Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Official Report 416KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

High-voltage Transmission Lines (Potential Health Hazards) (PE812)

We have 16 current petitions to consider. The first is PE812 by Caroline Paterson on behalf of Stirling Before Pylons, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to acknowledge the potential health hazards that are associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage transmission lines, and urgently to introduce effective planning regulations to protect public health. Do members have suggestions on how the committee should deal with the petition?

I think that we should close the petition.

Do other members have suggestions?

I am not entirely convinced about that suggestion. We have been round the houses on the petition, but work is still going on with Scottish Power, which is producing mitigation proposals.

I am struggling to reacquaint myself with the paperwork, but my recollection from reading it yesterday is that there is something else that Scottish Power still has to do. We owe it to the petitioners to see that before we close the petition, to be honest. I am not sure to what extent we can influence it, but we would be letting the petitioners down to come this far and then to close it ahead of the proposals’ being made public.

That is the mitigation scheme, on which work is being done.

The suggestion is that we continue with the petition until we get further information about mitigation.

Nigel Don is right. Given that the petition is about the pylons and we do not yet have Scottish Power’s proposals for the mitigation scheme, we owe it to the petitioners to keep the petition open until the proposals are before us. The petitioners may have other issues on any scheme that Scottish Power proposes and questions could be raised if proper mitigation is not in place.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The petition will be continued.

---

War Veterans (Health Care) (PE1159)

The next petition is PE1159, by Mrs S Kozak, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide NHS Scotland and other relevant organisations and individuals—including veterans of the Gulf war of 1991—with all necessary information and facilities in order that veterans who were exposed to nerve agents and their preventive medications be assessed, advised and treated appropriately and fatalities be prevented. I seek members’ views on how to deal with the petition.

It looks as if work is being done on the matter. It would be wise to continue the petition until we are updated on further progress.

Absolutely. Is it agreed that we continue with the petition while we get updates on what has been happening?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Knife Crime (Mandatory Sentencing) (PE1171) and Knife Crime (Mandatory Custodial Sentences) (PE1313)

The next two petitions are considered together, as they both relate to knife crime. The first is PE1171 by John C Muir, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce mandatory sentencing for persons found carrying knives or other dangerous weapons in public, except where there are exceptional circumstances that relate to the carrying of a knife or other sharp implement.

The second is PE1313 by Kelly McGee, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce mandatory minimum custodial sentencing for those who are caught carrying knives or other dangerous weapons in public, except where there are exceptional circumstances that relate to the carrying of a knife or other similar sharp implement.

Do members have an suggestions on how the committee should deal with those two petitions?

The committee did everything it could on those and other petitions on the same subject, including a full-scale public debate in the chamber. The matter has been considered by the Justice Committee and the whole Parliament but, unfortunately for the petitioners, the Justice Committee and the Parliament did not support what they called for. This committee can take their concerns to no further court of appeal, so I am afraid that we have no option other than to close the petitions.

I concur. It is clear that we can go no further. The matter has been the subject of legislation very recently. However, I record my appreciation for John Muir’s campaign. He made a strong case, with which not everybody agreed—I was one of them. Let us not rehearse the arguments, although he has done our democratic process a huge service. His tenacity is exemplary and he has generated an extremely good public debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to put that on the record.

I, too, pay tribute to John Muir and Kelly McGee for their campaigns, which they are conducting in what must be very difficult situations. I would never want to find myself in such a situation but, unfortunately, people across the country still find themselves in Mr Muir’s and Kelly’s situation almost every week. We live in a democracy, but I find it unfortunate that, in this case, the democratically elected Parliament did not, by majority, listen to the wise views and recommendations that were brought forward by both those campaigns.

Thank you very much. I add my support to the points that have been made. I pay tribute to the work that both John Muir and Kelly McGee have done in the tragic circumstances of the deaths of family members Damien Muir and Paul McGee.

I propose that the committee write to inform them of the decision to close the petitions and to give the specific reasons for closing it—clearly, it has been considered in the Parliament—but really to thank them for the considerable work that they have done and to say that they will continue to have the support of the committee in their future work on this very important issue. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

A92 Upgrade (PE1175)

The next petition is PE1175, by Dr Robert Grant, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to immediately improve and upgrade the A92 trunk road, in particular between Prestonhall roundabout and Balfarg junction, in order to reduce the number of hazards and accidents and to bring about improved benefits to the local and wider economies. I seek members’ views on how to proceed with the petition.

As the final report on the junction is due to be finalised in the autumn—the date is unspecified at the moment—we should keep the petition open and consider the matter again once the report is available.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Social Rented Housing (Standards) (PE1189)

PE1189 is by Anne Lear, on behalf of Govanhill Housing Association. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to conduct an inquiry into the responsibilities of private landlords, the levels of social housing below tolerable standard, the impact that “slum” living conditions have on the health and wellbeing of residents and the wider community, and whether such conditions should merit housing renewal area status and additional Scottish Government funding. I seek members’ views on how to deal with the petition.

I suggest that we keep the petition open. I have read carefully what Govanhill Housing Association and Govanhill Law Centre had to say and they acknowledge the additional support that the Scottish Government has given to the Govanhill area. The problems in Govanhill are not unique, but it seems to have a unique concentration of so many different problems. Their fear seems to be that if we close the petition then the additional spending will not have the desired effect. I know that it is not necessarily the job of the Public Petitions Committee to monitor those matters, but because of the concentration of problems in the area and because of the work that we have done with the organisations, I would like to go along with their suggestion that we keep the petition open and monitor the effectiveness of the additional money that has been given, and of the strengthened legislation. I said that one of their concerns is that the legislation exists but is not being enforced. It is being strengthened: will it now be enforced?

The housing association and the law centre have raised a number of other issues. I could go over them, but I do not think that that is necessary. They have had some success in what they hope to achieve, but they fear that the money will not be used properly and that it will not have the effect that they want it to have. I would like the committee to keep the petition open, and then to come back to it and see what has happened. I do not know what the suggestion was as to when we do that, but we should keep the petition open for the moment to see how the additional money and the changes to the legislation affect the concentration of problems in the area.

15:45

I support Anne McLaughlin’s view that we should keep the petition open. Govanhill Housing Association raises an important point. My particular interest is the responsibilities of private landlords—or, rather, some private landlords’ lack of responsibility. As Anne has pointed out, there is already legislation to assist local authorities in dealing with private landlords. I am aware that the minister has proposed to strengthen that legislation, but while the people of Govanhill and, indeed, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth wait for the proposed legislation to make its way through Parliament and be enacted, they still have to live with the problems.

We need to find out why local authorities are not implementing and enforcing their current powers: perhaps the Government can provide information not only on the local authorities that are using them, but on those that are not and why they are not. The law is working in some areas but not in others. It could take a year or 18 months for new housing legislation to be enacted; indeed, even after that happens, we could still be two or three years away from the provisions’ being in force. I suggest that we use the legislation that is already on the books, just as we suggested in respect of the earlier petition on wild salmon that the current salmon and aquaculture legislation be used.

As the response from Govanhill Housing Association suggests, we should congratulate the Minister for Housing and Communities on the actions that he has taken. However, we should also ask what the Government is doing with the proposed private housing bill and how it feels that legislation will impact on the private rented sector, particularly with regard to the Govanhill situation.

As Cathie Craigie quite rightly points out, though, the issue affects not only Govanhill, so we must ensure that the legislation applies throughout Scotland and that private landlords are aware of their roles and responsibilities in that respect. I suggest, therefore, that we keep the petition open. Moreover, given that the petition was submitted some time ago and in view of the minister’s commitments with regard to Glasgow City Council, we should write to that council to ask about the work that it is carrying out with Govanhill Housing Association and others to try to eradicate or resolve some of the current issues.

When Anne McLaughlin, the previous convener and I visited Govanhill, we saw the situation at first hand; indeed, a family member lives in the area, so I have personal experience of what is going on and know full well some of the problems that exist. The sooner we eradicate them not only for the people of Govanhill but for any community in Scotland that finds itself in a similar situation—although I have to say that I am not aware of too many similar situations—the better. We must endeavour to do everything that we can for people who have to live in these conditions, no matter whether that means strengthening the current legislation or introducing new legislation that can allow decisive action to be taken to eradicate rogue landlords and—just to throw in a final point that I have raised before—letting agents. The current legislation does not cover letting agents and we must ensure that any legislation that comes forward encompasses everyone involved in private housing provision. As I said, we should continue the petition.

The local member, Frank McAveety, had hoped to be here this afternoon, but he has not been able to attend. He has certainly intimated to me that he is very keen for the committee to continue with the petition. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Courts (McKenzie Friends) (PE1247)

PE1247, by Stewart Mackenzie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a McKenzie friend facility in Scottish courts as a matter of urgency. Do members have any views on how we might deal with the petition?

We seem to be making progress, and in some areas we seem to be making it very fast. I am grateful that the Lord President seems to have sorted out the Court of Session. My reading of the papers is that the sheriff court rules are being dealt with, but the Sheriff Court Rules Council seems to have gone a little bit slower. I do not think that I need to be critical of it, nor do I doubt its intention.

However, I am conscious that the sheriff court is different—the sheriffs have acknowledged that themselves—and I would like us to be sure, once again, that the rules are in the public domain before we close the petition, not because I doubt the council’s intention but because I suspect that some of what has happened is a result of some comments that have been made in this place. If the rules as they are promulgated do not seem to fit the bill, this may be one way of bringing that to public attention and correcting it. I would be loth to close the petition until we have seen the sheriff court rules and can comment on them.

If no one is otherwise minded, we will continue with the petition until we get more information.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Holiday and Party Flats (Regulation) (PE1249)

PE1249, by Mr Stanley Player, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a statutory duty on landlords offering short-term holiday and party-flat leases to register the property as such and to comply with all necessary house in multiple occupation, noise, safety and environmental regulations. Sarah Boyack had hoped to attend to speak to the petition. She has been unable to, but she has written in support of the petition a letter, of which members have a copy.

I seek members’ views on how to proceed.

I suggest that we continue with the petition. Although the minister has made an announcement, which has prompted Sarah Boyack’s letter, I think that we need to see a little more information on that and how the proposals are intended to develop.

Can we ask a couple of specific questions? Will the review of the landlord registration system have an impact on the issue and, if so, in what way, and will the proposed private housing bill have any impact? We need a comprehensive response from the Government on the issue, which in Edinburgh is certainly becoming more and more of a problem.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Medical Negligence (Pre-NHS Treatment) (PE1253)

PE1253, by James McNeill, calls on the Scottish Parliament to compel the Scottish Government to establish a discretionary compensation scheme to provide redress to persons who suffered injury due to negligent medical treatment prior to the establishment of the national health service.

Again, I would welcome the views of the committee on how to deal with the petition.

I think that we should keep the petition open. There seems to have been a misunderstanding about what the committee actually asked the Government. We were not referring to a specific case but were looking at the principle of discretionary compensation, and it appears that it has not been referred to the no-fault compensation review group. We should get back to the Government and suggest that it look again at what we really asked and consider referring it to that group.

Absolutely. Is anyone otherwise minded?

The petitioner has raised one other issue in the response that we have received: whether we wish to consider seeking legal opinion or advice for clarification of the relevant sections of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947—in particular sections 6 and 13, which deal with liability issues that arose prior to the inception of the NHS.

Yes, that would be helpful. Is it agreed that we continue that petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Voluntary Sector Mental Health Services (Funding Framework) (PE1258)

PE1258, from John Dow, on behalf of TODAY—Together Overcoming Discrimination Against You and Me—calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a fairer funding framework for all local, regional and national charities and organisations that support individuals who have mental health issues, and new guidance on the best value and procurement of support services.

What are committee members’ views on the petition?

Briefly, given the constraints on public expenditure at the moment, it is incredibly important that what there is should be shared out with absolute fairness and equity, so this is an important petition and we should continue it. We should write to the Scottish Government and ask it to give us a copy of its finalised report for the petitioner to comment on. We should also ask the Government to report back at the conclusion of the consultation on what the outcomes and actions are going to be with a timetable for going forward.

So, it is agreed that the recommendation is that we continue the petition.

---

Trade Missions (Israel) (PE1308)

PE1308, from Asid Khan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review its policy with respect to trade missions or trade initiatives by publicly funded bodies to Israel and to direct or influence Scottish Trade International to end any on-going initiatives with Israel.

I seek members’ views on how to proceed with the petition.

We have had responses from the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government, which have raised their concerns about the actions of the Israeli Government. In the light of the responses that we have received, I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7.

Are there any other views?

Members: No.

It is agreed that we will close the petition.

---

Planning Circular 3/2009 (PE1320)

PE1320, from Douglas McKenzie, on behalf of Communities Against Airfield Open Cast, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend planning circular 3/2009, on notification of planning applications, to provide the same status to a planning objection to a major development from a neighbouring local authority as to one from a Government agency, in order to trigger a notification to the Scottish ministers; and to state that such objections by a neighbouring local authority to major developments that represent a departure from the development plan should be a significant factor in a decision to call in an application. Iain Gray MSP is here to speak to the petition.

Thank you, convener. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in support of petition PE1320. The petition has all the characteristics of the best petitions to the Scottish Parliament and demonstrates all the reasons why we have the Public Petitions Committee. The idea of the committee was always that communities in Scotland should have the opportunity to bring forward proposals to change legislation or policy, based on their experience.

The petition, which seeks a change in the planning system, is directly based in a situation that is being faced in my constituency. An application for an opencast coal mine falls within the Midlothian Council area due to a footprint that follows the boundary between Midlothian and East Lothian exactly, but the nearest community of any significance to the proposed site is Ormiston, which is part of East Lothian. My constituents in Ormiston have discovered that the decision will be made entirely by Midlothian Council, of whose area they are not a part. East Lothian Council, of whose area they are a part, has no more say than any other statutory consultee.

There are differences in approach between the two local authorities on the issue of opencast mines. Midlothian Council has previously supported opencast mine applications. East Lothian Council, on the other hand, has had a presumption against opencast mining for some time, but the villagers of Ormiston find themselves in a position where their elected representatives are largely powerless in expressing that point of view.

Out of that, the campaign related to the issue, Communities against Airfield Open Cast, has developed a proposal to change the planning system and, as the campaign would say, to address a democratic deficit within it—by definition, the Scottish Parliament is about addressing a democratic deficit—to allow, in the circumstances that have just been described, the bordering local authority in which the representation of the community that is most affected lies to have a far more effective voice in the decision about whether a planning application should go forward.

I note that, following the initial consultation that the committee undertook on the petition, the Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland has supported the proposal. It states:

“it might be useful to give further consideration to introducing a system of referral to Scottish Ministers of certain types of Major applications as defined by the Planning Hierarchy, which is significantly contrary to the development plan and to which a neighbouring authority objects.”

The RTPI’s support suggests that such instances are infrequent enough not to distort, hold up or cause a blockage in the planning system and that the injustice that my constituents feel is strong enough to require the matter to be addressed. On that basis, I ask the committee to continue the petition and to pursue it with the relevant committee or the Scottish Government, as the committee thinks appropriate.

16:00

The convener will be fully aware that the residents of Temple, in east Midlothian—whom I, too, represent as a list member—are fully in sympathy with constituents in Ormiston, who are specifically affected. If the situation were reversed, Midlothian would respond in the same way as East Lothian has responded.

We should write to the Scottish Government and seek a response on some specific points. For example, do we have a clear definition of “national interest”? Is there any consistency in defining developments as such? The question of whether a development is needed, because it is in the national interest, seems to be part of the conversation. How do we define national interest in relation to such developments? What is the Government’s response to the RTPI’s response to our question about what happens when two neighbouring local authorities take different views on a development, given that, under the current regulations, there appears to be no higher body to which to appeal?

With the committee’s forbearance, I will make a couple of points as the member for Midlothian, as the planning application will be considered by Midlothian Council. In my view, the application should be turned down. In a sense, we are dealing with a different issue and my views on whether the application should go forward are not really part of the discussion, but I want to make my position clear. I have worked closely with my constituents on the issue. As Iain Gray said, in his capacity as member of the Scottish Parliament for East Lothian, his concern relates to the democratic deficit that appears to result from the fact that his community is very close to the proposed site of this opencast development.

Both Iain Gray and Robin Harper mentioned the response from the Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland, which supports the petition. I support continuation of the petition, if committee members are so minded.

I agree.

I am a long way from the scene of this particular crime and will not pretend otherwise, but I am concerned that we should separate the issues. I quite see how borders cause a problem—they often do in public life. However, the letter from the Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland—it is the paragraph just above the heading “Question 2”; the page is not numbered—states:

“However, Scottish Ministers do have a general power to intervene by calling in any planning application.”

If that is the case—I take it that those words mean quite simply what they appear to say—the minister has a general power to call in, and could therefore be persuaded by any mechanism to do so. Perhaps people should use the available mechanisms to persuade the Government minister to call in the application.

I am a bit concerned at the suggestion, which I think I heard from Robin Harper, that we should perhaps modify the definition of “national interest” to overcome the problem. With respect—perhaps I misheard Robin—that might be the wrong route to take. If a site is on a boundary, that is a problem, and it should not be solved by deciding that a site that is on a boundary suddenly becomes of national interest.

It would be helpful to have a different—and clear—definition of “national interest”.

Nigel Don makes a fair point. In truth, when my constituents originally approached me about the specific case from which the petition and the proposal arise, that was my understanding too. On that basis, I contacted the planning minister and argued that because of the interest of the neighbouring local authority—which has no formal place in the planning process other than as a statutory consultee—he should call in the application to make a determination.

The response that I received did not say that the planning minister did not believe that that was necessary in the circumstances. In essence, he responded that he had no such power to call in the application without any reason.

In spite of what the RTPI says, there is ambiguity as to whether the power to call in applications is that general. That is a further reason why the campaigner lodged the petition: he sought clarity on what would cause an application to be called in.

That is helpful.

Could we seek some clarity? If the minister is not sure, I am not sure from whom we would get such clarity, but we ought to have it.

Yes. The current circular amended its predecessor

“by reducing the criteria which qualify for notification to just three where i) the authority has an interest ii) there has been an objection from a Government agency or iii) opencast coal proposals ... are within 500 metres of the community.”

It is clearly the second of those criteria—an objection from a Government agency—that is relevant to this petition. It has been suggested that the neighbouring local authority should be treated in a similar way, but we need to establish what the “national interest” is.

I return to the sentence in the RTPI’s letter, which baldly states:

“However, Scottish ministers do have a general power to intervene by calling in”.

If that means what it appears to say, there cannot be any restriction on a general power. Perhaps the ministers do not have a general power; I do not know.

We need clarification.

When you are drafting the letter, it would help if you could re-read paragraph 4 of the letter from the Government, which mentions “genuine national interest”. To use that power, one would have to argue that a national interest is involved in the particular application that we are talking about.

It is agreed that we will continue with the petition and seek further clarification from the Government. I thank Iain Gray.

---

Gypsy Traveller Sites (PE1321)

The next petition is PE1321, by Lynne Tammi, on behalf of members of the Young Gypsy/Travellers’ Lives Project, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 from all future guidance on the management of Gypsy Traveller temporary and halt sites.

I seek members’ views on how to proceed with the petition.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s statement that it will not refer to the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 in the site management guidance that is under review at the moment and its welcome for the involvement of the Young Gypsy/Travellers’ Lives Project and other members of the Gypsy Traveller community in the review of the guidance.

I was struck by the statement from Justine Wilson, who is 20 years old and part of a travelling family. She said:

“At the start of the year we were staying on a road-side camp in Argyll. This camp was up an old back-road with many lay-bys. Every day new people—who were not Gypsy/Travellers—would arrive to spend some time there ‘wild camping”—

whatever that is—

“but we were the only ones who were asked to leave.”

The point that the petitioners make is that the act is used almost exclusively for the Gypsy Traveller community. It has been stated that the 145-year-old act—or however old it is—is used as a last resort, but the petitioners dispute that. Could we ask the Government whether it will reiterate strongly in the unauthorised camping guidelines and the site management guidance that the act should be used only as a last resort?

I understand that the guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland states that the act can be used. Can we write to ask whether it will consider removing that from the guidance and, if it will not do so, whether it will consider making a strong statement that the act should be used only as a last resort and should not simply target one section of our community?

Are you suggesting that we continue the petition?

Yes.

Okay. There are no other views from the committee, so that is agreed.

---

Dance (Schools and Colleges) (PE1322)

The next petition is PE1322, by Jacqueline Campbell, on behalf of the residential provision parents group, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to demonstrate how it will ensure the viability and future of dance teaching and coaching in schools and colleges across Scotland and through a national centre of excellence. Do members have views on how to deal with the petition?

We should continue the petition and write to Glasgow City Council to seek an update on the meeting that was held with the Scottish Government in May.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Shia Muslims (Community Centres) (PE1323)

The next petition is PE1323, by Syed Ali Naqvi, on behalf of the Scottish Shia Muslims, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage and facilitate the creation of community centres dedicated to Scottish Shia Muslims. Do members have any views on how to deal with the petition?

I think that we should continue it and keep it open.

Is that agreed?

I seek clarification from the clerk. When we discussed the petition previously, we agreed to write to a number of organisations. Can I take it that we have received responses only from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and the Scottish Government? I find that disappointing, given that we have given other organisations the opportunity to make a submission on the issue.

I suggest that we continue the petition and ask the Scottish Government the questions that have been posed about the resources available to not only the Shia Muslim community but other religious communities and about the use of existing community facilities.

I suggest also that we write again to the other organisations that were identified when we considered the petition originally to ask whether they intend to respond to the committee. It would be useful to know whether they intend to do so, because I find it disappointing that we took the time to write to organisations and they did not even give us the courtesy of a response. When the committee is asking for responses to petitions in future, it may need to think about having a list of organisations that it will not write to because they have previously failed to respond, even to acknowledge receipt of a letter.

It has also been suggested that there are a couple of remaining questions for the Government to respond to that we should ask it again.

Do members agree to continue the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Thomas Muir (Statue) (PE1325)

Our final current petition today is PE1325, by Patrick Scott Hogg, calling for the Scottish Parliament to support the erection in the vicinity of the Parliament building or at an appropriate place on the Royal Mile of a statue of Thomas Muir, who lived from 1765 to 1799. Do members have views on how to deal with the petition?

We could probably close it, as the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the City of Edinburgh Council have given good reasons why there should not be such a statue in the vicinity of the Scottish Parliament. The council has offered to give advice and assistance to the petitioner. We wish the project well, but we should close the petition.

I support closing the petition, but wish to put on record once again my disappointment at the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s continued decision not to allow the erection of statues in the vicinity of the Scottish Parliament. Robin Harper can perhaps take back to members of the corporate body the point that there are public artworks displayed in the Parliament. It continues to be wrong not to recognise major influences on the political world—in the widest sense—and for the corporate body to be unable to make a decision on or to support the idea that we should do something to commemorate major political influences in Scotland and the rest of the world. However, as I said, I support Nanette Milne’s recommendation to close the petition.

Thank you very much.