Public Petitions Committee, 07 Oct 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Official Report 329KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

The next agenda item is consideration of several current petitions. We will bring forward our consideration of PE1061, because Annabel Goldie is here to speak to it, and she has a pressing commitment—if I am honest, it might well be the same train as mine.

---

Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (PE1061)

PE1061 has been in our system for a while, and Annabel Goldie has expressed a willingness to speak about it. The petition is from Mr and Mrs Mark J Lochhead and Mr and Mrs Henry McQueen Rankin. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that measures taken by communities to tackle antisocial behaviour in urban residential areas are not restricted by the duty of a local authority to uphold access rights under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

I welcome Annabel to the committee. She will know that the petition has been in the system for longer than I have been convener of the committee. If she would first like to explain why she has expressed an interest in the petition, the committee will then explore the options.

Thank you, convener, not only for allowing me to address the committee, but for your understanding in moving the petition further up the agenda. I have been asked by Mr and Mrs Lochhead to speak to the committee on their behalf. They are in the public gallery. With the indulgence of the committee, I will read a brief statement so that it will appear in the Official Report.

My constituents Mr and Mrs Lochhead have requested that I speak to you about their experiences in trying to prevent antisocial behaviour in the lane beside their home. The case has brought to the forefront the difficulties faced by local residents and councils in the effort to find a balance between curbing antisocial behaviour and upholding public rights of access for the local community.

Mr and Mrs Lochhead first approached my office in January 2007. For a number of years, they had suffered from antisocial behaviour in the lane. This behaviour intensified with the arrival of the summer months. There was verbal abuse and physical damage to their property. The damage included vandalism to Mr and Mrs Lochhead's car and house. For example, the living-room window was broken and the cost borne by my constituents to replace it was £987. I am informed by my constituents that damage to their neighbours' property included graffiti on their garden shed and vandalism to their car. There was also verbal abuse over the garden fence.

I am informed by Mr and Mrs Lochhead that the lane is private and owned to the mid-point by my constituents and their neighbours. It was originally used for services—refuse collection and so forth—but over the past few years it developed into an area for people involved in intimidating behaviour. My constituents' health—and, I am told, their neighbours' health—suffered as a direct consequence of the stress caused by the activities in the lane.

My constituents inform me that the problem has been on-going since 2003 and that they have been in contact with the council since February 2003. Mr and Mrs Lochhead were informed by the council that the lane between their home and the neighbouring house must be available for public access, even though my constituents maintain that the lane is private. The lane is very narrow; I think that I am correct in saying that it is about a metre wide.

Mr and Mrs Lochhead felt that the only way to stop people gathering and creating problems near their home was to fit a gate, thereby preventing access. The council informed my constituents that planning permission was required for the erection of the gate. Retrospective permission was therefore sought, but was denied on the ground of access legislation.

I can see the point made in the council's submission on the petition in August this year. The council said:

"Closure of paths does not address the root of the problem of anti-social behaviour."

We accept that the council's role is to consider the wider consequences of path closures and the effect on the community as a whole. However, it is easy to see why my constituents, who are living with this problem day and night, felt that lane closure was the only option. My constituents felt that the council should not enforce the right of access when the effect of refusing planning permission for the gate was detrimental to their enjoyment of their home and their desire to live in a quiet and safe neighbourhood.

My constituents wish to have the gate locked "24/7". Mr and Mrs Lochhead inform me that antisocial behaviour still takes place in the lane during the daytime. They believe that the only way to prevent this occurrence is to lock the gate.

Mr and Mrs Lochhead and their neighbours undertook a public inquiry, which was a great financial burden to them. The reporter concluded that the gate should remain, provided that Mr and Mrs Lochhead and their neighbours ensured that the gate was opened between 8 am and 8 pm, 365 days a year.

The logic behind the decision was that the closure of the gates after 8 pm should help to prevent antisocial behaviour during the night, yet opening the gates during the day would continue to provide legitimate access to local residents. Although paragraph 19 of the council's submission to the committee appears to agree with that stance, it is clear that the council is uneasy about how it will sit with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. That is where national guidance for councils might be helpful.

My constituents inform me that other councils have taken different actions in similar situations. It has caused my constituents considerable frustration because they feel penalised for living in their particular council area. They inform me that some residents of the Glasgow City Council and East Dunbartonshire Council areas benefit considerably from being able to keep their gates locked 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

A local councillor in my constituency suggested to them that national guidance on the issue of lanes would be helpful and would ensure consistency throughout Scotland. The council's further-comments document of 2008 that was submitted to the committee states in the last paragraph that national guidance would be useful and indeed, might ensure that councils and residents are able to find solutions to minimise the risk of antisocial behaviour while still providing access.

Mr and Mrs Lochhead have stated to me that they wish the gates to be locked 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They inform me that all people who require legitimate access to the lane have keys, therefore my constituents see no reason to keep the gates unlocked. Mr and Mrs Lochhead believe that having the gates locked would bring palpable benefits to their neighbours and them.

I realise that the committee cannot deliver a specific solution to a petitioner's problem, but it has a powerful capacity to direct others in the need to find such a solution if there is a public interest that is broader than the individual plight of the petitioners. The petitioners highlight that broader public interest. The petition paints a graphic illustration of the law of unintended consequences. The architects of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 wished to facilitate access of the Scottish public to rural and remote parts of Scotland for purposes of leisure and recreation. I am certain that they did not intend that urban property owners should be obstructed by the act in protecting themselves and their property against the modern-day plague of antisocial behaviour. The consequence of that legislation seems to be a statutory nonsense. The anomaly becomes all the more ludicrous when different local authorities choose to interpret the act in different ways. Either the legislation requires to be amended or the guidance clarified to serve the ends of both common sense and consistency of application.

Thanks very much. Are there any immediate observations from committee members?

The committee had significant sympathy with Mr and Mrs Lochhead's plight when the petition was discussed before. I cannot remember—perhaps the clerks will help—whether we have been in touch with the Government to ask about potential guidance. If different local authorities are dealing with the matter in different ways, it would be sensible to have Government guidance to help them.

I recall a previous committee meeting after which we issued a letter to the Scottish Government asking that specific question. I recall the Government coming back to us to say that it had no plans to issue guidance on the matter. I would have to double check, but that is my recollection.

As you well understand, Annabel, the committee is concerned not to be seen as an arbiter in cases of difficult and complex unintended consequences, levels of interpretation or lack of clarity about legislative framework, which leads to people interpreting it in a more difficult way that is to the detriment of the issue raised by the petitioners. However, we are concerned that the petition has been in our system for a while. What I feel are fairly sensible solutions do not seem to have been arrived at. Has there been a full community safety assessment of the residents in that area or the nature of the offences? Have the police engaged with the local authority about using other grounds to address the issue, so that it is not seen as a dispute relating to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003? It is almost bizarre that we are considering a petition to do with antisocial behaviour because of an interpretation of that act. The petition is about antisocial behaviour, community safety and people feeling secure in their own properties. We want to try to resolve those issues. I invite Annabel Goldie to respond to that before we explore ways for the committee to help.

My constituents and I understand and sympathise with the fact that it is not for this committee to deliver a specific solution. That is why I said that I believed that the petition raised an issue of broader public interest. The Minister for Environment, Mr Russell, sent me a letter in March, which I can make available to the committee via the clerk. When I raised with the minister the issues confronting my constituents, he said that he was aware that the Public Petitions Committee was considering the matter. He said:

"The Committee will consider further what actions are being taken by the Scottish Government to ensure that measures taken by communities to tackle anti-social behaviour in urban residential areas are not restricted by the duty of a local authority to uphold access rights under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003."

We are dealing with an issue of broader public interest. It is clear that, throughout Scotland, there are conflicting views about how to interpret the act. We would all accept that that is not satisfactory. We all want to anticipate that legislation that is passed by this Parliament is both uniform and universal in its application. It is clear that that is not the case at present.

We all acknowledge that we cannot deal with the individual case in question, but can we write to the Government to reflect the experience of these petitioners, to say that we are concerned about how the act is operating and to ask the Government to review it? In so far as we are able to influence the Government, we can say that we think that the act needs to be looked at and that perhaps the Government should issue appropriate guidance.

That is helpful.

I get the impression that the act is not operating in the spirit in which it was intended to operate. Perhaps we should ask the Government whether it thinks that the act is operating as intended. I do not think that it is—the rest of the committee would probably agree.

We should also write to the local authority concerned. We should raise with it the concerns that have been expressed about behaviour in the area and ask whether better guidance from the Government would help it to resolve the issue.

Perhaps we could write to the local authority to ask what other approaches to tackling ASB in similar situations in the area have been used and whether they have been successful. If they have been successful, we could ask what contributed to their success.

Would it be fair to ask whether the petitioners' human rights are being breached, under the European convention on human rights?

We can raise that issue.

It is entirely at the committee's discretion to take whatever action it thinks appropriate, but, for me, the kernel of the matter is to do with legislation that is passed by this Parliament. The local authority in question has been trying to grapple with its interpretation of the legislation, but we know that that interpretation is not shared by other local authorities. I suggest to Mr Butler that there is a broader public interest issue around the act, which needs to be clarified.

Perhaps Annabel Goldie would think it a positive way of proceeding if we asked the Government whether it thinks that uniform guidance is now appropriate, given the lack of uniformity and consistency across local authorities.

That is a very appropriate question, convener.

I hope that that is helpful. It is difficult for the committee to deal with the issue because of local government powers and the issues that have been raised. I hope that that will be helpful to Miss Goldie's constituents, and that we can make some progress.

Thank you very much, convener.

---

Disabled Parking (PE908)<br />Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations (PE909)

---

Disabled Parking Bays (Improper Use) (PE1007)

The next three petitions—PE908, from Connie Syme, PE909, from James MacLeod, and PE1007, from Catherine Walker, on behalf of Greater Knightswood Elderly Forum—have been grouped together. All three petitions look at ways in which disabled parking bays can be used by those for whom they are designed and not by other car users. PE909 is also about the development and maintenance of dropped kerbs to ensure that people who have a disability or suffer from lack of mobility have easier access to disabled parking bays.

There are slight differences between the petitions, but they are broadly going in the same direction of travel. The Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill covers the issues that are raised by PE908. Those issues will be addressed during scrutiny of that member's bill, which has had broad support from the Government in the past week or so, which is helpful. We could close PE908 and wish the issue well on its journey through Parliament.

On PE909 and PE1007, the committee is invited to consider whether it would like to write to the Government to seek a response to several points. There are questions that we might put to the Government, including whether there has been an escalation in the misuse of disabled parking spaces, what precise action has been taken since the 2007 research study of off-street parking for people with disabilities in Scotland, and what specific action has been taken to address the issues raised by the petitioners.

The petitions identify two or three key areas, and I seek unanimity on the proposal that we explore those and seek a response from the Government.

Members indicated agreement.

I thank members for their patience.

---

NHS Dental Services (PE920)<br />NHS Dentistry (Remote and Rural Areas) (PE922)

---

NHS Dental Services (PE1018)

The next three petitions are also grouped together. PE920, from Helen Smith, asks for additional resources to be provided to national health service dentistry, particularly for the recruitment of NHS salaried dentists in emergency and comprehensive care. PE922, from Peter Thomson, calls on the Parliament to look at implementing a different model to the existing plan to ensure that NHS dentistry is available in remote and rural areas. PE1018, from Keith Green, on behalf of the Kinross group of Save NHS Dentistry, asks the Parliament to restore NHS dental services throughout Scotland. I know that the Government has responded on dentistry issues. I am in the committee's hands. How do we want to deal with the petitions?

The Government has recently taken significant action to solve the problems, although there is still a significant lack of NHS dentistry in Scotland. Time will tell whether the actions that are being taken now will have the desired results. I cannot see how the committee can take the petitions any further at this stage, so I suggest that we close them. However, we might like to know how the Government's action is progressing—the petitioners would certainly like to know—so we could ask the Government to give them updates on that as the current actions take effect during the next months and years.

That is fairly sensible and I accept that recommendation from Nanette Milne.

---

Skin Cancer (PE931)

PE931, from Helen Irons, on behalf of Skin Care Campaign Scotland, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policy on tackling the growing skin cancer epidemic in Scotland. Do members have any views?

Action has been taken on the issue through the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008. Many of the concerns have probably been addressed.

I agree. I think that we should close the petition on the basis that a number of the issues are being addressed through the 2008 act.

Can we perhaps involve the petitioner as work progresses?

The strong recommendation is that we close the petition, as we recognise that some of the issues are being addressed through the 2008 act, but that we want there to be engagement with the petitioner, so that her views on the issues are heard.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Elderly People (Residential Care) (PE1023)

PE1023, from Dr McNamara, on behalf of Highland Senior Citizens Network, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that a greater proportion of residential care places for the elderly are provided for and staffed by the statutory sector, particularly in rural areas. We have again had a fair chance to deal with the issues. I am in the committee's hands as to how we deal with the petition.

The situation with this petition is not dissimilar to the one with the previous petition. Elderly care provision is being addressed by both local and national Government and we would like the petitioner to be kept updated. I recommend that we close the petition but keep the petitioner informed of the situation with regard to care for the elderly. The reason for closing the petition is that we have raised the issues with the Government and it has identified what its programme is for addressing the needs of elderly people. There is also the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 and the regulatory framework. That is my recommendation, unless members feel strongly otherwise.

It would be worth mentioning that having a set figure or proportion for the provision of care places could be unnecessarily restrictive on councils and might divert funds away from other ways of caring for people.

We recommend closing the petition on the ground that many of the issues have been raised and addressed through the elderly care strategy.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Elderly People (Provision of Care) (PE1032)

PE1032, from Elizabeth McIntosh, on behalf of Renfrewshire Seniors Forum, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the standard of care provision for the housebound elderly and to ensure that seniors forums are fully consulted on the provision of care for the elderly. Again, the situation is not dissimilar to the situation with the previous ones, as the Government has announced that it is doing a further assessment of the Sutherland report, which will influence the shape of the resources that are available for elderly care. The last part of the petition is equally important, as it is essential that, in addition to ensuring that the standards are appropriate and properly regulated, the Government should consult seniors forums to ensure that there is engagement with senior citizens and older people in Scotland.

This is an on-going situation, which will develop as time goes on. It is important to keep the door open with the seniors fora so that their views can be taken into account when assessments are made.

We recommend that we close the petition on the grounds that there is a 12-point plan in addition to the Sutherland review of free personal care and there is a free personal care joint development group with COSLA. We also recommend that there should be further discussion with elderly forums and other representative organisations of older people.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Employment Opportunities for Disabled People (Public Procurement) (PE1036)<br />Employment Opportunities for Disabled People (Home Working) (PE1069)

PE1036 and PE1069 are both on issues relating to sheltered workshop employers and the need to promote employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. PE1036 is from John Moist, on behalf of the Remploy consortium of trade unions, and PE1069 is from Clive McGrory and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to encourage employers to provide home working opportunities. The papers set out a number of options on considering supported business issues. Do members have any strong preferences?

At the very least, we should continue our consideration of the petitions, although we should suspend it for six months until we receive a further response from the Scottish Government on the choose another way online resource centre, and on what stage the development of the framework and standards by the joint Scottish Government and COSLA task force has reached. It is far too easy for disability issues to disappear off the agenda, so we very much have a duty to continue the petitions.

The recommendation to delay consideration until we receive further information is certainly sensible. Are you okay with that, John?

If we are suspending consideration of the petitions, I think that with regard to PE1069 it might be worth while to ask the Scottish Government about the current rights and protection for home workers who take up such opportunities. I know from my previous employment that home workers can be among the most vulnerable workers in society and, although we welcome increased home working opportunities, the Scottish Government must ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place to protect those workers and that their rights are not eroded simply because they work from home.

I share that view.

With regard to PE1036, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism has indicated that research is being carried out on how things are going. We should by all means defer consideration of the petitions, but we should also send the Government a signal that we are not going to let this go and that this is one of those important issues that must not be forgotten about.

Thank you for those recommendations. Are members agreed on the course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Common Good Sites (Protection) (PE1050)

PE1050, from Councillor Ann Watters, on behalf of Kirkcaldy Civic Society, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to provide better protection for common good sites such as Ravenscraig park in Kirkcaldy and ensure that such sites are kept for future generations. Do members have any comments?

The scale of the historic mismanagement and loss of these sites and the lack of information about them is such that we should under no circumstances let this petition go until we have received further information from the Government. I suggest that we write to the Government—in six months' time, perhaps—for a further response to our concerns.

That recommendation is helpful. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Gifted Land (Public Recreational Use) (PE1077)

PE1077, from Jennifer McKay, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to introduce legislation to ensure that the original conditions pertaining to gifts of land to private and public bodies or owners be honoured when they provided access and benefits to the local community.

It is recommended that we close the petition on the ground that no valid burdens will disappear as a consequence of the extensive statutory reforms in recent years to title conditions, feudal tenure and so on, which were designed to make it easier to identify and enforce burdens. Are members happy to follow that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Parking Charges (Hospitals) (PE1086 and PE1091)

The next two petitions have been in the system for a while. PE1086, from Chris Paterson, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to issue new guidance on car parking charges at NHS hospital sites, and PE1091, from Mary Murray, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review the levying of car parking charges by NHS boards. We are all aware of the recent developments on these matters, and I think that the Public Petitions Committee can take some credit for amplifying these issues and concentrating the minds of those who were able to influence any long-term decisions on these matters.

Paul Martin in particular has been very involved in the matter, which has had an extensive impact on his constituents—and, I should add, my mother. As Paul has taken the time to attend this meeting, I ask him whether he wishes to make any comments.

Thank you, convener. I know that you have had a long meeting, so I will be brief. I, too, pay tribute to the Public Petitions Committee, which has played a crucial role in the development of Government policy on the issue. The local community in my constituency appreciates and has genuine respect for what the committee has done, and I am sure that the same is true of many communities throughout Scotland.

A couple of points need to be made. I do not think that that respect would be extended to Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board for the way in which it responded to the petition in its correspondence of 25 August. I recall from the Official Report of the meeting at which there was an exchange with the board's chief executive, Tom Divers, that further information was sought about the individuals who had complained about the fact that car parking charges were not in place, as the existence of such charges would, apparently, have meant greater availability of spaces. The board's response said that 41 complaints had been received since March 2007, but I recall that I asked specifically for copies of that correspondence to be provided, with the names and addresses of the people concerned redacted for obvious reasons of confidentiality. Having that correspondence in its possession would help the committee to address a debate that will continue, given that not all car parking charges have been removed throughout Scotland. It is extremely important to clarify the issue surrounding the correspondence that the health board received.

It is also important that we recognise that, as I said, car parking will not be free at all sites throughout Scotland. I do not think that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has yet responded to the petitions. Correspondence from her would be helpful in clarifying the Government's position on them.

The petitioners took some time to submit the petitions, to which the committee, in allowing every opportunity for the issues to be interrogated, has adopted a very fair approach. It is important that, when health boards respond, they show as much quality as you have shown.

I want to follow up on the issues that Paul Martin has raised, which are important and must be pursued. It is incumbent on the committee to seek a response from the Government on what it proposes to do with the hospital car parks that will continue to charge, particularly the private finance initiative car parks. We need to know whether the Government has any indication of what it would cost to buy out the contracts and whether, at any stage in the near future, it intends to take those car parks out of PFI ownership and make them free for the hospital-using public. Failing that, we should ask whether the Government is considering imposing on the operation of PFI contracts measures to reduce or limit the charges that can be applied in such car parks.

A number of members, including Paul Martin, must be congratulated on the work that they have done to progress the petition. The campaign has won widespread support and we have been able to overturn the views of some health board members throughout Scotland, who had a cavalier attitude towards public concerns about the most vulnerable and needy in society when they required hospital attention.

As a user of the car park at Ninewells hospital, I should probably declare an interest. A big campaign is still going on in Dundee because Ninewells is one of the hospitals where car parking charges remain. Just last week, notices were put up to say that the charges are going to be increased, which is the opposite of what is being asked for in the petition. I support what members have said. It is essential that we write to the Government, seeking a response about whether any buyout of the remaining years is envisaged, and what the estimated separate costs would be of buying out the contracts for the three remaining car parks that charge.

I echo what members have said. The petitioners were brave in the initial stages. That is particularly the case with the employee of the NHS, whose submission indicated that she pursued the issue with great bravery, under much strain and stress. Given the difficulties in recent years because of charging policies for car parks, the result has been a positive outcome for staff and, hopefully, in the longer term, for users.

This is another good example of the Public Petitions Committee keeping an issue going or allowing it to become more widely publicised. We have brought about changes in decision making. For example, the good debate last week on access to cancer drug treatment has resulted in a substantial shift in attitude in health boards and the health department. It is testament to the good work of the committee. I advocate that we continue that process over the next period. I thank Paul Martin for pursuing the matter on behalf of constituents and following through on the issues that have been identified.

---

School Buses (Seat Belts) (PE1098)

PE1098, from Lynn Merrifield, on behalf of Kingseat community council, is on ensuring that seat belts on school buses are appropriate for children. The petition has been in our system for a while.

I feel strongly about this issue. Over the years, I have had representations on the issue from parents in Aberdeenshire. Parents in rural areas in particular are concerned about children being transported to school in buses that the parents deem would be unsafe if they were in an accident. I would be happy if the committee took a position on the issue. When we discussed the issue previously, we thought that it was a good idea to have seat belts on school buses.

I notice that 10 councils currently require seat belts to be fitted in school transport, including the neighbouring one to Aberdeenshire, Moray Council. This morning, I noted in my local paper that Aberdeenshire Council is discussing this very issue later this week, with a view to becoming the 11th council. The Government should consider guiding local authorities on the installation of such safety measures on buses. I am aware that it is a complex issue but, with good will, it is not insurmountable. I would like the committee to take a stand and to write to the Government about it.

I take the recommendation that we believe that there should be consistency across local authorities and that there should be work with the appropriate transport bodies and organisations on their provision of seat belts for children.

We cannot ask the Government to require seat belts, can we? It is a reserved issue. All we can do is ask the Government to issue guidance to councils recommending that they fit seat belts. It is up to councils to act on that guidance.

Yes. We will take on board those points from committee members.

---

Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (PE1109)

PE1109, from Janice Johnson, on behalf of Psoriasis Scotland-PSALV, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government urgently to develop clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of psoriasis. There is an additional briefing paper from the British Association of Dermatologists. Do members have any views on how we should deal with the petition? The petitioner has been invited to join the multidisciplinary committee that is responsible for developing guidelines and to participate in the NHS Quality Improvement Scotland structure.

Prescription charges will be scrapped by 2011, removing the requirement for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis to be defined as chronic conditions exempt from prescription charges. Many of the issues in the petition have been addressed in various ways.

There is nothing further that the committee can do. At previous meetings, I have commended the work that the petitioner, Janice Johnson, has done in this regard. She has been pushing hard to get Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network guidelines on the issue of psoriatic arthritis. It is good news that she has been invited to join the committee that is responsible for developing guidelines and I congratulate her on that. We should close the petition.

Thank you for that recommendation.

---

Mordechai Vanunu (PE1122)

The final petition is PE1122, from Vanesa Fuertes, on behalf of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, on allowing Mordechai Vanunu freedom to travel. The First Minister has written to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with a copy of the petition and has requested that the United Kingdom Government make representations to the Israeli Government on the matter. We have fulfilled what would be expected of the committee in relation to the petition.

I congratulate the clerks on the strongly worded letter to ministers that elicited such a fast response.

And the informal lobbying that took place in between to ensure that such action took place.