Public Petitions Committee, 01 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 1, 2000

Official Report 152KB pdf

---

New Petitions

The first new petition is PE69, from James McPherson, on the quinquennial review of the Crofters Commission. Mr McPherson has petitioned the Parliament to open up that review process. He calls on the Crofters Commission to hold public meetings in crofting areas in Scotland and to inform and consult the public properly about the purpose of the review.

The Crofters Commission review was announced in Parliament in June, began in July and has reported. The review report was placed in the document supply office earlier this year. The Scottish Executive rural affairs department has issued a consultation paper to interested parties about the review's two key recommendations: first, that the commission's development functions in the Highlands should be transferred to Highlands and Islands Enterprise; and, secondly, that the commission should be converted into an agency or a modern non-departmental public body.

It is suggested that we pass this petition to the Rural Affairs Committee with the recommendation that it asks the Executive to consider Mr McPherson's request, although I will be happy to listen if any member takes a different view. Do members agree to the proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from James and Anne Bollan on the rules governing legal aid. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to examine and amend as necessary the rules that govern the award of legal aid to ensure that any family that has lost a close relative whose death has required a fatal accident inquiry shall have a right to legal aid, enabling them to access the justice system.

The suggestion is that we pass the petition on to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and ask it to give serious consideration to the points raised and to conclude whether there is a case for amending the legal aid rules.

I am not a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, but I believe that, because of the concerns raised by other people about the Legal Aid Board, it is imperative that we pass the petition on to that committee. The legal aid situation is anomalous.

I know that we should not comment on individual cases, but it appears from the petition that the couple are seeking justice for their granddaughter, rather than for themselves.

I would support sending the petition to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. Several issues relating to the legal aid rules are currently on the table.

Is it agreed that we pass the petition on to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE72 comes from the Parents and Community Association of Boharm and calls on the Scottish Parliament to take such action as it sees fit to prevent the closure of Boharm primary school. Attached to the petition are various items of correspondence and background material. Nora Radcliffe has joined us to comment on this petition.

Members will have seen from the petition how strongly the community feels about retaining the school. Boharm is a small rural school and, although I understand the argument for closing rural schools in certain circumstances, Moray Council has not made a case for the closure of that primary school.

The council says that the school is fulfilling all the educational requirements; there is no criticism of the school in that respect. The school roll has dropped in the recent past because the school has previously been threatened with closure and there were some staffing problems. The staffing problems have now been resolved, the community has confidence in the new staff and the roll is now rising.

I have concerns about the quality of the consultation undertaken by the council. The report that went to the council education committee and then on to the full council had misleading information about the school roll. There was an opportunity to amend the report, but it was not taken; the correct information about the size of the school roll was put in an appendix. I thought that that was somewhat misleading. Irregular comments were made about the councillors' opinions on the quality of the submissions made in the consultation process.

Boharm is in the Moray Council area, but in the Gordon constituency. When papers were sent out for consultation, they were sent to Margaret Ewing, as the member for Moray, rather than to me as the member for Gordon. The council notified all Highland MSPs, but none of the north-east MSPs. That demonstrates the lack of attention to detail in the consultation process.

For several reasons, the proposed closure should be challenged. The matter will be referred to the First Minister for a decision but, because of the surrounding issues, it may be appropriate to refer the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and to the Rural Affairs Committee.

I agree with the recommendation that we refer the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. It would be difficult for us to go into the issues in depth, but the matter merits further discussion with colleagues elsewhere.

As Nora Radcliffe was saying, the issue is under consideration by ministers and officials. That is the normal process for school closures, particularly in rural areas. We could pass this matter on to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, for it to consider further action. However, we recommend that that committee requests the relevant minister to consider the points that are raised in the petition. We also suggest that that committee considers in more detail the points that have been raised about the role of rural schools and the procedures that should be followed in their closure. Moreover, wider implications arise from the closure of this school. Does the committee agree to those recommendations?

As the matter is being examined by ministers, perhaps we should mark it as urgent, for the immediate attention of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, to ensure that that committee does not miss out on its consideration.

I think that we would all agree to that.

Nora Radcliffe mentioned the Rural Affairs Committee. As this issue has wider implications, which go beyond education, would it be appropriate for us to refer it to that committee as well?

The clerk has suggested that, when we pass the matter on to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, we should ask that committee to consult the Rural Affairs Committee in its consideration of the petition. Does the committee agree to that?

Yes.

The next petition, PE73, is from Mr Harvey, and calls for the Scottish Parliament to order a public inquiry into the social work department of Glasgow City Council, with particular emphasis on the care of vulnerable children. The petition has obviously been generated by the press coverage that was given to the tragic recent case of a little girl who was left in a plaster cast for 10 months. I will give way to the experts on this issue, with Mr Harvey in the background.

I am concerned about this petition. I support everything that Mr Harvey says in it, and I welcome his interest in the issue—such interest is always a good thing. However, Margaret Curran, the MSP for Baillieston, is already heavily involved in the issue. It would be against protocol not to approach Margaret Curran before we pass the matter on to the Health and Community Care Committee. I would like Margaret Curran to see this petition, and we should recommend that she keeps Mr Harvey informed of developments. It would be wrong simply to pass the petition on to the Health and Community Care Committee, as an MSP is already heavily involved with the social work department.

I take on board what Pauline McNeill is saying, but we were talking about trying to cut down work. If an MSP has a particular interest in a petition that we receive, or if consultation is on-going, it would double our work load to tell that MSP that a petition had been received, which we were sending to the Health and Community Care Committee. All members have access to the public petitions that we receive. If the Public Petitions Committee is considering anything that is relevant to any of the other members in my party, I let those members know. That is the way in which we should proceed. If we informed the local MSPs every time an issue arose, that would set a precedent. We would be performing a dual role, which I would not be happy about.

Any member can lodge a question to the First Minister about this matter. Mr Harvey has got there first, and has submitted this petition, which is the type of petition that we should pass on to the Health and Community Care Committee. If members of the public are interested and concerned enough to submit such petitions, we should pass them on to the Health and Community Care Committee, not to the local MSP. In response to other petitions, we could inform the petitioners when the local authorities were dealing with the matter. I would not like to set a precedent of passing on petitions to local MSPs.

I have a warning signal in my head, which says, "Be cautious with this one." We are dealing with social work issues, unions and potential legal cases. We should ensure that we have good information. If an MSP has taken a strong lead in the investigation, it would better inform our deliberations if we consulted that member. I suggest that we ask Margaret Curran to provide us with any relevant information, if the committee agrees that that would help.

Nobody would disagree that absolute care and attention is merited where a child has been put at risk. However, we do not want to endanger anyone by leaping at this. I have no objection to the petition being referred to the Health and Community Care Committee, but it might be helpful to have the additional information that I mentioned.

Glasgow City Council is elected, and we do not know what appropriate or inappropriate action it has taken in this tragic case. Perhaps in the first instance we should refer the case to the council and its elected members, and ask them what action Glasgow City Council is taking in relation to it. I would not like to see the Public Petitions Committee leaping over the heads of elected local authorities and sending petitions to the Health and Community Care Committee or other committees without giving local government the chance to say what it is doing.

I endorse that absolutely. Those are the kind of warning signals that I was trying to send.

Glasgow City Council may be doing all kinds of things that we do not know about. Do we agree, in the first instance, to refer this petition to Glasgow City Council?

I am not entirely happy with the way that this is going. If I were dealing with a constituency issue and the relevant petition was referred directly to an outside body, I would not be pleased about that. That is not to say that other parties may not have an interest—I am sure that they have—but due consideration must be given to the person who has taken up the case. How do we know that Margaret Curran has not already written to Glasgow City Council and has not received a reply? I am not opposed in principle to what you say, convener, but I feel that the member who has been driving things forward in this case should, at the very least, be copied in. That is the bottom line. We should inform the member that this petition has been submitted to us and ask her what action we might take.

There is a halfway house. We can do what Pauline McNeill is suggesting as well as what the convener has suggested, before reporting to the Health and Community Care Committee.

I see no problem with that. Is it agreed that we refer the petition to Glasgow City Council, and that we also copy it to Margaret Curran, tell her what action we are taking and ask her whether she wants to advise the committee about any further action that might be taken in respect of it?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE74 relates to the housing stock transfer process. It calls for a moratorium on stock transfers until the Scottish Parliament—and, in particular, the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee—has had a chance to complete its study of the subject. There are three other petitions almost identical to this, which we did not receive in time for this committee meeting but which will be on the agenda for our next meeting in two weeks' time. Because the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee is currently considering the issue of housing stock transfer, it seems sensible to refer this petition to the committee and to ask it to take the petition into account when forming its view on the subject.

I think that that is the right approach, as the committee is dealing with the issue at the moment.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE75 is from Mr Harvey and relates to animal circuses in Scotland. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to ban all animal circuses in Scotland immediately, because they

"are cruel to animals and unacceptable in a civilised society."

The suggestion is that we pass the petition to the Local Government Committee and ask it to consider whether the issues raised carry sufficient weight to merit an amendment to the legislation governing the licensing of circuses in Scotland, which, we think, is the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994. However, we do not have to do that. Can anyone think of a better way of disposing of this petition?

Mr Harvey must have been reading the Fife newspapers, because in the past couple of weeks Fife Council has banned animal circuses on council grounds. To refer the petition to the Local Government Committee would be one way forward. As I cannot think of any other way forward, I endorse the suggestion and Mr Harvey's views.

Helen Eadie is absolutely right. A local council can decide to prohibit circuses on its grounds if they include live animals. I am sure that the Local Government Committee will be aware of that. It is the committee that is most likely to be interested in this issue, and it is certainly the committee that would deal with the legislation relating to the issuing of licences.

We should ask the Local Government Committee to consider whether this issue carries sufficient weight to merit an amendment to the law. We are not insisting that it meets the demand. I have never considered the matter of circuses before. I am sure that some people will take a different view from that of Mr Harvey.

There is a distinction between being banned from council land and being banned generally throughout Scotland, which might be the sort of amendment that Mr Harvey would want. If so, does the petition have wider implications? Would it also be relevant to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee? That committee keeps sending petitions back to us—we seem to send a lot of petitions to it.

The advice that I have received is that the petition falls under the remit of the Local Government Committee. That committee is best placed to consider it and make a recommendation. Are members agreed?

Yes.

Petition PE76 is also from Mr Harvey. It calls for the Scottish Parliament to order a public inquiry into the gas industry in Scotland, following the recent fatal gas explosion in Larkhall. The recommendation is to pass it to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to note and for it to consider whether further action is necessary, in the light of the action that has already been taken. Transco are replacing 200 miles of ductile iron gas pipe and there is a continuing Health and Safety Executive inquiry into the incident to which Mr Harvey refers.

We could pass the petition to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, or we could write back to Mr Harvey and state that there is an inquiry being undertaken by the House and we should await its outcome before considering whether the Scottish Parliament should take action.

We do not want to jam all the committees with petitions. We should send Mr Harvey a letter, stating that this matter is being investigated by the HSE. We should not pass the petition to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee at this stage.

We could state in the letter that, subsequent to the publication of the HSE report, if Mr Harvey is still dissatisfied, that may be the time to write to the Scottish Parliament.

I support Sandra White's comments. Another point is that Jimmy Hood, the MP, and Karen Gillon, the MSP for that area, are also involved in this matter.

In this instance we are taking no action, other than writing back to Mr Harvey. We could copy the letter to Jimmy Hood and Karen Gillon.

Pauline McNeill's point is well meant, but that would treble the work for the clerk and the committee. The relevant MP and MSPs can access the information in the same way as us.

Any petitioner who writes in about a matter that is already being dealt with by an MSP must realise that they cannot ignore the fact that an MSP is already working on it. That is an important point, but I support Sandra White's suggestion wholeheartedly and I am not too bothered about whether the MP and MSP are given a copy of this.

Pauline McNeill has made a reasonable point. When the clerks receive a petition, the MSP concerned should perhaps automatically get a copy of the correspondence.

We will have to resolve this issue. Do members agree that we should give the clerk time to consider and report back to the next meeting of the committee? There are problems in relation to list MSPs.

This point is not about the petition that we are discussing, but I was involved when the HSE reported on a derailment in Fife, which nearly caused lives to be lost. I was appalled by the HSE's report, which told me nothing. We are dealing with people's lives. We had to wait until that big incident in Larkhall until we had a public inquiry. The Parliament should perhaps be asking some questions, especially in the light of privatisation.

When I heard a report on the radio this morning about more privatisation by stealth, this time concerning the public water utilities and a forthcoming European directive, I thought, "Here we go again." A water company spokesman who used to work for Margaret Thatcher was talking at great length about how wonderful this privatised water will be. We have seen what has happened to the rail and gas industries under privatisation.

Although I probably have a bee in my bonnet about the privatisation of public utilities just now, I am not happy about just waiting until the inquiry report comes out. We need to examine the wider issue of safety with the public utilities, although I am not sure which committee would deal with that.

I very much agree with you. However, although there is a general issue for discussion about whether privatisation puts safety into question, this petitioner is asking for an inquiry into a particular incident. As an inquiry is already under way, we must wait until its report before we call for another one, because the report might well be very good. I do not want to say that the Health and Safety Executive always produces bad reports.

If we feel strongly about these issues, we have access to the First Minister and the Executive through written and oral questions.

I have a suggestion that might address Pauline MacNeill's concerns. When we write back to Mr Harvey or other petitioners, we could recommend that they contact their local MSP or MP and leave it up to them to take the matter further.

This is an important issue and we have to get it right. If members have any ideas about handling constituency and list MSPs, they should tell the clerk before the next meeting. We would all be very upset if we found out that petitioners were going over our heads to other committees. In this case, we will copy the correspondence to the MP and the MSP involved.

Is it agreed that we write back to Mr Harvey along those lines?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE77 from Age Concern Scotland on the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly, has 10,000 signatures and was presented last week to the chairman of the commission, Sir Stewart Sutherland, and a number of MSPs, including several members of this committee.

The petition raises a very big issue that is currently being considered in the Health and Community Care Committee's long-term inquiry into community care, including care of the elderly. The recommendation is that we pass the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee as part of its inquiry. I am sure that the committee will deal with it in the appropriate manner. Do any members have objections or qualifications to make?

I accept the recommendation, convener.

The last petition is PE78 from Napier Students Association, which was presented to the committee shortly before last Thursday's debate on tuition fees and calls for the Cubie inquiry report, "Fairness for the Future", to be fully implemented by the Scottish Parliament.

As the Cubie inquiry's recommendations and the Executive's amendments will be very much on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's agenda over the next few months, the recommendation is that we pass the petition to that committee and ask it to make the appropriate response to the petitioners. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.