Public Petitions Committee, 05 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 5, 2002

Official Report 308KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Gaelic Language (PE437)<br />“A Fresh Start for Gaelic” (PE540)

The first two current petitions are PE437, on the subject of the creation of a Gaelic language act, and PE540, on the date considered for the implementation of recommendations from "A Fresh Start for Gaelic".

Members will remember that we have been in correspondence with the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport and others on the matter. At our previous meeting, we asked for a further response from the minister and from the Equal Opportunities Committee. The committee has received both responses. The minister is of the view that it would not be practicable to publish a Gaelic language bill for consultation as suggested by the Public Petitions Committee, due to the lack of parliamentary time. The response from the Equal Opportunities Committee is that it does not think that either petition raises equal opportunities issues.

The minister's response indicates that, due to lack of parliamentary time, he does not think that it would be possible to bring forward a draft bill based on Comunn na Gàidhlig's proposals. However, we suggested that he should consult on how a bill might be framed using those proposals as a starting point, not that he should introduce a bill in Parliament.

Members might wish to note that Mike Russell's bill is likely to be introduced in about a week's time, on 11 November. It is suggested that we write to ask the minister to give his views on that bill as soon as possible after its publication and to indicate whether the Executive is likely to support the bill. We could also take the opportunity to clarify our previous suggestion about consultation on legislative proposals. We suggested not that the minister should publish a bill, but that he should undertake a consultation process.

I find this all very strange. I understand that the manifestos of the Liberals and of the Labour party contained firm promises that Gaelic would have secure status. Time has passed since the manifestos were published. To say that no parliamentary time is available is strange. If a Parliament wants to find time, time can be found.

Mike Russell's bill will be introduced on 11 November and we can ask for views on that. It is clear that if a minority language is to survive, it must have secure status. There is no argument against that. For years, I was in charge of the minority languages of Europe. There were 36 recognised minority languages in my time, and since more states have become European Union members, I am told that the figure might be 39. More languages will be added when more states join the EU. That is a fact.

Gaelic is one of the oldest and most cultural minority languages. Not all minority languages have literature or music. For example, Strasbourgeois, which posh ladies speak, does not have literature. We have one of the oldest solid bodies of literature, but ours is one of only three minority languages without secure status. Blame for that must attach to every one of us. Scots, too, is without secure status. Welsh has secure status, which it was afforded by the National Assembly for Wales, with the Government's agreement.

The situation is serious. Time should be found for Mike Russell's bill. He is consulting the cross-party group on Gaelic, which is in no doubt about what is in his bill. I have not seen the bill, but I attended the meeting at which the cross-party group discussed it. The bill's main purpose is to give Gaelic secure status.

When we discussed the matter previously, the petitioners said that they wanted something more substantial than Mike Russell's bill.

They wanted more than that.

We agreed not that the Executive should publish a bill, but that it should start a consultation, the results of which would be available when the Gaelic board was up and running. That would cut out some legwork for the board, so that it could introduce a bill earlier. I understand what the Executive says about parliamentary time—we do not have time to deal with a bill before the end of the session. If the consultation was under way and the board was working on that, a bill could be available quite soon in the new session.

As everybody knows, since the Parliament was established in Edinburgh, the action that it was likely to take to support Gaelic has been the subject of long and heated debate. At the outset, the expectation that Gaelic would have secure status was stronger. It is unfortunate that that has not happened yet.

That is not the Parliament's fault. Perhaps that expectation related to the establishment of various groups and organisations to examine the furtherance of Gaelic, such as the Macpherson inquiry into the proposals for Gaelic, which culminated in Professor Donald Meek's report to the Parliament, which was presented some months ago. The issues and recommendations in the Meek report are with the Executive. I understand that the Executive is progressing much of what is in the report. However, even with the proposals that are included in that document, we have no guarantee that, at the end of the day, Gaelic will have secure status. There may be more support for Gaelic and initiatives may be taken that please many people, but the language will not have secure status. That disappoints many people who are interested in promoting and extending the use of Gaelic.

We should be encouraged by the fact that, although the ministerial advisory group on Gaelic has not yet been established, a chair has been appointed. I understand that members of the group are currently being sought. I hope that when the group is established and makes recommendations to the Parliament, those recommendations will be implemented.

We should ask the Executive to set targets quickly for the advisory group or whatever group is made responsible for promoting Gaelic. Setting such targets will go a long way towards ensuring the survival of the language and culture of the Gaidhealtachd.

Do we agree that we will ask the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport to inform us of his views on Mike Russell's bill, which will be published next week, and to indicate what attitude the Executive will take towards the bill? In our letter we will clarify that we are calling on the minister not to publish a draft bill now, but to begin the consultation that will lead to the publication of a draft bill later.

The minister has agreed that, once he has seen the contents of Mike Russell's bill, he will report back to us. He may be sufficiently encouraged by the contents of the bill to advance it himself.

The key point is that we should receive the minister's response to Mike Russell's bill.

That would be nice.

Do we agree to proceed in the way in which I have described?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Stranraer (Protection of Jobs) (PE451)

The next petition for consideration is PE451, from Mr Malcolm Fleming, on the survival of the Loch Ryan ports. We have considered the petition before. At a previous meeting, we agreed to seek an update from the Executive on the progress that has been made through the various initiatives that it is taking on this issue.

We have received a very detailed Executive response, which describes the actions that have been taken to ensure the survival of the Loch Ryan ports. The Executive makes it clear that its motorway and trunk road programmes include 13 schemes related to the A75 and A77, which represent a total investment of almost £100 million. The Executive asserts that over the current three-year period, only one other route in Scotland—the A90—will benefit from more schemes than either the A75 or the A77.

The Executive has provided details of the close contacts that it has developed with the North Channel Partnership, which includes all major stakeholders in the area. It is possible that, with the agreement of the partnership, funding for development on the routes will be reallocated to other projects closer to the ports.

Given the action that the Executive is taking, it is suggested that we agree to take no further action on PE451.

I have a query.

I thought that you might.

The Executive refers to the expenditure that it has allocated to the A77 and the A75. However, the plan to upgrade the north end of the A77 hardly affects the overall requirements of the Loch Ryan ports and Stranraer.

I am interested in this issue on two levels. I was delighted by the development of ferry services from Troon harbour. There will now be a second ferry from Troon—P&O will join Stena Line and will run a service to Northern Ireland. That is bound to be at the expense of Stranraer and Cairnryan. A major factor in people wanting to spend longer at sea, instead of travelling by road, is the state of the southern part of the A77.

Many promises have been made about the A77, but there is one really bad area—the passage through Maybole, which is a real bottleneck. When the petition first came before us, I suggested that houses in Maybole might end up crumbling into the road, particularly because of the larger lorries that pass through the town. Although that might have been seen as a bit of an exaggeration, it is a reasonable description of the situation in Maybole.

The Executive says that it will examine the issue over a longer period, but there is growing urgency. Politicians of all hues have been promising a bypass in Maybole for the past 20 or 30 years and nothing has happened. I am not happy that we write off the petition at this point.

I appreciate that the Maybole bypass is an important issue, but it is not specifically part of the petition. I acknowledge that the bypass and the general investment issue are subsumed in the petition.

The bypass is part of the general travel situation that affects access to Cairnryan and Stranraer. The A75 is a bad road. When one heads eastwards from Stranraer, the heavy lorries make the journey a nightmare at times, although there has been improvement.

Another petition might be a better way of focusing specifically on the Maybole situation, because the Executive has given a substantial response to PE451.

Perhaps Phil Gallie's point could be set in the Scottish context, because Maybole is a fairly typical example of a Scottish village that is under threat. It was built originally in the stagecoach era and was renewed by the Victorians. For far too long, we have been overdependent on the Victorians. There is no doubt that our buildings are being shaken up—the Royal Mile is an example of that. Would it be possible to set the Maybole situation in the Scottish village context?

A possible compromise has been suggested to me. If we agree to conclude the petition, we could do so on the basis that we write back to the Executive to ask it to respond to Phil Gallie on the issues surrounding the Maybole bypass. That will keep the issue alive.

Okay.

During my time in Europe, money was available—post-chunnel—to all member states that asked for it for any links across oceans between one state and another. It is a pity that we did not ask for any money for the north of England or Scotland.

Why did not we ask for any?

The money was not asked for because it would have had to be matched.

Do members agree with my suggestion that we conclude consideration of the petition and write back to the Executive to ask it to correspond with Phil Gallie about the Maybole bypass?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Autistic Spectrum Disorder (PE452)

Petition PE452, which was submitted by Mr James Mackie, called on the Parliament to investigate a range of issues relating to methods of diagnosis and treatment of adults with autistic spectrum disorders in psychiatric wards in Scotland. The Executive has given a detailed response, which is contained in members' papers. It appears that the Executive and local authorities are undertaking a great deal of work with a view to improving the diagnosis and treatment of people with autistic spectrum disorders.

Progress is being made towards the development of a national service network, research is being done on the number of people with autism and other learning difficulties in secure settings, and the work of the national implementation group for the report "The same as you?" is continuing. The Executive has responded to recommendations from the needs assessment report and has begun discussions with the Public Health Institute for Scotland on establishing the priority areas to be addressed.

In its first response, the Executive dismissed the petitioners' concerns about the drug treatment that is provided to people with autistic spectrum disorders. We might wish to note that the petitioner has submitted four additional petitions on related topics, which are likely to be considered at our next meeting on 19 November. It is suggested that we should link consideration of PE452 with consideration of those petitions and that a decision on whether to take further action should be deferred until we have considered those later petitions. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Domestic Abuse (Advertising Strategy) (PE496)

Petition PE496, from Mr George McAulay, called on the Parliament to investigate the Scottish Executive's handling of its recent domestic abuse advertising strategy. When the committee discussed the matter some time ago, a number of members expressed concern that, in spite of the small-scale distribution, the original videos, which contained the phrase "constant threat", might still be in use in schools, even though it had been accepted that that wording was unacceptable. We agreed to urge the Executive to consider withdrawing the original campaign videos.

We have received the Executive's response, which indicates that it has asked for the videos to be withdrawn. Therefore, it is suggested that we agree to copy the Executive's latest response to the petitioner and to take no further action. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Bankruptcy Procedures<br />(PE501 and PE511)

Petition PE501 is from James Duff and calls for changes to the current bankruptcy procedures to ensure that judges and sheriffs are unable to allow litigation to proceed when they are aware that the relevant statutory provisions are not being complied with. Petition PE511 is also from James Duff and calls for a review of bankruptcy statute.

These petitions are part of a long-running series of petitions. Members will recall that Mr Duff was concerned about the fact that his case had been dealt with under bankruptcy laws that are no longer relevant as they have been overtaken by subsequent bankruptcy laws. Unfortunately, the new bankruptcy laws are not retrospective, so his case cannot be dealt with under the new procedures.

On PE501, the Executive appears satisfied that the existing bankruptcy law contains adequate provisions to correct defects and procedures resulting from any failure to comply with statutory procedure and that the changes proposed in the petitions are therefore unnecessary. The petition appears to be prompted solely by the petitioner's case, which was administered under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913, which is no longer extant. He has not provided evidence of any instances of the failure of current bankruptcy statute that would give weight to his request for an investigation of the current procedures. Further, there is to be a consultation by the Executive on the modernisation of personal bankruptcy laws. It would be open to the petitioner to contribute to that process.

It is therefore suggested that the committee agree to take no further action in relation to PE501, other than to provide the petitioner with a copy of the Executive's response for information. Is that agreed?

I would like to query a couple of points in the minister's response. He says that it is possible for the bankrupt to appeal but I would like to know whether someone whose business went bankrupt would be granted legal aid if they wanted to appeal? If not, there is an element of unfairness.

The letter also says:

"in practice, though, most failures are technical and procedural in nature and fairness and justice are not prejudiced".

That statement is remarkable. In criminal law, there have been a number of recent cases in which charges of the most horrendous crimes have been dismissed by the courts for technical reasons, such as the wrong date or name on a warrant. However, in this instance, the minister is saying that technical or procedural matters do not affect justice and are, basically, ignored.

On the first point, the problem with the appeal is that it has to be done within a certain time scale, which Mr Duff was not within. The question of legal aid does not arise in his case as he would be time-barred anyway.

I thought that we were talking generally as we were not allowed to talk specifically about Mr Duff's case.

The minister is saying that appeals are allowed in relation to bankruptcy proceedings under current practice. That is all very well, but would the bankrupt be given legal aid, given that they have a business debt?

That would be a matter for the Scottish Legal Aid Board, to which applications could be made.

Bankruptcy is not one of the exceptions to legal aid, such as libel and defamation.

Legal aid would be available, depending on the person's circumstances.

Would the application be considered as a personal application rather than as a business matter?

It would depend on whether the Legal Aid Board thought that there was probable cause.

Phil Gallie's point about the legal technicalities is a matter for the courts to decide. Sometimes, technicalities involve matters of fairness and justice. An unfair procedure could have been used and so on. However, the courts or ministers would decide on that.

Are we agreed to follow the recommended action on PE501 that I have outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

PE511, also from Mr Duff, calls for a review of the current bankruptcy statute. In her response, the depute accountant in bankruptcy makes it clear that there is no provision under the 1913 act for the accountant in bankruptcy—or AIB—to conduct an investigation into the conduct of trustees and commissioners following the discharge of a trustee. The depute accountant in bankruptcy goes on to confirm that direct administration of sequestration cases was afforded to the AIB only through the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, as amended in 1993.

The petitioner's case was administered under the 1913 act. Although that act has been superseded, subsequent changes in sequestration have no effect on the provisions of the 1913 act. Petition 511 stems from the petitioner's concerns about the handling of his own case, which was administered under statute that has since been superseded. The particular circumstances of Mr Duff's case are, and were, a matter for him to pursue through the courts under the statute that applied at the time. There is no evidence to suggest that any difficulties of the nature that Mr Duff has described have arisen with regard to sequestrations administered under the current statute.

It is therefore suggested that the committee agrees to take no further action in relation to PE511, other than to send a copy of the response from the depute accountant in bankruptcy to the petitioner for his information.

Are we agreed to follow the recommended action that I have outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

When we send that copy of the depute accountant in bankruptcy's response, could we underline the fact that the Executive is undertaking consultation? We could suggest to Mr Duff that an option lies there.

He has lodged a further petition, which we will consider at our next meeting. We have not heard the last of Mr Duff.

What would we do without him?

---

Planning Process (PE508)

The next petition is PE508, from Mr Philip Graves. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to review the implementation of environmental impact assessment—EIA—guidelines and the guidelines in planning advice note 58. The petition relates to a planning application made by West of Scotland Water to develop a £100 million water treatment works at Loch Katrine. The petitioners claim that the process of evaluating all potential sites, as required under EIA regulations, was not soundly conducted. We agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive and Scottish Water, and their responses are set out in the papers.

The petitioner made an additional submission. He wrote to me making further comments about the handling of the individual planning application that prompted his petition. His view is that, had the recommendations that he made in his petition been incorporated in planning regulations, the process would have been more transparent and the results more acceptable to local people. He expressed the view that the planning authority could have been more involved in "scoping" the EIA and could have encouraged more local consultation and consideration of local concerns. He is also of the view that independent consultants should be employed to review the site selection process, rather than developers simply deciding on the site and employing their own consultants.

The Executive is clearly of the view that there is no need to review either the EIA process or the PAN 58 guidelines. The Executive appears to be of the view that the public consultation aspect of the process was and is adequate. The petitioner, however, is of the view that the requirements of the EIA have not been met with regard to the planning application in question. Presumably, that is a matter that he could raise with the planning authority, with the Scottish public services ombudsman or, as is indicated in the Executive's response, with the European Commission.

The petitioner is under the impression that there could be a role for independent consultants in advising on site selection. The Executive's response makes it clear that it is for developers to select sites and thereafter to meet the requirements of the EIA process. The petitioner's point probably relates to the planning application that prompted the petition, in which case the developer is a public body.

It is entirely open to us to decide whether, in this case, the petitioner or the Executive is right in terms of the environmental impact assessment process and the guidelines under PAN 58.

I have fairly strong views about this whole issue. Environmental impact assessments, and indeed health impact assessments, ought to come under the remit of an independent body, rather than being undertaken by consultants who are appointed by developers. There is a wider issue here, which applies all over Scotland. As we all know, people tend to employ the consultant who gives them the answer that they want. I have been involved at local authority level and know that that is what happens.

We should press this point, whether as individual MSPs or otherwise. There should be an agency in Scotland, funded by fees from developers—not by the taxpayer, I hasten to add—with responsibility for ensuring that environmental impact assessments meet clear criteria, conditions and objectives. The same issue applies to health impact assessments.

For example, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is not allowed to see health impact assessments at the planning stage; SEPA gets to see the HIAs only after planning permission has been granted. That relates very much to PE508. Whether or not the committee presses ahead, I intend to pursue the issue. The petition is supported by the Royal Town Planning Institute, which is, I understand, sympathetic to the views that I have expressed and also has concerns.

Helen Eadie obviously takes a more robust view of consultants than the Executive does. The Executive response states that it expects any consultants, whether employed by the developers or the planning authority, to act impartially and honestly. Let me put it this way: that is very trusting of the Executive.

Too trusting, in my view.

Does Helen Eadie suggest that we should create another quango? That is a fairly dangerous thing to do at a time when we are meant to be having a bonfire. The suggestion is that the developers should pay for that, but would that not require new legislation?

I absolutely agree that we do not want to go down the route of continually creating non-departmental public bodies or quangos. I sign up to the notion that we should remove executive agencies and have much more direct control. There is no question about that, but the way things stand at the moment does not make sense either. It is not good for the Scottish public that the environmental impact assessments are produced by consultants who are employed by the developers. I agree with the general principle that Winnie Ewing has put forward, but we need a different set-up from the one that we have at the moment. I am willing to work with others to determine how we achieve that wider objective of ensuring that the public interest is served.

I share Helen Eadie's concerns. She will correct me if I misquote her, but she stated earlier that SEPA was "not allowed" to see the health impact assessment in advance. Do the rules say that or is that just what SEPA says?

I had a meeting with SEPA at the highest level, where it was stated categorically that SEPA is not allowed to see the health impact assessments prior to planning approval being given by the planning committee. That is a matter of deep concern. In my view, if SEPA is required to monitor, control and regulate the set-up after things have been agreed by planners, SEPA should—given its experience, knowledge and understanding—have some input from the very start of the process, prior to planning approval being given.

The point that I am trying to make is that many of us—some of us anyway—have found that SEPA is not proactive and does not interpret its role as widely as some of us believe that it was meant to be interpreted.

For instance, when the planning application for the Carntyne cattle incinerator came up, SEPA made no comment against it. I am informed—and they have admitted to this—that SEPA officials said privately to the council that they thought that the proposal would work. No thought was given to the fact that the incinerator would be in a highly built-up area.

The major quarrel between MSPs and SEPA is that the organisation is not proactive. I do not know whether SEPA ever requested anything, but it tends to wait until something awful happens before it goes back to demand further fixing. It does not speak up at the time. One or two other MSPs and I have had meetings at an extremely high level with SEPA.

SEPA has discussed the issue with me because, at the highest level, it wants to be proactive—

I have never seen any indication of that. I know that Helen Eadie has put a lot of work into this, but I just query whether it is written down somewhere that SEPA is not allowed to see the health impact assessment. I have heard many odd stories from SEPA people over the past four years.

We clearly have a disagreement. The Executive believes that the process for consulting local opinion is adequate as it stands, whereas the petitioner does not believe that to be the case. The petitioner is concerned that developers pick the site and then appoint their own consultants, whereas he would much rather that local authorities appointed independent consultants to consider planning applications. I do not think that the committee will resolve the matter; therefore, I suggest that we pass the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, for its consideration. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Strategic Planning (Fife) (PE524)

The next petition is from Iain Smith MSP and calls on the Executive to reconsider its proposal in the "Review of Strategic Planning" to replace Fife as a single planning area. We asked for the views of the Executive and its response is set out in detail. Members will be aware that those who are opposed to the city region-based strategic planning proposals that affect Fife have already had their views taken into account and addressed as part of the Executive's review of strategic planning. A full chapter of the Executive's response to the consultation exercise was devoted to those concerns. The Executive concludes that two-tier development plans would be required only for the four major city regions. In a recent meeting with the petitioner, the Deputy Minister for Social Justice made clear that that position has not changed.

A planning bill will be submitted in the next parliamentary session, and it seems unlikely that the relevant subject committee would wish to consider the issue that is raised in the petition before that bill is introduced. It is, therefore, suggested that further action on the petition should be deferred until the bill is introduced and that, at that stage, the committee could consider whether to refer the petition to the lead committee on the bill for further consideration. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 (PE525)

Petition PE525, from Yogi Dutta, on the amendments to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002, calls on the Parliament to incorporate a range of measures to deal with grievances against Scottish local authorities. The petition was prompted by the petitioner's experiences regarding the approval by East Dunbartonshire Council of a planning application for the development of holiday accommodation in a green-belt area of Lennoxtown in 2000. The 2002 act sets up a new ombudsman service in Scotland, and the petitioner acknowledges the many benefits that the act introduces.

We have written to the Executive, which has given us a detailed response to the petition. It appears that many of the concerns that are raised in the petition were addressed by the Parliament during the passage of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002. Reasonable responses have been provided to all the points that are raised by the petitioner, and it is suggested that we agree to take no further action other than to send a copy of the Executive's response to the petitioner for information. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Civil Law Enforcement Scheme (PE529)

Petition PE529 is from Mr Horace Jann, on the reform and unification of the civil law enforcement system. Mr Jann wants to replace all sheriff officer commissions with a new civil law enforcement office and to ensure that those officers are properly trained and supervised at all levels. He also wants standardised fees and a table of fees of sheriff officers. The Scottish Executive's response goes a long way towards meeting all his demands. It makes clear that the proposals that are outlined in its "Enforcement of Civil Obligations in Scotland" consultation paper address fully all the issues that are raised by the petitioner. It is likely that, following analysis of the consultation responses and agreement of the proposals by ministers, legislation will be introduced by the Parliament in 2004. It is therefore suggested that we agree to copy the Executive's response to the petitioner for information and take no further action. We may also pass a copy of the Executive's response to the clerk to the Social Justice Committee, for information. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

In my experience, there were quite a lot of complaints against sheriff officers in Glasgow. The sheriff principal used to take the matter seriously and act quite quickly. The system seemed to work well.

Well, the new system promises all kinds of wonderful things. We will have to wait and see.

---

Scottish Transport Group Pension Funds (PE500)

Members will note that I have received a letter from the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning in relation to petition PE500, on the Scottish Transport Group pension funds, in response to various points that were raised with him following our meeting on 8 October. Copies of that letter were circulated to committee members on their arrival this morning, as they were not available in advance of the meeting. The letter was received only yesterday, so it was not possible to consider it as a formal agenda item. In it, the minister states that he is satisfied that a reasonable deal for the STG pensioners has been negotiated with Her Majesty's Treasury under the prevailing circumstances and that

"the £126 million now available for distribution provides for broad comparability with the payments being received by the NBC pensioners, taking into account the personal tax position."

He also says that

"the average payments are approximately £7,000 in England and £8,000 in Scotland",

and he continues that the

"claim that at least 60% of the total surplus would require to be secured to ensure real parity with the NBC pensioners"

is "not a new argument". He states:

"Overall, the proportion of surplus which has been or is being distributed … is indeed around 60%."

Ministers have also decided that

"there will be no change to the basis of distribution for those widowed before 18 December 2000"

on the basis that that would move away from

"the established principle of utilising the rules of the schemes for payments and would have an effect of decreasing the … sums for the vast majority of recipients."

We are still waiting for a response from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the committee's request that he meet the petitioners. I propose that we do not consider what further action, if any, we should take on the petition until we receive the chancellor's response. However, I suggest that, in the interim, we copy the minister's letter to the petitioners and the MSPs who have been closely involved in supporting the petition, for their information. We can then consider the letter formally when we receive a response from the chancellor and agree any appropriate action at that stage. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I have not had time to read the minister's response properly, but I remember many of the details of the case. The letter from Lewis Macdonald does not answer the question that was raised by Fergus Ewing concerning the widows.

No. The matter will be considered formally by the committee at a later stage. The letter has been circulated purely for members' information.

---

Organic Waste Disposal (PE327)

I have also received a letter from George Reid about the Blairingone petition, PE327. Members will remember that there was some dispute about the fact that, although the Transport and the Environment Committee has carried out a proper investigation in the light of the petition, the Health and Community Care Committee has, so far, been unable to do likewise because of its work load. George Reid suggests that, as Dorothy-Grace Elder is a member of the Health and Community Care Committee and has said that she would be available to carry out an investigation into the health impacts that are mentioned in the petition, she might be happy to do so. I propose that, before we appoint Dorothy-Grace to do that, we agree that the conveners of the three committees and their clerks should meet to ensure that the investigation is undertaken with the full co-operation of the committees rather than in defiance of them. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.