Public Petitions Committee, 07 Jan 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 7, 2004

Official Report 251KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Deaf and Hard of Hearing People<br />(Social Work Services) (PE400)

The first of the current petitions is PE400, on the provision of social work services to deaf and hard of hearing people. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the matter and take the necessary steps to ensure that local authorities throughout Scotland ensure that there is adequate provision of social work services to deaf and hard of hearing people in their catchment areas.

The committee considered responses from the Scottish Executive and South Lanarkshire Council at its meeting on 16 December 2001 and noted that the concerns raised by the petitioner had been addressed by South Lanarkshire Council. The committee agreed to copy the responses that had been received to the petitioner and to ask whether they were content with the action taken by the council. No response has been received from the petitioner, despite a number of reminders being sent and the petitioner being advised that in the absence of a response the committee may proceed to close its consideration of the petition. Are members content that we close the petition and inform the petitioner accordingly?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Prison Service (Age Discrimination) (PE404)

The next petition is PE404, which is on age discrimination by the Scottish Prison Service. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to instruct the Scottish Prison Service to return to the pre-November 1987 agreement, as per the principal civil service pension scheme rules for groups of staff who are forced to retire before reaching the age of 60 years.

The previous Public Petitions Committee considered a response from the SPS at its meeting on 23 April 2002 and agreed to write to the Prison Officers Association Scotland to get its views on the response. The committee also agreed to write to the Scottish Trades Union Congress and to the Equal Opportunities Committee. Responses from the POAS and the Equal Opportunities Committee have been circulated to the committee for members' consideration. Despite a number of reminders, no response has been received from the STUC. Do members have any views on what we do with the petition now?

The correspondence is detailed but not all of it is entirely clear, particularly the status of discussions between the POAS and the SPS. However, it seems to me that, as those talks are still under way, it might be better to delay further consideration of the petition until we have heard the outcome of those discussions. If, as the briefing paper says, the talks are on-going, we have good reason to expect that they will be completed fairly soon, but I do not think that there is anything more that we can do at the moment.

I am a bit concerned at the lack of response from the Equal Opportunities Committee and the STUC. I wonder what sort of correspondence there has been and how many exchanges have taken place. I am a bit surprised, because I would have liked to hear their views.

The only organisation from which correspondence is outstanding is the STUC. We received a reply from the Equal Opportunities Committee.

Did it say that it had no comment?

Yes.

The point that has been made is a valid one, so that is surprising. I would have thought that it would have some statement to make.

The overriding consideration is probably that the House of Lords has ruled that the policy is not discriminatory, and there, I suspect, the matter will ultimately rest. People can discuss it ad infinitum but, it if it is not discriminatory, the SPS will have acted within its remit.

In legal terms, the policy has been shown to be non-discriminatory, but that does not mean that agreement between employer and trade union cannot be reached and does not prevent the SPS from acting. If discussions are still under way, that must be what the POAS expects will be the outcome.

I would like to continue the petition until we have an update on the discussions. Annex C of the document shows that members of the Prison Officers Association in England have the luxury of working on, while Scottish officers do not. I would say that that is discriminatory, even if the House of Lords has said that it is not. I know that we have continued the petition from 2001 and 2002, but I would like to continue it further, for the benefit of the committee, until we find out the outcome of the discussions.

The prison officers' pension scheme must be the only one that is healthy.

That is probably why there is so much discussion about it.

I would have thought that, notwithstanding the House of Lords decision—which does not have my automatic agreement, anyway—the Scottish Prison Service is devolved and the Scottish Executive therefore has responsibility for it, including responsibility for employment matters. I would therefore like to continue the petition, because I believe that the situation is discriminatory and that the Scottish Parliament has an interest in the matter.

The feeling of the committee is that we are happy to keep the petition open in the hope that the matter can be resolved. We can continue to monitor the situation, but I do not know how we can have any input into that, other than by asking the STUC again for a response or an update and by asking to be kept informed of progress. Are members happy for us to seek that information?

We should ask both the POAS and the POA just where things stand. The latest correspondence seems to date from 2002, so we could ask for an update on that.

Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Planning System (PE479)

Our next petition is PE479, on the planning process. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to allow local communities to become more involved in the planning process.

The previous Public Petitions Committee considered a response from the Scottish Executive at its meeting on 6 June 2002 and agreed to defer consideration of the petition until the Executive had published its response to the consultation, "Getting Involved in Planning". The Executive has provided an update on its planning agenda, which has been circulated to the committee for consideration. Do members have any comments?

I understand that the Executive will, in due course, introduce a planning bill based on some of the reflections arising from the consultation. I suggest that we conclude consideration of the petition but write to the petitioners saying that a planning bill will be introduced and that they should watch out for it and contribute to the process.

Can Jackie tell us when the Executive will introduce its planning bill?

My name is Jackie, not Mystic Meg.

I thought that you knew something that we did not, but I will take that as a no.

Take it any way you want.

Saying that the Executive might introduce a planning bill some time might not be a sufficient answer for the petitioner.

The bill is supposed to be introduced this summer.

A consultation document has been published, which means that a bill will be introduced. However, I do not know the time scale for that.

We will need to have two consultations first.

Don't be facetious.

If a planning bill is going to be introduced this summer, I am happy with the proposed response to the petitioner.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Sex Offenders (Home Office Project) (PE486)

The next petition is PE486, which concerns a project to assist sex offenders to avoid reoffending. The petitioners called on the Scottish Parliament to note the progress of a Home Office project to help sex offenders to avoid reoffending and the work of the Scottish Quakers to apply the principles of the scheme in Scotland; and to consider the possible application of the scheme in Scotland.

The previous Public Petitions Committee considered the petition at its meeting on 23 April 2002 and agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Members of Boards of Visitors. The committee has received responses from the Scottish Executive and COSLA, which have been circulated to members for their consideration. Despite a number of reminders, the committee still has not received a response from the AMBV. Do members have any views on the petition?

The first thing we should do is to go back to the Executive and find out whether the evaluation has been undertaken.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Mr Dick makes a valid comment in the penultimate paragraph of his petition. He says:

"While petitions of complaint seeking a remedy have their place, participation through petitions should afford an opportunity for citizens to make representations to the Parliament about proposals that might help the Parliament to further its CSG principles".

In the light of the parliamentary debate that we had late last year, that point is worth making. Perhaps we should consider displaying information about the petitions that we have received more prominently on our website so that people can see that they are not necessarily about seeking remedies to certain problems.

That point is very valid. Are members happy to endorse that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Airports (Access to Public Roads) (PE528)

The next petition is PE528, in the name of MacRoberts Solicitors, on behalf of the Glasgow Airport Parking Association Limited, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to conduct an inquiry into the consequences for transport infrastructure in Scotland of competition in on-site and off-site car parking at Scottish airports and to amend such legislation as it might consider appropriate.

The committee considered the Scottish Executive's response at its meeting on 3 September 2003 and agreed to seek clarification from BAA as to whether it is common practice across all its airports to impose charges on certain companies to pick up and drop off customers. The committee also agreed to ask the Executive to provide details of the outcome of its consideration of the byelaws proposals in relation to the Airports Act 1986. Responses from BAA and the Scottish Executive have been circulated to members for their consideration. The committee is reminded that the dispute between the petitioners and BAA Scotland is outwith our remit.

I am not at all happy about this petition. The BAA letter somehow suggests that the petitioners have withdrawn their petition while the letter from MacRoberts Solicitors in annex D of our papers clearly states that they have not. I am also unhappy about the principle of BAA seeking payment for people being dropped off at its airports, which is what this boils down to.

As a result, we should continue our consideration of the petition. I have a variety of comments about it, but I am interested to hear what other members have to say. At this point, I will simply say that we should follow MacRoberts Solicitors' suggestion, examine the issue of a complaint to the Office of Fair Trading and find out whether we want our response to encourage the general principle of airports charging people for the privilege of being dropped off on their premises. I do not believe that they should be charged in that way.

I am not happy either. I have two issues, of which John Scott has already picked up on one. BAA seems to be under the impression that everything is hunky dory, but it is not, so BAA does not seem to know what is going on. Furthermore, the Executive has not received a reply from BAA.

My other point is BAA's glowing report, which seems to imply that it is rather marvellous at spending money and that it is not costing the taxpayer any money to upgrade. We did not ask BAA whether it was upgrading airports. It talks about not costing taxpayers any money, but it is charging small firms more than it charges other firms to transport passengers back and forth and those firms are taxpayers, as are the people who pay the fares.

The two points that I want to raise are: the reply from the Scottish Executive and BAA not knowing what is going on, because it is under the impression that the issue has been dealt with, which it has not, as the letter from MacRoberts Solicitors makes clear; and the fact that the Executive has still to receive a follow-up reply from BAA. We should continue on those two points: BAA's incompetence and the reply from BAA that the Executive expects.

The response from BAA is very detailed and raises one or two questions, to which I will come in a minute. However, my first point is that MacRoberts Solicitors were written to again and have sent back a response that lists four new points. Is that permissible? The petition was submitted and considered. It was then delayed for things to happen and, when it was reactivated, MacRoberts Solicitors have come up with four new points. I am not saying that those points are not important or relevant, but I wonder whether it is appropriate for that to happen. If it is, BAA should be asked for its response to those points, because they are all specific to BAA.

BAA makes a couple of points on which I would like clarification. In the second paragraph of its letter, it says:

"we have recently enjoyed cordial negotiations with the parking association … and have signed an agreement with that organisation."

Do we assume that that is the Glasgow Airport Parking Association that is mentioned in the petition? If it is, it is surprising that both sides do not have the same understanding of that agreement.

The fourth paragraph of the second page of the letter says:

"On the contrary, we have established Air Transport Forums at each of our Scottish airports, involving local authorities, transport operators, airlines, the Scottish Executive, chambers of commerce and others."

I wonder whether the GAPA is involved in those air transport forums, particularly at Glasgow airport, and whether there are equivalents at other airports in Scotland.

I would like those questions to be put to BAA because, as things stand, there is a lack of clarity on the matter.

To answer your first point, it is not permissible for MacRoberts Solicitors to introduce those new points. The petition contained certain points, which were being addressed. If four new points have been raised, they should form a new petition. It is not admissible continually to add new points to be addressed as the process goes on: the petition relates to the points that MacRoberts Solicitors made initially. It might be that the new points could be resolved in resolving the initial petition, but it is not for us to continue a petition by having things added to it. If the initial points are resolved and MacRoberts Solicitors lodge a new petition based on the four new points, that would be permissible, but it is not acceptable to progress a petition by adding to it as it goes back and forward.

That is what I understood. Presumably we have those points because they are part of the letter that was the response from MacRoberts Solicitors. I accept that, but my subsequent comments and my request for clarification of the BAA letter to stand.

There is also the issue of byelaws. Executive ministers have not yet reached a conclusion on the situation with regard to the byelaws.

I would also like to make a point about the exclusivity of the deal that it would appear BAA has entered into with National Car Parks. The OFT might also want to consider that issue. A series of questions need to be answered. For that reason, we should continue PE528 for the time being at any rate.

I have been reminded that competition law is a reserved matter. However, we could seek a response from the Executive on how it is handling its responsibilities under the law. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 (PE573)

The final current petition this morning is PE573. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to amend section 47 in part 5 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 and the code of practice to remove from general practitioners the work load in relation to the assessment and certification requirements, in favour of appointing dedicated personnel to fulfil those requirements.

In the first session of the Parliament, the previous Public Petitions Committee, having considered responses from the British Medical Association and the Scottish Executive, noted that the Executive appeared to have recognised the difficulties for GPs in complying with the provisions in part 5 of the act and planned to consult on proposals for changes to the code of conduct and amendments to the act. Therefore, the committee agreed to put PE573 on hold until after the parliamentary election. The Executive's update on its consultation was circulated to the committee. Do members have points to make on the PE573?

I welcome the Executive's recognition of the problems. Along with Dr Beatson, I was instrumental in submitting PE573 to the committee. We should keep the petition open until we see what the Executive's proposed changes are to part 5 and other sections of the act, after which we could check whether the petitioners are happy with the Executive's proposals. Given the scale of the problem—I believe that 300 or so of Scotland's GPs signed the petition—it is too early to close down the petition before we see what the Executive's proposed changes are.

One of the values of the Public Petitions Committee is that it can act as a belated reviewing chamber. No one does anything other than applaud the intentions of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000; the practicalities that are the subject of the petition may not have been considered at the time. The Public Petitions Committee could serve a useful purpose if it were used to propose amendments to legislation that the Parliament has passed.

That is a very good point. Do we agree to continue PE573 and to monitor the situation?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank colleagues for their attendance. We have finished in not too bad time today. We cannot always count on that, but we have made a good start to the new year.

Meeting closed at 12:03.