Public Petitions Committee, 05 Oct 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 5, 2004

Official Report 252KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)

Item 2 is consideration of current petitions, the first of which is PE504, on convicted murderers profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of them for publication. The petitioners are calling on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to stop convicted murderers or members of their families from profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of them for publication.

At its meeting on 26 May 2004, the committee considered a response from the Minister for Justice and agreed to invite the minister to confirm when the Home Office is likely to be in a position to consult on the issue and whether the Executive has any role in the on-going review that will take place prior to proposals being published. The minister's response and subsequent advice from Executive officials is that the Home Office has not reached the stage of having firm proposals on which to consult.

I notice that this is the ninth time that the committee or its predecessor has considered the petition. Given that the Home Office is not yet in a position to say what its proposals might be, the petition should be put on the back burner until such time as we hear the outcome of the Home Office's deliberations, whenever that may be.

Do we just leave it on the table or do we close it? Are you suggesting that we just leave it until there is movement on the issue?

Yes, the latter. As soon as we hear something from the Home Office, we might reactivate the petition. At the moment, there is nothing else that we can do.

I agree entirely. I wonder whether we should write to the Home Office asking it to let us know when it makes a decision, just to be certain that we get advised.

Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Elections (Qualifying Age for Voters) (PE658)

Our second current petition is PE658 on the proposed reduction of the qualifying age for voting. The petitioner is calling on the Scottish Parliament to take a view on the reduction of the qualifying age for all Scottish Parliament and local government elections from 18 to 16 years and to make representation to the UK Parliament on the issue as appropriate. The committee considered the petition at its meeting on 29 October 2003 and agreed to seek comments from the Scottish Executive and the Electoral Commission. The Executive states in its response:

"the age at which people can vote is a reserved matter and one in which the Executive has no locus."

The clerks have received a copy of the Electoral Commission's report "Age of electoral majority". In its conclusions and recommendations, the commission states:

"The Electoral Commission therefore recommends that the minimum age for all levels of voting in public elections in the UK should remain at 18 years for the time being."

It also proposes further research on the social and political awareness of those around age 18, with a view to undertaking a further review of the minimum age of electoral participation in the future.

Given the responses that we have received and the fact that the issue is a Westminster matter, I do not believe that we can do much more with the petition.

Is it agreed that we close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Forestry Commission (Consultation Guidance) (PE691)

Our next petition is PE691, on the subject of Forestry Commission guidance on consultations. The petitioner is calling on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the Forestry Commission's implementation of its guidance on consultations with residents in areas that are near to widespread logging, drainage and planting activity. The committee further considered the petition at its meeting of 12 May 2004 and agreed to invite the petitioners to respond to the Forestry Commission's response.

In their response, the petitioners ask what criteria are applied to consultation of local authorities or other statutory organisations. They also express concern that

"there is no statutory requirement for the applicant to notify neighbours"

and that

"the whole process seems to be based on 40 year old legislation and should be brought up to date."

Does any member have a view?

Will we ask the Forestry Commission for its view of the petitioners' response?

Given that the petitioners have raised some new issues, it would seem reasonable for us to do that.

I think that the issue came before a parliamentary committee in the past and, although the accusation was directed at the Forestry Commission, the committee discovered that the operations were being carried out by a private contractor. Because the felling of trees for timber was involved, the community assumed that the operations were the responsibility of the Forestry Commission, which they were not. To be fair to the Forestry Commission, I think that it recognises its social responsibility for its forestry activities and tries to involve the local community in what it is doing most of the time.

Do you agree that it is worth while asking the Forestry Commission for its view of the points that the petitioners have raised?

Yes.

Is it agreed that that is the action we will take?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Historic Scotland (Remit) (PE703)

The next petition is PE703. The petitioners are calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive, as part of its review of Historic Scotland, to amend the remit of the organisation in order to ensure that Historic Scotland is accountable for its decisions and responsive to the views of communities.

We considered the Scottish Executive's response at our meeting of 9 June 2004 and welcomed Historic Scotland's progress on developing a programme for greater engagement with stakeholders. However, we highlighted the importance of involving local communities in such consultation and sought further details as to how Historic Scotland intended to address the matter.

In its response, the Executive has provided details of Historic Scotland's current community involvement and outlined plans for further developments in this area. Do members have any views?

I am satisfied with the Executive's response. Historic Scotland is finding ways in which to involve local communities—the Executive set out a list of examples of such work. I suggest that we do not take any further action on petition PE703.

I disagree slightly with my colleague. Having reflected on the letter, I note that it sets out ways in which Historic Scotland involves local communities in issues. However, the wider generic issue remains of how accountable Historic Scotland is, not only to ministers but to the communities that it serves.

A new minister is in charge of the portfolio and I am keen to raise community involvement with him as a generic issue and also to ask whether Historic Scotland can be encouraged to do more, beyond the basket of examples that it has given. A more fundamental issue is at stake and it is in concert with the original aims of petition PE703.

Yes, but that rationale could be applied to every quango. Such organisations are accountable to ministers. If Jackie Baillie is suggesting that we should go down the route of making all quangos accountable to local communities, I am entirely in favour of that. Indeed, that is why I support Bill Butler's proposed bill on direct elections to health boards.

I did not go quite that far.

Historic Scotland is not a quango, like sportscotland or the Scottish Arts Council, but an executive agency that is directly accountable to ministers.

In effect, Historic Scotland is an advisory group that has a budget to spend. Whether you call it an advisory group, an executive agency or a quango, it is an organisation that advises ministers and is delegated to spend public money. That is the broader issue. However, I do not oppose Jackie Baillie's suggestion. We should write to the minister to see what his response is.

Are members happy with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Field Impairment Tests (PE714)

Petition PE714 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the validity of field impairment tests in its road safety campaign on the dangers of driving while under the influence of drugs, to issue guidelines on the disposal of vehicles that belong to individuals who fail FITs, and to issue guidelines to courts on the evidence value of FIT results.

At our meeting on 23 June 2004, we agreed to write to the Scottish Executive and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to ask for further comments. The responses that we received are contained in members' committee papers, along with further comments from the petitioner.

As on the previous two occasions, I preface my remarks by saying that Mr Humphries is a constituent of mine. As is mentioned in the correspondence, he raised the issue with me before he submitted his petition. Whether or not we agree with them, it is clear that both ACPOS and the Executive believe that they are constrained in the response that they can give while there are live court proceedings. The most sensible course of action would be to defer further consideration of the petition until the court proceedings have concluded. At that point, we might be able to consider the issues that Mr Humphries has fairly raised in his comprehensive response.

Do we agree to defer consideration of the petition until a more appropriate time?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Aberdeenshire Harbours (PE716)

Petition PE716 calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to annul the Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Confirmation Act 1987 and to replace it with equitable legislation.

At our meeting on 23 June 2004, we noted that the Scottish Executive's response failed to provide details on why certain harbours were brought under council ownership by the order and others were not. We agreed to write a further letter to the Executive. The Executive's response to that provides a brief chronology of the more significant events that led up to the 1987 act. The response states that the act added Banff harbour to the list of those that were already owned by Grampian Regional Council on the basis that it was expedient to do so and that it was in the public interest. We have also received further correspondence from the petitioner on European Union funding and on coastal footpaths.

Stewart Stevenson has joined us for the petition, which he has helped with in the past. Does he have any comments that would help to clarify the matter?

It is kind of the convener to confirm that my previous input was helpful.

The letter from the Environment and Rural Affairs Department clarifies the situation with the 1987 act, but it merely highlights the discriminatory nature of that act. I am quite confident that other harbours in the area for which Aberdeenshire Council is now responsible were not treated in a similar way to Banff harbour, which was brought within the ambit of the council.

Now that the committee has sufficient information, I imagine that it might wish to consider passing the petition to the appropriate committee—I see that the response came from the Environment and Rural Affairs Department—to see whether it can establish an enhanced role for Scotland's rural harbours. Although the petition highlights a particular situation in Aberdeenshire, it raises an issue that I am sure applies elsewhere.

Alternatively, I imagine that the Local Government and Transport Committee might have comments to make, as might the Enterprise and Culture Committee, because harbours are an important tourism issue. It is not clear that we have, at council or Scottish Parliament level, a clear enough focus on the matter. In pursuing the issue, my constituent makes that general point, albeit in the context of Aberdeenshire. I hope that the Public Petitions Committee will see its way to keeping the petition on the books and considering whether to pass it to another committee.

Stewart Stevenson makes a valid point, but the petition is specific—it relates only to harbours in Aberdeenshire. That is the difficulty in pursuing the petition further with another committee.

In a previous incarnation with Fife Council, I served on the St Andrews Harbour Trust, so I understand some of the issues. It would be legitimate for the committee to write to ask the Scottish Executive why the 1987 act brought some harbours but not others under council ownership. That clarification might help with the generality. When the committee has that, we can keep in mind Stewart Stevenson's comments.

We wrote to the Executive, which explained why Banff harbour was brought under council ownership and gave a synopsis. As I said to Stewart Stevenson, the difficulty is that the petition is about the 1987 act and Aberdeenshire harbours, which makes widening the scope difficult. We must bear it in mind that we would exceed the petition's scope if we followed Stewart Stevenson's suggestion. I am not saying that no issues remain to be addressed, but we must be careful. We do not want to exceed the petition's scope, because that would set a precedent for other petitions, which we are careful to try not to do.

I do not seek to broaden the scope. The opening paragraph of the letter from Mr Combe of the Environment and Rural Affairs Department says:

"the Petitions Committee wish to know why certain harbours were brought under council ownership by the 1987 Act and others were not."

He tells us why Banff harbour was brought under council ownership but does not explain why others were not, which was part of the question, so he has given only a partial answer. I would like to know why some of the exotic-sounding harbours that are named in the petition are not mentioned in Mr Combe's letter. There may be reasons why they were not included, but we do not know them.

That is right. The convener's guidance that we should not widen the petition's scope is also right, but questions remain unanswered. Of course, if the petitioner listens to the debate or even picks up the Official Report, or if his MSP advises him of our conclusions, he may submit a more general petition, which we could run with. That is a way to progress the specific and general issues.

So we will hear about Dumbarton harbour in the future.

If we wrote back to the Executive for answers to the questions that Mike Watson and Helen Eadie have asked, that might help with the petition, because issues are outstanding. If another petition that related to all harbours in Scotland were submitted, that would be fine, but we must deal with the present petition. As Mike Watson said, some answers are still required, so we should pursue them. Do members agree?

My constituency has three harbours, but I am not suggesting that I will submit an MSP petition, which has been a thorny issue this morning.

That is a signal to watch this space.

We should concentrate on the issue that the current petition raises.

That is all that we can do. The petition is specific to Aberdeenshire and we must focus on the issues that relate to the 1987 act. We still have questions to ask. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the committee.

---

Independent Special Education Advice (Scotland) (PE717)

Our final petition is PE717. The petitioners call for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to provide adequate funding to allow organisations such as Independent Special Education Advice to continue their essential work throughout Scotland.

At its meeting on 17 March 2004, the committee agreed to seek the Executive's comments and, in particular, it requested information on how the Executive plans to ensure that adequate advice and support are provided to parents about any additional requirements, such as tribunals and appeals, that arise from the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004.

The Executive's response says that funding for such purposes was made available in the children, young people and families unified voluntary sector fund. It also lists several other sources of advice and support for parents on additional requirements that arise from the 2004 act. Do members have any views?

The committee's papers suggest that we might take no further action, but I do not recall our consulting the petitioners about the response. Do we want to do that?

We normally let petitioners know about responses.

When we have had the feedback, we can decide at a future meeting what action to take.

That does not sound unreasonable. Do members agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank members for their attendance. We went through the business well.

Meeting closed at 12:01.