Public Petitions Committee, 03 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 3, 2004

Official Report 339KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Scottish Transport Group Pension Funds (PE500)

The first current petition is PE500, on the Scottish Transport Group pension funds. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to increase at the earliest possible date the amount that is on offer to former members of the Scottish Transport Group pension funds so that they receive maximum benefit from the pension fund surplus.

At its meeting on 18 March 2003, the committee agreed to write to the Executive to highlight the apparent differences between the positions of HM Treasury and the Executive regarding responsibility for the pension fund surplus. The committee also suggested that it would benefit the pensioners if any secondary payments to those who had already received a payment from the first tranche could be made during the next financial year. The Executive responded to the committee on 24 March 2003, and the committee agreed to defer further consideration of the petition until the new session of Parliament. The response from the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning appears to explain the perceived contradiction between the positions of the Treasury and the Executive. He also confirms:

"the second tranche payments are to be made early in the new financial year, possibly May 2003".

Dennis Canavan is here to speak to the petition.

Thank you for allowing me to address the committee. I promise that I will be brief. It will save time if members refer to the briefing paper that I have prepared, which has been circulated by the clerks.

I have been asked by the pensioners action committee to convey thanks to the convener, to the Public Petitions Committee and to the previous Public Petitions Committee, under the convenership of John McAllion, for the good work that they have done on the issue over a period of years. Thanks largely to the committee's work, most of the pensioners have received at least one ex gratia payment from the STG pension fund surplus. However, as I have noted in the briefing paper, there are at least four outstanding issues.

First, the original amount in the fund surplus was £270 million, but if we deduct 35 per cent corporation tax and the sum that the Executive allocated for ex gratia payments, we are still left with £49.5 million. The pensioners have never been given a satisfactory explanation of where that money has gone. Has it gone to the Scottish consolidated fund or to the UK consolidated fund? Or has it just disappeared into a big black hole somewhere?

Secondly, both corporation tax and income tax have been deducted from the payments. Normally, ex gratia payments from a pension fund are free of income tax but, in this case, pensioners have had income tax deducted from their payments despite the fact that corporation tax was sliced off at an earlier stage. The committee wrote to the Inland Revenue on that issue of double taxation, as members will see from the note that has been prepared by the clerk, but I do not think that it has received a reply.

The third point is on accumulated interest. Way back in December 2000, the then First Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a joint announcement about the ex gratia payments but, between that date and the date of payments to the pensioners, there was presumably an accumulation of interest. The pensioners feel strongly that the interest should be added to the amount that is available for ex gratia payments.

Fourthly, in reply to a recent parliamentary question, the Scottish Executive told me that even by its calculations a residual sum of £4.3 million is left out of the £126 million that was allocated for ex gratia payments. The Scottish Public Pensions Agency states that it is still waiting for late claims to be submitted—that is why it seems to be reluctant to part with the remaining sum. However, the pensioners have suggested to me that the Executive or the agency should set a deadline for claims and then distribute the residual sum by further payments to all those who have submitted valid claims by the stipulated deadline. I therefore suggest that the committee write to Nicol Stephen, the minister who is responsible, regarding points 1, 3 and 4, and to the Inland Revenue regarding point 2, if the committee has not already received a reply from it.

The clerks have checked and have no record of a reply from the Inland Revenue regarding point 2. I have asked them to double-check whether that is the case. If we have received no reply, the clerks can contact the Inland Revenue and ask for one. Do members have any other comments on the points that have been raised?

I second Dennis Canavan's proposals.

I am not unhappy about asking questions on these points, but I would like some clarification on point 4. The pensioners who have contacted me have asked whether it is Treasury rules that determine where any unclaimed funds would go. Is it the case that it would not be for the Scottish Executive to determine that?

No, I think that that would be for the Scottish Executive to determine. We are talking about a residual sum out of the £126 million that has already been agreed. There is no dispute between the Scottish Executive and the Government at Whitehall about the £126 million that has been allocated for ex gratia payments. However, there is still £4.3 million of it left, which has not been paid out so far because the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, which distributes the money on behalf of the Executive, wonders whether there might be some late claims still to come in. It would be reasonable to assume—as the pensioners action committee has suggested to me—that the Executive should set a deadline for the submission of claims. Following that deadline, the agency should distribute what is left to those who have submitted valid claims, in proportion to their length of service or the contributions that they have made to the funds during their working lives.

I fully understand that that is what the pensioners group is asking for. However, their concern is that the Executive may not be able to determine that, as there may be a Treasury rule about unclaimed sums in a pension fund, and that even the setting of a deadline would not allow the money to be paid out because it technically belonged to someone else and could not be redistributed. If the money is not claimed, it may belong to the Treasury.

I am aware of that argument. If the committee wrote to the minister, asking for an explanation of the situation, that would help to clarify matters.

Okay. We will add that to the list of questions.

I would like some clarification. Point 1 on the briefing paper states that there is a remainder of £49.5 million in the fund. However, point 4 refers to the Executive's response that there is a residual sum of £4.3 million. Why is there a discrepancy between the two figures?

That is a good question, which requires clarification. The £49.5 million is the remainder out of the gross sum in the pension fund's surplus. The £4.3 million, which is referred to in point 4, is what is left out of the £126 million that the Executive and the Government have agreed should be distributed in ex gratia payments.

Do we know where the £49.5 million has gone?

No, we do not. It must have gone to either the Scottish consolidated fund or the UK consolidated fund. The question is why the Government or the Executive is holding on to that money, which came out of the pensioners' fund.

Is that something that we could get an answer to, convener?

I think that we should ask all the questions that Dennis Canavan has put to the committee. The committee seems to feel that we should at least ask them—it is as important to have that information as it is to have the money. Precedents are involved and it would be useful to get an explanation from the relevant ministries as to how the system operates in respect of the pension funds. We can ask the questions, but we will have to await the outcome of the replies before we can determine what else to do with petition PE500.

I agree entirely with the convener. I thank Dennis Canavan for the paper that he provided to the committee. Looking through the rest of the paperwork, I think that it is difficult to extract the relevant facts and figures. His paper made the issue much simpler and it helped me to understand where the money has gone. We should ask the relevant agencies and ministers the questions that Dennis Canavan has posed. The situation has gone on for far too long and has been debated in the Parliament. The sooner we get an answer to the questions, the better it will be for everyone involved.

Again, I have one or two points of clarification to ask of Dennis Canavan in respect of the £49 million remainder. Why was only £126 million distributed and not the full amount? At the back of my mind from the time that this was debated in the Parliament, I recall that that had something to do with the amount that was given out to pensioners in the English scheme. Is that right?

That is correct. The scheme for the transport group south of the border was different in some respects. However, the Treasury and the Scottish Executive decided that there should be a rough parity between the Scottish and English schemes in respect of the ex gratia payments. However, if the calculations are done in percentage terms, pensioners in England received ex gratia payments that were about 60 per cent of their surplus. In Scotland, the figure does not work out at 60 per cent at all, especially if double taxation is taken into account.

My second point relates to something that you said earlier about the setting of a deadline for claims, after which residual payments could be made to all of those who had submitted valid claims. In cases in which pensioners had received an ex gratia payment but died after the payment was made, should the residual payments go to their widows, widowers or families?

That would happen in any case. The qualification is that the beneficiary was alive in December 2000. I think that the date was 20 December or thereabouts, which was the date on which Gordon Brown and Henry McLeish, who was at that time the First Minister, made the joint announcement. Obviously, if someone died after that date, the money would go to their estate, which means that their family would get the benefit.

Do you agree that, given the need to track down as many people as possible, a very small part of the unclaimed £4.3 million should be used to try to trace those who are entitled to it? I am surprised that no one else has thought of that.

The Executive has gone to considerable efforts to publicise the matter in newspaper advertisements and so forth. It is highly unlikely that late claims will come forward at this stage. I think that it is reasonable to set a deadline.

Dennis Canavan and members of the committee have posed a series of questions. I suggest that the clerks collate them and that we then write to the minister. I hope that we get some responses that will enable us to discuss the matter further. Do members agree that that is what we should do?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, convener.

---

State Hospital (PE440)

The next petition is PE440, which concerns the transfer and release of patients from the state hospital at Carstairs. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the problems that are being faced by patients who are ready to be released or transferred from the state hospital at Carstairs.

At its meeting on 12 November 2003, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive to establish whether the timescale for the managed care network and the development of a national plan is on target. In its response, the Executive states:

"One of the key drivers in relation to the timescale for the development of services for mentally disordered offenders is the right of appeal against detention in conditions of excessive security provided for in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment)(Scotland) Act 2003. As has been confirmed, that right of appeal must come into effect no later than the summer of 2006. This points to the need for the National Advisory Board that is steering the work of the Managed Care Network to have an agreed national plan by spring of 2005. The work programme provides for this timetable to be achieved."

However, the petitioners state:

"It is our belief … that people are being put out without adequate services in place and a tragedy is just around the corner resulting in more stigma."

Do members have comments?

The petition was lodged on 20 December 2001. Is there any information on the situation of the patient whom the petition identified and the other patients to whom it referred? Is the patient who was identified still in Carstairs?

I do not know whether we could look into that. The petition is about whether an adequate plan is going to be produced in a given timescale. According to the Executive's report it has outlined when that is going to happen. I do not know what more we can do. It is appropriate that individual issues are raised, but I do not know whether the committee can—

It is difficult for me to judge whether the Executive's response is adequate or the timetable is adequate when I do not know whether the case that prompted the petition has been resolved. If the patients identified on 20 December 2001 who were deemed to be fit to be released from Carstairs are still there, the timetable has been too long and the Executive response is not adequate.

We could write to the petitioner and ask whether they are aware of what has happened in the case that prompted the petition and whether the timescale will address the concerns that the petitioners have.

We welcome the fact that the national plan will be introduced by spring 2005, but could we also write to the Executive and ask it whether, given the length of time that the process has taken, there is any way that the plan could be introduced before then? I do not know whether that is practical, but if we do not ask, we will not get.

What do other members think?

I suspect that the answer will be that the plan has not been implemented because of the slow progress in the building of the medium secure units, but it is worth asking the question. We have noted our concerns before about the speed of the provision of medium secure units. I just wanted to put that on record again.

Are members happy to write and ask whether the introduction of the plan is dependent on the MSU programme, for clarification if nothing else?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Palestine (PE536)

The next petition is PE536, which is on advice to the Palestinian legislature. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to offer advice and training to those involved in running the Palestinian legislature and institutions following or preceding elections and on communicating the proceedings of the Palestinian Legislative Council to the Palestinian nation.

At its meeting on 12 November 2003, the committee agreed to refer the petition to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The Presiding Officer states in his response:

"In some ways events in the Scottish Parliament have overtaken the issues which arise in your letter. The Scottish Parliament has in fact already begun to assist the Palestinian Legislative Council."

His response sets out work that has already been carried out. Pauline McNeill is here, because she wanted to comment on the petition before we discussed it.

I have brief comments to make. I thank the committee for the action that it has taken on the petition, which resulted in a superb visit by members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, which was supported by the external liaison unit and the British Council. The day was useful for the members of the Legislative Council, so I am grateful that the committee decided to take the action that it did, because it had a positive outcome. My only comment is that I hope that the link can be left open. As convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on Palestine, I am keen that we should send a delegation at some point, supported properly by the British Council and the Parliament.

I am keen to keep the channel of communication open, if there is a way to do so, as that would be useful. Members will appreciate the difficulties involved, and will know that the Palestinian Legislative Council cannot meet whenever it wants to, because of the occupation. It is not possible for us to set a timetable at the moment. I wanted to ensure that members were aware of the difficulties. However, to allow another Parliament to learn from us, and perhaps vice versa, would be a positive and useful contribution.

I echo Pauline McNeill's comments—we are both members of the cross-party group on Palestine. I am a little bit concerned about the Presiding Officer's response. In the third paragraph, he refers to the assistance that may be provided. He continues:

"The Corporate Body however, were not able to undertake, for example, to fund any programme of training, nor to pay travel costs for visiting delegations in either direction, nor to devote significant staff time to any assistance."

We could debate what "significant staff time" is, but it seems odd that no funding at all is available through the external liaison unit for that sort of work. It would seem to me that we have an important role, and not just in relation to the Palestinian Legislative Council. We should think of the emerging Governments in various other parts of the world that might want to see what we have done here. It might be appropriate for us to send people out to those places, for however limited a period, to assist with the process. I find it surprising that there are no funds available at all.

I know that the external liaison unit works with the British Council. However, the British Council pays only for incoming delegations. I wonder whether we could suggest that representatives of the Parliament speak to the British Council. I know that it has an east Jerusalem office, and it used to have a Gaza office, although I am not sure whether that is still open. We could speak about the British Council funding, or partly funding, an incoming delegation of Scottish Parliament staff, so that they can help there. If the Scottish Parliament could make some contribution, that could perhaps be done jointly with the British Council, given that that link, with the British Council bringing Palestinians here to Scotland, has already been established.

I support what Mike Watson has just said. Looking at the wider context of external organisations that might be able to help with grant funding, I think that we ought to be alert to any opportunities that come up, and to any ideas that might be eligible for assistance in tackling some of the priorities that elected members feel to be important. We should all be mindful of anything that we find arriving on our desks that could help to support such initiatives. That could relate to other emerging democracies across the world, as Mike Watson said. We ought to ensure that we feed these thoughts to Pauline McNeill and others on the cross-party group, and to George Reid at the corporate body level.

I have a further point about the Presiding Officer's letter. Its final paragraph refers to a letter from Mr Stanley Grossman. It says:

"I enclose a copy of my reply to Mr Grossman for the Committee's information."

However, that was not included with my papers. I am not sure whether other members got it, but I would be interested to see that correspondence.

I would like to clarify whether the funding arrangements that Mike Watson is asking about apply across the board. I would like to examine what the processes might be if the Parliament were to allocate funding to assist a delegation to go to Palestine—which I would support—and what that would mean for any other requests for delegations to go to other countries, the most topical example being Saudi Arabia. There would need to be a process whereby what is and is not appropriate is determined politically.

The question is to do with identifying the process, which is always worth clarifying, rather than supporting one request against another. That aside, is everyone happy writing to the British Council in line with Mike Watson's suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 (PE601)

The petitioner behind PE601 calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to commence sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, which will allow interested parties to make submissions for rights of audience in Scottish courts.

At its meeting on 25 June 2003, the committee welcomed the Executive's proposal to revisit the issue of the commencement of sections 25 to 29, and it invited the Executive to provide details of how it intends to progress the matter, and to what timescale.

The Executive has decided to carry out a survey of the demands for rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation from professional and other bodies and the users of legal services. The research report is likely to be available in early 2005.

In further evidence to the committee, the petitioner asked whether the committee can

"at the very least, insist on a proper explanation from the Executive as to why the commencement of Sections 25 to 29 would not be of benefit to the people of Scotland".

Do members have any comments?

I am always supportive of people's rights to represent themselves in the field of justice and other fields and do not understand why provisions have been thought to be okay and have been passed in England and Wales but not in Scotland. I would like clarification about that. We should write to the Executive and ask why it is not following the same road and why it wants to consider how many people might be interested in rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation. We should ask the Executive why it is not naturally implementing the provisions that have been implemented in England and Wales.

Do members agree with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Domestic Abuse Policy (PE644)

Petition PE644 is on the Scottish Executive's domestic abuse policy. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to develop its current gender-based policy on domestic abuse to include all other forms of abuse that take place in a domestic setting.

At its meeting on 12 November 2003, the committee agreed to ask the Executive whether it intended to conduct more research into the matter in order to determine the scale of the problem and to tailor policies and resources to meet the needs of those victims accordingly.

The Executive's response states:

"The Scottish Executive has accepted the definition of domestic abuse contained in the National Strategy to Address Domestic Abuse in Scotland. That is, that it is perpetrated by partners or ex-partners and that it is most commonly perpetrated by men against women."

The letter also states:

"The Executive has carried out research to determine the prevalence of domestic abuse against men".

That research, which was published in September 2002, found that male victims' experience of abuse

"was less frequent and less severe than that experienced by female victims."

Do members have any comments?

I sympathise with what the petition says to a certain extent. Perhaps we should write to the Executive about the matter.

We talk about abuse when we really mean assault. The words "domestic abuse" annoy me, whichever gender perpetrates it, because we mean assault when we use those words. I sympathise in that respect and wonder whether we should write to the petitioners to ask whether they are satisfied with the response that we received.

If I remember it correctly, I completely agree with the Executive's analysis of what domestic abuse is and who most commonly perpetrates it. The petitioners have raised resourcing issues relating to tackling non-female domestic abuse. I think that their request for action for such abuse to be mainstreamed into domestic abuse policy resulted from their concerns about there being a lack of attention to and resources for the problem and about male victims of abuse not being supported, treated or given access to any resources. I am sympathetic to and support the proposal to seek a response from the petitioners in order to find out what they have to say before we pursue the matter. I am a wee bit worried that it would be convenient to wrap up the response with a definition without addressing issues relating to resources, care and services, which are really what prompted the petition.

I am happy for the committee to write back to the petitioners. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I want to say that the Executive's response relates to an initiative that was taken by Margaret Curran, the Minister for Communities, to draw the attention of service providers to the report so that they co-ordinate services for the small proportion of men who are abused. Therefore, the points that have been made have been accommodated. However, I do not have a problem with the committee writing back to the petitioners.

Are members happy with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Terrestrial Trunked Radio Communication Masts (PE650)

Petition PE650 is on terrestrial trunked radio—TETRA—communication masts. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to delay the installation of TETRA communication masts in Scotland until potential health risks have been properly assessed and the relevant planning guidance has been amended to incorporate mandatory health and safety standards.

At its meeting on 1 October 2003, the committee agreed to write to the Executive and O2 Airwave. In its response, the Executive states:

"In the light of the results of recent health studies we have no plans to change the guidance issued to planning authorities on this particular issue."

The Executive also states that although it is not possible to say with absolute certainty that there are no health risks associated with the use of mobile telecommunications equipment, including TETRA handsets and associated base stations, the evidence to date has not shown a link between the technology and ill health. In its response, O2 Airwave emphasised that it,

"as the company responsible for building and operating the Airwave service, plays no role in setting the safety guidelines that apply in the field of radio communications … Our responsibility is to ensure that we comply with those guidelines."

The committee has also received several letters and an e-mail supporting the petition, which have been circulated to members. Mark Ruskell is here to comment.

I will keep my comments brief.

I have not had the opportunity of looking at the responses from the Executive or from Airwave and neither have the petitioners. I recommend that the committee takes swift action on the petition and designates a lead committee to consider the issue in a lot more detail.

I have two reasons for saying that. First, there are still significant disagreements between scientists about the technical aspects of the system and the associated health concerns. For example, O2 Airwave maintains that its masts do not pulse, but on 24 October 2003, independent scientists found that one of the TETRA masts in operation on the Isle of Wight pulses. There are significant disagreements that have to be considered.

Secondly, the system is being rolled out now. Hundreds of planning applications for TETRA masts in Scotland are being approved. That is a breach of the precautionary principle that the Stewart report on mobile telecommunications recommended for consideration of low-frequency systems such as TETRA. We should look before we leap and that is why a lead committee should consider the issue urgently. We have to be sure that the system is safe before we roll it out, not while we are rolling it out.

From previous briefings, and from the responses from the Executive and O2, it is clear that the sides are polarised on the issue. The precautionary principle should apply until further research has been conducted. I am certainly concerned to prevent planning applications being granted until then.

The burden of proof that it is safe should be on the people who are trying to roll out TETRA, but it is impossible to prove that given the short history of the technology. We should do whatever we can to arrest the roll out until all the questions are raised.

I do not think that writing to the petitioners to ask for their response to the responses will get us any more information than we already have. It is perfectly clear that they will disagree with the responses on the safety of the TETRA masts. The petition should be referred to a committee for a proper investigation of all the issues. The question is, which committee will deal with it? There are planning, environmental and health issues. I would appreciate hearing Mark Ruskell's opinion, but I am leaning towards the Health Committee because we have to determine the health issues and that can inform any legislation that is required by planning or environmental authorities. I am open to other suggestions.

I was on the Transport and the Environment Committee during the first session of the Parliament when the issue was discussed and investigated. Andy Kerr was the convener. The committee's view was based on the expert advice and opinion that we had at the time and was that health ought to be a material consideration when it comes to the planning framework. That was included in the committee's report.

I say that with the knowledge that when we considered the European context, the experts that were working at European level referred to the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines, which set acceptable radiation levels. The safety threshold that those guidelines set has been lower than that set by National Radiological Protection Board guidelines.

I know that the Executive is trying to balance the concern that exists against the need to ensure that we roll out the new technology across Scotland as swiftly as possible. However, there is a case for revisiting the question of whether health should be a material aspect of planning consideration. Parliament as a whole was not satisfied with the response that we received from the Scottish Executive the first time around. I cannot comment on TETRA, but my thinking is coloured by my having been involved in the major investigation that took place. The unanimous view of the Transport and the Environment Committee was that health should be a material consideration in the planning framework.

Helen Eadie has largely covered the issue that I wanted to raise. I intended to ask whether the issue was covered in the Transport and the Environment Committee report. The answer is clear from what Helen Eadie has said.

It is my understanding—Helen Eadie will correct me if I am wrong—that the Stewart committee said that there was no danger. The basis of the Stewart report was that the risks were well within the guidelines so there were no health considerations as such.

I must be careful about what I say here. I recall that the Stewart report was not as clear-cut as John Scott is suggesting. I am fudging the issue because I do not recall absolutely what the report said and would want to check it.

I appreciate that there are issues and genuine concerns about these and other masts. Notwithstanding what Mark Ruskell says, the weight of scientific evidence is that the masts do not cause health problems. I stand to be corrected.

What I say is based not just on the Stewart report but on the evidence of experts who appeared before the Transport and the Environment Committee. We focused specifically on this matter, as the Official Report of our discussions makes clear. An expert advisory group to consider the matter has been set up at European level and its work is continuing. One report that was issued at European level recommended that we should adhere to the precautionary principle. There are now on-going discussions and a further expert advisory group has been established. We need to be mindful of the fact that across Europe there are concerns about masts.

No one is saying that masts are definitely harmful or not harmful. It is reasonable to say that the precautionary principle is being interpreted in a variety of ways. Some say that they will not have masts near hospitals and schools or in public locations where populations are very dense. Others say that it is okay to have masts in less populated areas. Because there is such a variety of views and because the jury is still out on many aspects of the issue, there is a need to monitor policy development at EU level on an on-going basis. As the "You and Yours" Radio 4 programme showed, last year Holland took a specific approach to the issue. It should be the task of someone, somewhere in the Parliament to draw together all that intelligence. That may be a matter for the Health Committee or for the Environment and Rural Development Committee.

I do not want to confuse matters further, but I suggest that this is an issue for the Communities Committee. I will explain why I believe that to be the case.

Previously the Scottish Parliament acknowledged clearly the wider concerns of the general public. I would be disinclined to interpret and reinterpret here expert evidence that has been given elsewhere. We should refer the matter to another committee.

I note from the Executive's response that it expects to publish a report early this year that deals with the effectiveness of the current regulations and that it will pass to the Communities Committee. Although the scope of that report is not as wide as I suspect that committee members would want it to be, I would have thought that, given the fact that the policy lead is a planning one, the Communities Committee is the most sensible place to deal with the petition—not least because, according to the Executive's letter, around 583 planning applications have been made for the development of TETRA masts in Scotland, of which 478 have been approved,. Things are moving quite fast, and the Communities Committee might be the right place for the petition to be sent.

I want to draw a useful distinction between TETRA and mobile communications systems in general. I am aware of the good work that was done by committee members during the previous Parliament in considering the wider issue of mobile telecommunications systems and the guidelines, which you mentioned. However, the petitioners' concerns are around the specific aspects of TETRA that are unique and different from conventional mobile phone technology.

You mentioned the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines. To my knowledge, those deal primarily with the heating effects of mobile phone radiation, not with the pulsing effects. We should not disregard what Helen Eadie is saying, as there is important work to be done following the evidence that the committee took in session 1; however, there is a specific issue about the technology that is being rolled out. We should deal with that now, rather than have a huge inquiry, reopening the entire telecommunications issue.

Which committee should deal with that?

I do not know—perhaps the Communities Committee.

Mark Ruskell has addressed the issue of the jury being out on this technology. The truth is that the technology has not been around long enough for anybody to say one thing or another about it conclusively. We should all avoid pronouncing the safety of anything, which is why I support the application of the precautionary principle in relation to this. I am horrified by the number of planning applications that have been granted. If it is agreed that we refer the petition to the Communities Committee—the Health Committee may be the second committee, but that would be up to the committee to decide—I would be happy with that.

I suggest that we agree with Jackie Baillie's suggestion that the lead committee should be the Communities Committee and that it should refer the petition to both the Environment and Rural Development Committee and the Health Committee for their input. I agree that there is no point in our going back to the petitioner, as they are quite clear about their concerns. It is for a committee of the Parliament to pick up those concerns and reflect on the answers that are received from the Executive. I do not think that it is necessary for us to delay matters by referring the issue back to the petitioners. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Dungavel (Detention of Children) (PE671)

The next petition is PE671 on the education of children at Dungavel detention centre. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to oppose the detention of children at Dungavel detention centre and to ensure that the Scottish Executive honours its statutory commitment to provide mainstream education for all children in Scotland.

At its meeting on 12 November 2003, the committee agreed to write to the Home Office, which stated in its reply:

"we take the view that the provision of education to children detained with their families at Dungavel under the Immigration Act 1971 is, in essence, a reserved matter."

The Home Office also stated:

"Although the education authority provides advice and assistance, it is not the service provider and does not fund the educational provision."

The letter continues:

"We very much welcomed the publication of both reports and, in particular, HMIP's conclusion that Dungavel is a place of safety where detainees receive a good standard of care in a positive and respectful environment. In relation to educational provision for children at Dungavel, we were happy to accept all three recommendations made by HMIE."

Do members have any comments?

I am sure that you would expect me to comment. I draw attention to the letter from Beverley Hughes at the Home Office. Essentially, the contradictions have not been addressed. There is a political question, and this is clearly a political hot potato. It is a political decision whether people are happy to discuss it, either in the Parliament or in committee, and I feel strongly that we must discuss it. There is possibly a legal basis for that. On the one hand, the Home Office and the Executive say that the issue is reserved and is not a matter for the Scottish Parliament, but on the other, Beverley Hughes's letter says:

"Within this context, the local education authority may retain certain statutory functions in relation to ensuring that the educational provision is satisfactory for the children concerned."

The Home Office acknowledges in that sentence that the local authority has some authority in relation to certain aspects of the education of children who are detained at Dungavel.

Beverley Hughes's letter also says, in relation to the recommendations that HMIE made:

"We will be taking these recommendations forward with Premier Detention Services in consultation with the local education authority and HMIE."

The local education authority has an input into the education of children who are detained at Dungavel in relation to the supervision of standards—as Beverley Hughes's letter acknowledges—and in relation to assistance with enhanced provision for certain children. Given that local authorities must be democratically accountable for their actions and that the education authority is clearly within the locus of the Scottish Parliament, how can that democratic accountability be exercised? How do the people who vote for the local council hold it accountable for its role in the provision of education to children in Dungavel? How can the Parliament hold the Executive accountable for its role? Clearly, the Executive is involved in discussion and dialogue and resources are being applied to the matter.

There are further questions to be examined and we should make those points to the Executive and the Home Office. We have a locus in relation to the children who are detained at Dungavel. We should call for the closure of the centre, because it is inappropriate, and we should exercise our democratic accountability in relation to the provision of education to those children.

I agree with Carolyn Leckie that this is a political issue. For that reason, it is even more important that it should not be a matter for the Public Petitions Committee. It was our responsibility to consider the facts of the matter and the committee tried to establish those facts by seeking independent legal advice. On the basis of the advice that we received, we wrote to the Home Office at Westminster and we have now received a response, which states that the matter is reserved.

I am not trying to close down the debate on the issue—it is obvious that the Parliament can debate the matter and has debated it. I just do not think that Carolyn Leckie's suggestions reflect what the petition asked us to do. The committee has established where the locus is in the matter. Members can debate the issue and make points about what they would like the Scottish Parliament to do, but that is not a matter for the Public Petitions Committee and I really think that there is nothing else that we can do with the petition on the basis of the legal advice that we have been given and the response from the Home Office. I would welcome other members' comments.

I entirely agree with the convener. We have been told by the Parliament's authorities, the Executive and the Home Office that the matter is reserved. That does not diminish some of the substantive issues that have been raised, but we cannot proceed any further with the petition.

Carolyn, let me read the exact terms of the legal advice—

I have read the legal advice, but I stress that Beverley Hughes's letter contradicts the legal advice. Her letter clearly says:

"the local education authority may retain certain statutory functions in relation to ensuring that the educational provision is satisfactory for the children concerned."

One of the petition's demands is to call on the Parliament to ensure that

"the Scottish Executive meets its commitments under the 2000 Standards in Scotland's Schools Act, to provide mainstream education for all children in Scotland".

The Executive and local authorities are under a legal obligation in relation to the provision of education at Dungavel, which Beverley Hughes acknowledges in her letter. The issues should therefore be further examined by another committee of the Parliament and I propose that we refer the petition to the Education Committee.

I agree with the convener and Jackie Baillie. It is all very well for each of us to quote parts of Beverley Hughes's letter; I quote a part that I think is relevant:

"Although the education authority provides advice and assistance, it is not the service provider and does not fund the educational provision. The service provider is our contractor at Dungavel, Premier Detention Services Ltd, who are funded through their contract with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND)."

The letter makes it very clear that the provider is accountable, not to the local education authority, but to the immigration and nationality directorate.

That is a valid point. I will back it up by pointing out that the conclusion to the advice that we received states:

"the education authority may have some statutory functions in relation to the education of such children but this is entirely a matter between the education authority and the Home Office".

We sought an answer and that is the answer that we received. Carolyn Leckie is more than entitled to take up the matter elsewhere—I am not saying that she should not discuss the issue—but the committee must bear in mind its functions. We sought information from the legal adviser and the Home Office, which we now have. I recommend that we do nothing further with the petition.

I want to vote on the issue.

We need a recommendation.

I suggest that we close the petition.

I propose that the petition be referred to the Education Committee.

Do you want to vote on whether we should refer the petition to the Education Committee?

Yes.

Can I say something, convener, as I put my hand up to speak directly after Carolyn Leckie put up hers?

Yes.

I was going to say that there appears to be a stalemate. The Scottish Executive and the Home Office say that the issue is reserved, but given the legal advice that we received previously and the various letters, it is not clear—at least to me and some others—whether the issue is reserved. I understand the issue about the Public Petitions Committee's powers and about what is reserved and devolved. Obviously, I do not like the fact that such issues are reserved. I back Carolyn Leckie's proposal that we send the petition to the Education Committee. I do not think that we can simply leave the petition.

I take on board what you say, convener, about the committee's powers, but the issue is too important to leave the petition. We must push the petition up to the Education Committee, given that the education of kids is involved. I point out to Helen Eadie that Beverley Hughes's letter does not say that the education of kids is a reserved matter; it states that the services provided by the private security company, Premier Detention Services, are paid for by the Home Office, not the education authority. It would have been good to get reports from South Lanarkshire Council about how it is dealing with the issue.

I take your point, Sandra.

The question is, that Carolyn Leckie's proposal that PE671 should go to the Education Committee be agreed to. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

That proposal is not agreed to.

Do we have a proposal that we close the petition?

I suggest that we close the petition.

I second that.

The question is, that we close consideration of PE671. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)

Against

Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

It is agreed that we close consideration of PE671.

---

Containerisation of Waste (PE661)

The final current petition is PE661, on the containerisation of waste. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure effective and detailed consultation by, and public accountability of, local authorities in implementing containerisation-of-waste programmes.

At its meeting on 12 November 2003, the committee agreed to seek the views of the City of Edinburgh Council, which has now provided details of the consultation exercises that it carried out on the containerisation of waste. The council also states that, in correspondence with the council, the petitioner did not say that he felt that there was a lack of consultation on the proposals. Do members have any comments?

Given that the City of Edinburgh Council's thorough response answers the points raised in the petition, we do not need to take any further action.

Is it agreed to take no further action on the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

As agreed earlier, we will now discuss the committee's work programme in private.

Meeting continued in private until 13:16.