Here are extracts from very recent correspondence between Jim Mather, Peter Peacock, and Margaret MacKay. Two are elected MSPs, one a current Government Minister for Enterprise, the other a former Education Minister. The third is the Managing Director of a statutory authority owned by a private company that is the property of a single British billionaire who legally avoids tax by living in the Isle of Man.

That overall situation is one we will return to tomorrow, as we will return to the correspondence below in an analysis of an attitude that is cause for concern.

Below the correspondence is an extract from a letter to Clydeport from Argyll and Bute Council’s Environmental Health team on the report of its investigations into noise pollution from the ships laid up in Loch Striven.

From Jim Mather, MSP and Enterprise Minister to Margaret MacKay, Clydeport MD

‘I have read and re-read your letter and still believe that there is
 scope and need for Clydeport to meet the local people and local 
media to
 address their concerns and try to plot a strategy that fairly and
 reasonably addresses everyone’s interests and needs.

‘Until that happens, I can confidently predict that there will be more
 queries and more questions asked of you and of government
.

‘I also note your apparent impatience with the queries that are being
 voiced – and your suggestion that MSPs and MPs coordinate their 
 queries
 to you.

‘Can I suggest that this is the new reality, where we are all accountable
 to active citizens and all politicians have an obligation to represent
 the views of their constituents directly and with immediacy. That
 precludes some sort of central consolidation unit for correspondence
 aimed at Clydeport.

‘In the meantime, I will continue to raise questions as a constituency
 MSP direct with other ministerial colleagues’.

From Margaret MacKay to Peter Peacock, Highlands MSP & former Education Minister

(This refers to Peter Peacock’s initial letter to Margaret MacKay’s corporate boss, Stephen Baxter, CEO of Peel Ports, which we published.)

‘As you may be aware the Company is completely within its rights to moor the vessels at Loch Striven and we have not contravened any legislation whatsoever.

‘For your information the Company has been engaged in correspondence regarding the matter since 24th April 2009, however, it seems that every explanation given creates a barrage of emails from many MPs, MSPs, residents and other bodies and we are going over the same points each time.

‘As you will appreciate this is a difficult time for many businesses and the inordinate amount of time being spent dealing with all the correspondence simply detracts from the crucial task of running our business effectively thereby securing the employment of many thousands of people who rely on the company for their livelihood.

‘I have attached a letter that we have sent to Mr Peter Blacker, owner of Glenstriven Estate and an email we had previously sent to Jim Mather which I believe fully explains the company’s position. For your information I also met with Mr Blacker in May explaining the Company’s position, the contents of that meeting have since been misinterpreted in press reports and online forums.

‘I would be grateful if it would be possible in future that a co-ordinated response was given by the MSPs and MPs as opposed to separate email/letters from each individual’.

Response from Peter Peacock to Margaret Mackay

‘I have to say I was disappointed at the tone of the response to what was a perfectly reasonable request for information from an elected member of parliament, acting on behalf of constituents.

‘Who constituents choose to raise matters with among their elected representatives is a matter entirely for them and it would not be appropriate to raise the concerns of constituents raised with me with another elected representative.

‘I specifically asked in my previous correspondence about any obligations you are under to consult and while this is not specifically answered, do I take it from your reply that you believe you have no such obligations either in law, in regulation, or in terms of your operating procedures and/or any best practice guidance?

‘I look forward to hearing from you on this latter point’.

From Argyll and Bute Council’s Environmental Health Unit to Clydeport

(This refers to a complaint received by the Environmental Health Unit on the 1st July 2009, concerning low frequency noise from the berthing of four ships on Loch Striven opposite Inverchaoilain, Toward, Argyll, affecting local residents in Inverchaolain and the Glen Striven Estate.)

‘Various visits have been made for the purpose of monitoring of the noise at the nearest noise sensitive properties. I enclose a report (of which For Argyll has a copy), detailing the more recent monitoring that focused on frequency analysis.

‘The report shows that the complainants are experiencing disturbance from a distinct frequency at 31.5 Hz. I am of the opinion that the low frequency noise is causing a nuisance when there are still weather conditions or the wind is blowing on-shore.

‘The matter has been discussed in the early stages with a Safety Officer who indicated that Clydeport Ltd would be carrying out their own noise monitoring once the ships were in a decommissioned state. I would appreciate any results and conclusions that have been made from this.

As indicated in the report, I am of the opinion that a nuisance is occurring due to low frequency noise. I would therefore ask that Clydeport Ltd investigate and review the matter to put forward a satisfactory solution for the suppression of the tonal noise or for the resiting of the ships at a location that will not affect noise sensitive receptors’.