 meeting, Scotland was singled out for criticism because of its failure to have developed conservation limits for individual rivers in line with the NASCO agreement on the adoption of a precautionary approach. Given its failure and the fact that it would take years to address, Scotland should now, if it is to live up to its international obligations, be moving swiftly to end exploitation by mixed stock fisheries. Regrettably, Scotland is actually moving in the other direction. The net catch increased by 50 per cent in 2013 compared to the net catch in 2012. In the last three years, several netting stations have been reopened, having been dormant for several years. That is contrary to the basic conservation principles, particularly at a time of declining stocks. In conclusion, our petition, if enacted, will go a long way towards giving vital adi protection to our declining wild salmon runs. I will now throw it open to questions. You mentioned in your closing remarks that the net catches had increased significantly in the past year or so. There was, of course, a voluntary ban on coastal netting of salmon in the spring. As you know, unfortunately, that voluntary ban by the Netsman has been lifted. With regard to commercial coastal netting, clearly one solution would be for the commercial buy-out of the operators of the Netsman, with one off compensation for the commercial netters. That would obviously have a major impact on the numbers of wild salmon coming through. Are you aware of any costings that may have been made with regard to the buy-out of coastal netting stations and what the total accumulative cost could be? I think that the total accumulated cost would be in the low millions. There is no reluctance on behalf of wild fish interests to enter negotiations with the coastal netting operators. However, the main coastal netting operators are refusing to negotiate. They say they are not going to sell whatever. We have an impasse and there is nothing one can do if they will not come to the negotiating table. That is clearly something that has to be in a debt closely in the future. I would emphasise that there is absolutely no reluctance on behalf of wild fish conservation organisations to engage in a proper negotiation. Clearly this is an area in which you have a considerable specialist expertise, which I certainly do not have, but I was aware when you were talking about percentages in the 60s and 70s. The supply was bountiful. Can you quantify it? I am interested to know what was the estimated fish population then, what is the estimated fish population now and what do you see the trajectory being just to get some picture of my own mind of the relative decline? Estimating numbers of a fish that goes thousands of miles out to sea and then returns is obviously not an exact science. If we are able to estimate a decline in percentage jobs, it must have an idea. There must have been a population returning to Scotland of perhaps 10 million or so. These are very rough figures in the 60s and 70s. That allowed a very substantial netting catch of, at times, up to half a million salmon a year. I think that it is now clear that the number is possibly as low as a million. Before we make a decision, I would like to point out that we have a note by the clerk suggesting possible courses of action. You have since a note by the clerk that was written by Spice has updated its briefing to detail more current action being taken in this area. A Scottish Government consultation is currently running until the end of April, and a further consultation on the draft, while fisheries bill is due before the end of this parliamentary session. The Rural Affairs Committee is doing work on the wild fisheries review and is currently taking evidence, so in these circumstances I would suggest that the petition is referred to the Rural Affairs Committee now. Do members agree, Angus? Yes, I would certainly agree with that convener. Given the urgency of the issue and the fact that the Rural Affairs Committee is currently taking evidence from the wild fisheries review group, I think that it is there in tomorrow, and then there is further evidence to be taken from stakeholders and indeed the environment minister, I would certainly agree that given the urgency, as I say, we should refer the petition on to the Rural Affairs Committee as soon as possible, as it is an opportune moment for the committee to look at the petition. My chairman is appearing before the Rural Affairs Committee next week. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Agenda item 3 is consideration of current petitions. The next item of business is consideration of three current petitions. The first current petition is PE1524 by James McBallant on free wi-fi in Scottish public buildings. Members have a note by the clerk. Can you invite contributions from members? It seems to be welcoming what the Government is doing, the progress. It seems to me that we have a direction of travel. Our members are also aware that there was an email coming in this morning from the petitioner. It is going to suggest that, given that the petitioner has submitted further information, if we could pass that information on to the Scottish Government and ask them to respond to the issues raised, if that is appropriate. I have just been advised that we have been a wee slight mistake, so that we can just rewind and go back to Kenny. Would you like to start again by saying that you appear that the Scottish Government has carried out all its performance? I think that there is a direction of travel. As I said, it did seem to me that the petitioner had welcomed that. Those things cannot be done overnight, but there is clearly a plan to roll out wi-fi, which is necessary, and we welcome it. I agree, colleagues, that, considering that the Scottish Government has met the terms of petition, we therefore decide to close this petition. The next petition is PE153 by Geoff Adamson on behalf of Scotland Against the Care Tax on Abolition of Non-Residential Social Care Charges for Older and Disabled People. Members have the note by the clerk. The following evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary at the last meeting, the committee agreed to consider the evidence at this meeting and decide what action to take on this petition. I invite contributions from the members. I thought that it was all a bit equivocal at the end of the evidence that we heard last time. I think that we really want to try and get a much more specific now, suggest timetable that the cabinet secretary is working towards. I welcome the approach that was being articulated, but, nonetheless, I think that there is an urgency and also a desire on the part of the committee to move the thing forward. The next step, I think, would be a reflection of the evidence given and our reflection of it to say, when will we actually, or when does the cabinet secretary expect that to coalesce into something a little bit more definitive? Any other contributions? I would be quite happy with that approach that Jackson has mentioned. The third and final current petition today is PE1535 by Alexander Fraser on teaching sustainability in bany plastic bags. Members have the note by the clerk and its submissions. I invite contributions from members and I am also being made aware that this is where the late email came in. Do you have any contributions from members? I welcome the action that has been taken within education to deal with it. I see where the petitioner is coming from and I think that he has made his point, but I do not think that it is for us as a committee to set the precise curriculum for schools. Therefore, I think that there has always to be some flexibility between raising the issues of the environment and the particular point that he makes, but not forcing more things onto a timetable that is ever constrained. Therefore, I think that there is a limit to what can be done other than, as I say, to make sure that the issue is raised and really leave it to education authorities and teachers to deliver in a manner that they see fit. Any other contributions? Of that view, I congratulate the petitioner on having drawn the attention to us, the progress that has actually been made, but I think that he himself, in his latest email or note to the committee, respects the Government's advance and all of this. Given that what has been done on the Government's attitude to it, we have probably taken the petition as far as we can and I would be happy to support it being now formally closed.