Current Petitions
Sex Offenders (Home Office Project) (PE486)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of current petitions, the first of which is PE486, which is by John Dick and calls on the Parliament to note the progress of a Home Office project to help sex offenders avoid re-offending, note the work of the Scottish Quakers to apply the principles of the scheme in Scotland and consider the possible application of the scheme in Scotland.
At its meeting on 29 June 2004, the committee agreed to invite the petitioner's views on the latest response from the Scottish Executive, which is dated 11 June 2004. The clerks wrote to the petitioner on 1 July 2004 and again on 9 November 2004 but have received no response. In such circumstances, we generally close the petition. Does the committee agree to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
Complementary Medicine (PE571)
PE571, by Mrs Ethne Brown, calls on the Parliament to introduce legislation to require Health Boards in Scotland to integrate and implement within the NHS the recommendations of the National Medical Advisory Committee's 1996 report, "Complementary Medicine and the NHS".
At its meeting on 10 November 2004, the committee considered the response from the Scottish Executive and agreed to seek an indication as to whether it would be minded to encourage NHS boards to promote the use of complementary medicine. The minister's response states:
"in 2004, all UK Health Departments took part in a consultation led by the English Department of Health on the statutory regulation of the CAM disciplines of herbal medicine and acupuncture. The responses are being assessed. In communicating the outcome to the NHS in due course, it would be possible to include a general statement of the Executive's position on complementary medicine. Such a letter might also mention the patients' guide to complementary medicine which will soon be produced by the Prince of Wales' Foundation for Integrated Medicine. The Executive will be making this available in Scotland."
Do members have any views?
I welcome the fact that the minister is prepared to issue a formal reminder that NHS boards have this power. We should also invite him, if he is so minded, to include a general statement of the Executive's position on complementary medicine.
I agree.
We will ask the minister to get back to us.
Yorkhill Hospital (Centre of Excellence) (PE655)
PE655, by Mr and Mrs Gill, calls on the Parliament to investigate the resource difficulties and other difficulties that are currently faced by Yorkhill hospital as a result of its status as the centre of excellence in cardiac for Scotland and to consider whether it is appropriate for the hospital to continue in that role.
At its meeting on 8 December 2004, the committee agreed to invite the Executive to comment on a response from the petitioner. The minister states in his response:
"There were 8 deaths in 2003-04, so from a purely numerical point of view the position has been better, but I am of course very much aware that each of these numbers represents a child whose death was a tragedy for the family. The underlying fact is that the Yorkhill results over several years have remained consistently at or below UK national levels."
Do members have views?
The minister is very honest in his reply. It is sad that in some cases children die. We have pushed the petition as far as it can go and we have no option but to close it.
Are members happy with that?
I was not on the Public Petitions Committee when the petition was considered—Carolyn Leckie was. If I am right, questions were asked then about staffing levels. I do not see a response to those questions, but I got the information only on the way here this morning, so I do not have a copy of the questions.
You have come in at the end of the process. The petitioners gave evidence to the committee. We asked questions of the minister and the minister responded to all the questions about staffing, resources and so on. We wrote to the petitioners to ask them to comment and the response that we are looking at now is a response from the minister to other points that the petitioner raised. We are, if you like, dealing with a response to a response. The letter that is before the committee is the minister's second response, which is a response to a very specific point about the number of deaths at Yorkhill.
Okay.
Will we close the petition, as Sandra White suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Local Authorities and Public Agencies (Public Petitions) (PE713)
PE713, by David Wilson, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to issue guidance to local authorities and public bodies to ensure that they take into consideration relevant public petitions in their respective decision-making processes.
At its meeting on 9 June 2004, the committee considered the response from the Executive and agreed to seek the views of the petitioner on its response. In his response, the petitioner
"calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to oblige local authorities to treat Petitioners with respect and not to disparage or denigrate them for not having provided a well written well argued case in a personal individual letter. Isolating petitioners from letters of objection provides inequality, it implies the petitioner's view is a second class objection and therefore the petitioner is second class and discriminated against."
However, the Executive states in its response:
"While we fully support an open and inclusive approach and encourage local authorities and public bodies to endeavour to engage with the public, we do not consider it necessary to issue guidance in this regard."
Do members have a view? I hope that a local authority that received submissions from members of the public would treat those people with respect. A wide range of petitions come to this committee and we always try to ensure that petitioners are treated with respect; we expect local authorities to do the same. However, to force local authorities to behave in a particular way is perhaps beyond us. It is not possible to force a local authority to have a petitions committee, although it would be a good idea if they did.
I agree. The committee and the Parliament has tried to protect local government, because it is in everybody's interest to ensure that local government is protected; local authorities are the champions of local issues.
However, there is a great deal of competition between local authorities in Scotland to see which will turn out to be models of best practice in engaging and involving the public. Some authorities are better at that than are others. Among the best ways to improve the situation are the current practices of giving awards to authorities that achieve best practice and helping to publicise and promote best practice in the hope that other local authorities will copy it. As the convener said, the issue is difficult; dictating to local authorities could be counterproductive because, in the process, we could upset more people than we please. I agree with the convener that we have done all that we can do. We should accept the Executive's response and close the petition.
Okay. Do members agree with that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (PE745)
PE745, by Yogi Dutta, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to amend the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 to incorporate a range of measures in relation to the accountability and responsibilities of the ombudsman and to produce guidance notes to describe the procedure for investigating complaints.
At its meeting on 10 November 2004, the committee noted the Scottish public services ombudsman's response, which stated:
"We have included some information on our recently updated website…and will be making a good deal more available through our publication scheme under the Freedom of Information Act."
The committee agreed to seek clarification about the guidance that is made available in hard copy. The committee also noted that the ombudsman had failed to address the committee's request for further details of the service standards that are to be produced in line with the commitment that was made in the SPSO's annual report for 2002-03, together with a timescale for their publication. In the response, the SPSO states:
"All material on our website and referred to in the publication scheme is available in hard copy on request. This includes the attached material explaining what standard of service complainants can expect from us and how to complain if they are dissatisfied with the service they receive."
As the ombudsman's information is fairly complete, we should close the petition.
Do members agree with that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
I would be interested to know to whom people complain if they are not happy with the treatment that they receive from the ombudsman. I am joking, but I would be interested to find out if people have to complain about that to the ombudsman.
We could have a management review.
I will maybe look up the matter on the ombudsman's website.
Livestock Improvement Scheme (PE748)
PE748, by Netta MacKenzie, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to retain the livestock improvement scheme that the Crofters Commission administers on behalf of the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department.
At its meeting on 29 June 2004, the committee agreed to seek comments from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development before formally referring the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee for further consideration.
The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development's response states:
"On 5 April 2004, Allan Wilson announced that the Livestock Improvement Schemes (LIS) were to close, and a replacement scheme, offering a new grant to fund improvement of cattle would be introduced. This change is taking place against a background of significant support for crofting amounting to around £7m per annum which will continue and is in addition to the other subsidies and grants available to farmers and crofters … I have no current intention of reviewing the decision to close the Livestock Improvement Schemes, and to replace only the Bull Hire Scheme."
The response also sets out the reasons for the closure of the ram purchase scheme.
I declare an interest: I am a farmer and I lobbied for the continuation of the schemes some years ago. I welcome the minister's comprehensive response. However, although the letter may quote selectively from the Scottish Agricultural College's report, it appears to miss the point. The point of the ram scheme is that crofters who have a small number of sheep can use a ram only once, because if they keep using the same ram on the same sheep, they will get inbreeding, as I am sure all members understand. It is important that a pool of rams is available to crofters so that their stock does not become inbred. The loss of the scheme is significant.
We should keep PE748 open until the bull scheme is implemented. There is also a possibility that, if the minister is determined to close the ram scheme, as it seems he is, the market could provide the service through a co-operative group of farmers coming together. Perhaps an organisation such as the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society could organise that. There is a need for a pool of rams where there are few sheep—such as in the crofting community—so that sheep do not become in-bred. I am sorry to be so technical about it, but I know about the subject. Perhaps John Farquhar Munro has something to say about it.
I fully support what John Scott said. The ram scheme has been a traditional service to the farming and crofting communities in the Highlands, and the benefit was that once the farms and crofts had used the rams and bulls during the season, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development took them back, which relieved the farmers and crofters of responsibility for over-wintering them. They do not have facilities to maintain the stock, so they were delighted with the scheme and made good use of it. Mr Scott suggested that we should keep the petition open.
Indeed. In my view, we should certainly pass the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, but if we are trying to be helpful, we should offer practical solutions as well. If the ram scheme is withdrawn, perhaps a co-operative ram scheme could be put together with the same sort of arrangement as before, but done under market conditions.
We have to be careful. We cannot keep the petition alive here and send it to the Environment and Rural Development Committee. I do not think that we can do any more, but John Scott is right that there is still an issue to be addressed. It would probably be for the Environment and Rural Development Committee to keep an eye on the matter. We could close the petition today, pass it to the Environment and Rural Development Committee and ask it to consider the issues that John Scott highlighted.
I am happy with that.
Scottish Legal Aid Board (PE751)
PE751 is on the inquiry into the procedures and practices of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. The petition is in the name of Ronald Mason and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to initiate an inquiry into the procedures and practices of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and to amend the rules that govern eligibility for legal aid to include an automatic right for the disabled.
At its meeting on 10 November 2004, the committee agreed to ask the Scottish Legal Aid Board about the basis on which it made the claims that
"The Board has no evidence of the existence of discrimination against disabled people in the assessment of legal aid applications"
when—according to the Disability Rights Commission—the Scottish Legal Aid Board does not keep any data on such applications. In its response, SLAB states:
"It is our intention to be able to collect information on a number of small volume type of cases such as those covering disability issues. This will be possible when we introduce significantly upgraded computer systems for civil legal aid. This will allow us to track the number of applications received where disability issues are the primary areas in a case. We also think it would be useful to meet the Disability Rights Commission to discuss any particular concerns they may have about the processing of civil legal aid applications."
Do members have any comments?
Some clarification is needed on some of the comments that have been made by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Its most recent letter states:
"The information that the Board gave to the Public Petitions Committee was not, in fact, quite as specific as is reported."
It then goes on to highlight a comment that was made in its letter of 11 August, which was word for word as SLAB said. However, earlier in the same letter the board says that it
"has no evidence of the existence of discrimination against disabled people in the assessment of legal aid applications."
There is therefore a conflict between that statement and the one to which it refers later when it says:
"we are of course not complacent".
It would be useful to have those statements reconciled, although SLAB has adopted a co-operative tone on meeting the DRC and getting to the bottom of issues. Nonetheless, SLAB was categorical in the early part of its letter, so it might be useful to have clarification, because the two statements do not sit easily together.
There is another more fundamental issue to do with universal benefits of any description and whether there should always be an automatic right for disabled people in any aspect of public life. I am whole-heartedly in favour of ensuring that there is absolute equality and that we fund all equality measures as they are needed. However, inclusion of an automatic right for disabled people must be balanced, so that if people have a clear disability, they also comply on other grounds that would be expected of all SLAB claimants. There should not be universal benefits, irrespective of people's income. That is fundamental for all Scottish Legal Aid Board claimants. I would not want people who qualify for Scottish Legal Aid Board financing to suffer so that we provide an automatic right for very wealthy disabled people. We must think about that.
It would be useful to write to the DRC to ask it for comments on the response that has been received and to find out whether it has had any discussions with SLAB, which SLAB suggested might take place. Are members happy for the committee to take up those issues and to find out more?
Members indicated agreement.
Treason Law (PE782)
Our final current petition is PE782, by Mark Colquhoun, on the law of treason. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to take a view on modernising the treason law in the United Kingdom, to consider that the recommendations of the Law Commission for England and Wales in 1977 on the reform of the law in that area have never been implemented, and to make representations to the UK Parliament on the issue as appropriate.
At its meeting on 10 November 2004, the committee agreed to seek comments from the Law Commission for England and Wales on the petition. In particular, we asked for reasons why the commission's 1977 recommendations have yet to be implemented and whether the commission is still minded to support implementation of the reforms.
In its response, the Law Commission for England and Wales states:
"The principle reason why there has not been implementation of proposals to reform the law of Treason is that although we did publish Working Paper 72 in 1977, no final report was issued to the Government containing recommendations for reform"
and that
"We would not support the implementation of the proposals made in 1977 because they are now out of date."
I have a question for the clerks. Has a copy of that letter been sent to Mr Colquhoun? If it has not, it might be an idea to do so and to ask for his comments. We might also ask the Executive and the Scottish Law Commission whether they have any views on the matter. I do not think that the matter is high on anybody's list of priorities; nonetheless, the law has not been changed for a considerable time.
I agree that if the petitioner does not have a copy of the responses, they should certainly be sent to him. However, the final sentence in Steve Humphreys' response sums things up. He says:
"There is, so far as we know, no pressure from Government for us to return to this subject"
following the last review in 1977. It is one thing to have an explanation as to where we are, but quite another for the committee to be seen to be apparently seeking to review the law of treason. We would be doing that tacitly, but is that what we would want to do?
I do not think that we are taking a position, and I did not suggest doing so. We can simply ask the Executive and the Scottish Law Commission for their views, as we have the views of the Law Commission for England and Wales.
I am happy to try to find out the Scottish Law Commission's views, but I do not expect to be surprised by its response.
Are members happy with that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
As we agreed earlier, we will go into private session to discuss items 4 and 5.
Meeting continued in private until 13:30.