Current Petitions
Members will see that we have received a series of responses to petitions. The first response relates to petition PE115 on air traffic over Edinburgh. Members will remember that, at our meeting on 6 June, we considered the responses that we had received from Scottish Airports Ltd and the Edinburgh airport consultative committee, which gave us comprehensive details of aircraft movement at the airport and the steps that are taken to monitor and reduce noise in and around the airport. We agreed then that, as those responses appeared to answer the issues that were raised in the petition, no further action seemed necessary. However, the committee agreed that, before responding to the petitioner along those lines, it would seek confirmation that the Transport and the Environment Committee was content with that approach. That committee considered the petition at its meeting on 6 September and agreed that it was content with the proposed response by this committee to the petitioner. It is suggested that the clerk should now write to the petitioner indicating that no further action will be taken on the petition. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Petition PE118, from Dr Ronald Crawford, is about water charge increases. Members will recall that the petition related to the huge increases—35 per cent this year—in North of Scotland Water Authority charges to domestic customers. At our meeting on 14 March, we agreed to ask both the Minister for Transport and the Environment and NOSWA to respond directly to the petitioner on the issues that were raised. A response from NOSWA was received and was noted by the committee on 24 April. The minister's response, dated 18 October, enclosing a copy of the department's reply to the petitioner, has now been received. It is suggested that we note the response and agree to take no further action on the petition. I note that the department wrote to the petitioner on 3 July but did not write back to us until 18 October. That is quite a gap.
The letter also says:
"We intend to consult on this in the summer."
It would be interesting to find out what that consultation yielded, examine it and pass it to the petitioner.
The minister responsible is no longer Sarah Boyack, as Sam Galbraith is now the Minister for Environment, Sport and Culture.
I was at an all-party meeting in Inverness. It was the angriest meeting that I have ever been at—and I have been at some angry meetings in my time. It was packed; about 500 people were turned away. All kinds of people were present. They were not especially political; they were from community councils and small businesses. Every kind of body that you could think of was represented.
We know about the state of the water arrangements, which are Victorian. The sewers are the same. We know that there is enormous need for investment, but people were angry about the increased bills; they said that it was like being told to pay off their mortgage in two years when they thought that they had 20 years. The other, perhaps more important, point was about relief for poorer people.
The response was received on 18 October. As Mr Scott said, there has been consultation over the summer, so we could ask for some more comments.
We could, although when Sarah Boyack had responsibility for this issue, she promised that there would be a statement in Parliament in the autumn. I do not know whether 6 November counts as the autumn in Scotland these days—it is hard to tell—but the Executive certainly intends to make a statement on this issue. I do not know whether we should wait until the statement is made to Parliament.
We should ask when the statement will be made.
Do we agree to write to the minister and ask him when the statement will be made on the review of the charging arrangements and help for people on lower incomes?
Members indicated agreement.
Petition PE191 is from Irene Yardley, on behalf of various health care workers at Glasgow royal infirmary. Members will remember that we received a comprehensive response from North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust, which indicated that the trust recognised the problems that the health care workers had raised in respect to security in the accident and emergency department and set out the actions that it intended to take in response.
We agreed to pass a copy of the trust's response to the petitioners to ask whether they were content with it. They have now replied. They indicate that they are not content. They state that the staff have not been invited to participate in meetings on those issues. They have asked to meet this committee again to discuss the issues. We must consider whether to invite the petitioners to attend the next meeting of this committee to provide more details of their concerns, or whether it would be more appropriate to write to the trust to ask for its comments on the staff's claims that they were not involved in discussions on safety issues. We could suggest that it might be in the interests of all the parties involved if such discussions were as inclusive as possible. It is open to the committee to decide how to pursue the matter.
We should write to the trust again to ask for its comments on the allegation that it has not consulted adequately. We can invite the petitioners to attend another meeting to address us after we receive the trust's response if it appears to be inadequate.
That is okay with me. We should ask the trust to give us an early response—in time for our next meeting, if possible—so that the matter does not lie around for too long.
I remember the petitioners clearly. This is obviously an important matter, which must be resolved quickly.
Petition PE239, from Mr Donald Easton, is about the national health service pay review body. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to direct the Scottish Executive to take action to include biomedical scientists working in the NHS in the NHS pay review body. At our meeting on 4 July, we agreed to copy the petition to the Minister for Health and Community Care, asking for her comments.
We have received a response from the Executive; members have a copy of that with their papers. The letter provides background on the current pay negotiation machinery for NHS staff, which does not include biomedical scientists. However, the letter indicates that all four UK health departments, including the Scottish Executive health department, are currently engaged in negotiations with the main staff representative bodies on proposals to modernise the NHS pay system. As part of those negotiations, consideration is being given to extending the coverage of the nurses pay review body to include further groups of highly qualified staff. Biomedical scientists will be one of the groups considered. The Executive has offered to provide further details of the outcome of negotiations once those have been concluded.
That seems a reasonably positive response. It is suggested that we copy it to the petitioner and indicate that, in the light of the current negotiations, no further action will be taken. However, it is also suggested that the committee take up the Executive's offer to provide an update on the negotiations. That information could be passed on to the petitioner in due course. Do members agree to those suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
That appears to be a success.
Another success for the Public Petitions Committee.
The next letter relates to petition PE265 from Mr George McAulay on behalf of the UK Men's Movement, on false rape allegations. At our meeting on 26 September, we agreed to seek further information from the Minister for Justice on the anonymity both of victims and of accused in rape cases. It was also agreed to take no further action in relation to the other issues raised in the petition.
We are still waiting for a response from the minister. However, we have received a letter from Mr Brian Monteith, MSP, who spoke in support of the petition at the meeting. Mr Monteith is concerned that members of the committee questioned the petitioner on the issues that the petition raised, rather than simply determining the most appropriate place for the petitioner to present his evidence. Mr Monteith says that he hopes that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee will have an opportunity to take note of the petition, even if it chooses to take no action on it.
It is suggested that I write to Mr Monteith, making it clear that the Public Petitions Committee considers it to be entirely proper that it should question petitioners where appropriate, so that members can establish whether there is merit in further action being taken in respect of petitions. The response would make it clear to Mr Monteith that it is for this committee to decide whether any subject committees should be copied petitions for information and that this committee will take a view on the petition when a response is received from the Minister for Justice. Are there any comments?
The proposal is that there should be a register of false allegations. I realise that rape is a very serious crime, but other crimes are also serious. For example, when someone is accused of fraud, that can end their career and ruin their life. However, we do not suggest that there should be a register of false accusations of fraud. That is a dangerous route to follow.
That was the view taken by the committee when we discussed the matter. We decided to take no further action on that part of the petition, but to write to the minister on the question of anonymity for the accused as well as the accuser.
Brian Monteith attended the meeting and did not like the way in which the committee conducted its business. However, we are not here to please individual MSPs; we are here to decide how best to dispose of petitions. The suggestion that I write to Mr Monteith is a good one.
When it comes to sending petitions to other committees, we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. We are told off when we send petitions direct to subject committees and yet we are hauled over the coals when we try to glean more information from petitioners. We did the right thing. Our job is to elicit as much information as possible to allow us to make an informed decision. Thereafter it is down to our colleagues in other committees to play their part. I do not accept what Brian Monteith says in his letter. That is not a party political point—I would say it of any member.
There is no party politics in the Public Petitions Committee.
Petition PE273, from the Friends of Durris Forests, is on four-by-four off-road driving in public forests. At the meeting on 26 September, we agreed to seek the views of the Forestry Commission on the issues raised in the petition.
A letter was sent to Forest Enterprise, which is responsible for the management of Scotland's public forests, and a response has now been received from its chief executive, Bob McIntosh, a copy of which is attached. His letter makes it clear that four-by-four driving in the forest is a commercial activity operated by Land Rover Highland Experience. Making the most of such commercial activity and using private capital, where appropriate, is an objective of Forest Enterprise's corporate plan. The activity has received planning permission for an initial period of 12 months. Approval exists for the use of 18 km of tracks; Forest Enterprise retains the right to withdraw tracks, should there be signs of deterioration. The project is strictly monitored, with speed limits and restrictions on the number of vehicle movements and routes. Vehicles must always give way to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.
Forest Enterprise is considering whether to extend facilities for the operation of the Land Rover project and has stated that it wishes to take a balanced view on how that would relate to its full range of management objectives and the impact on forests. The letter states that Forest Enterprise is already aware of the petitioners' opposition and will take their views into account. However, the chief executive says that, having visited the site, he views this as an
"apparently harmless activity which takes place within a small part of a very large forest area."
He continues:
"It is difficult to understand why it is such an issue for the Friends of Durris Forest."
It is worth noting that Forest Enterprise's reply addresses the four-by-four driving activity in Durris forest only. Although it is a fair assumption that four-by-four driving activity in Durris forest has prompted the petition, the petition calls for action to be taken in relation to that activity in any of Scotland's public forests. We need to consider whether the response from Forest Enterprise is satisfactory or whether a fuller response covering its policy in this matter across the whole of Scotland should be requested. Alternatively, we could send the petition to the Rural Affairs Committee for further consideration.
Might we seek advice from an external agency, such as Scottish Natural Heritage? Sometimes we think that we are doing something that is harmless, but advice from experts suggests otherwise. That advice also needs to be set against what other people have said.
I must ask a terrible question: where is Durris forest?
I do not know. I know that it is in Scotland.
I should know, as it may be in the area that I represent. If it is, and I did not know about it, I would feel ashamed.
It is in Aberdeenshire.
Thank goodness for that.
I take the view that recreational and training facilities should be encouraged in these areas. We are talking about Land Rovers travelling at 15 mph on forestry roads and at 8 mph off the road. That is not hugely environmentally damaging. Planning permission has been given for this activity on the land in question. The land belongs to the Forestry Commission, which chooses to allow people to have access to it. I am all in favour of people of all sorts having access to this type of land, if all the requirements are being met. I am not sure what the petitioners' problem is. I do not have the petition in front of me, but I cannot see why this is such a huge issue.
By and large, I sympathise with that view. The only thing that troubles me is that there may be sound reasons that we need to consider for objecting to the activity.
It might be interesting to hear SNH's view on the issue.
We can copy all the correspondence that we have received to Scottish Natural Heritage and ask for its comments on the implications of this activity for Scotland's countryside as a whole.
Permission was given for similar activities to take place in forests in Moray, involving not four-wheel-drive vehicles but motorbikes. I have attended such events, which seem to be very popular. They bring the public into the forest, which is a good thing, and they do not seem to do any damage. They take place only about once a year. There is no indication in the documentation of how often these activities take place in Durris forest.
It would do no harm to seek the view of Scottish Natural Heritage. Do members agree to that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Petition PE283 is from Geraldine MacDonald, on behalf of the Scottish Organisation Relating to the Retention of Organs. The committee will remember from our previous meeting that the petition called on the Parliament to initiate a public inquiry into the practice of organ retention at post mortem without the appropriate parental consent. We know that the petition referred to the Executive's decision to establish an independent review group and to review past practice and the law on this matter. Yesterday the Executive named the members of that independent review group.
At our meeting of 24 October, we were told that the clerk had written to the Executive asking officials to provide the committee with the background to its decision—in particular, with an explanation of why an independent review was favoured over a public inquiry. Information on the remit of the review group and the likely time scale for the report was also requested.
A response has now been received from the Executive, a copy of which members have before them. It indicates that the Minister for Health and Community Care has met a range of parents organisation, including the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society, the Association for Children with Heart Disorders, the Scottish Cot Death Trust and SORRO, which is the organisation that submitted the petition. The letter says that, from discussion in these meetings and from correspondence from parents, the Executive felt that a full public inquiry would be disproportionate and distressing.
The Executive letter also provides details of the remit of the independent review group that is to consider the matter. The group will review past practice in the matters of post mortem consent, organ retention and the disposal of organs in hospitals across Scotland. It will also develop guidance in the form of a code of practice and report on all those aspects of its work by the end of January 2001. It will then consider the current law in relation to consent for the removal and retention of organs and the ownership of human tissue, with recommendations to be announced in autumn 2001. The minister believes that the approach adopted is appropriate, proportionate and sensitive to the range of parental views expressed.
We need to reach a view on whether any further action should be taken in light of the response from the Executive. This is an emotive issue, and the minister seems to have had to balance the differing views of various parents and parents organisations before deciding to establish an independent review group. It is clear that, whatever decision she reached, not all those involved would be content or happy. The difficulty for us is that, should we decide to ask the Health and Community Care Committee or the Executive to consider whether a public inquiry should be initiated, as requested by the petitioners, that would be unacceptable to other parents organisations that do not support such action. It is therefore suggested that it would be inappropriate for the committee to pursue such a course of action.
We are invited to consider whether we should respond to the petitioners on those terms or pass the matter to the Health and Community Care Committee for further consideration. This is a difficult issue, so we should take time over it.
It seems that the minister has met representative organisations and a view has been arrived at after consensus for a particular approach has been built. Therefore, I suggest that, as the recommendations highlight, if we went against what has been decided, we might end up alienating people who take a different view. In a sense, the issue comes back to some of the principles that we have adopted in cases to do with agencies such as local authorities. In those cases, we have tried to keep a safe distance from decisions that have been taken elsewhere.
I am aware that the issue is highly emotive and I think that it would be best to await the outcome of the review group's work, which is well under way. To disrupt that work would be counterproductive for everyone who need urgent answers to some of the serious issues that have been raised. I might be wrong, but I think that another route can be taken at the end of that process if people are still not happy.
Does that not run the risk of making people go through the inquiry process twice? Given that the review group was announced only yesterday, is it likely that its work is, in fact, well under way? In the interests of open government, which we hear so much about, I believe that a public inquiry would be a sensible option.
I do not think that the review group was announced yesterday.
Its membership was announced yesterday.
That is something else. The principle was announced two months ago and the membership has now been announced. That means that the group is well on the way to getting some good work done. We should give the group space to do that. It is clear that the work needs to be undertaken sensitively, for the feelings of everyone concerned. You are right about that, convener.
The work is intended to be completed by the end of January.
That is what it says in our paper.
Indeed. If it is to be completed by then, and if we really care about these distressed people—God forbid that this happens to anyone again—decisions need to be taken as quickly as possible. A public inquiry can take a long time. I have been party to one, and I know that people can still be waiting for decisions to be taken after a year.
The important thing is to arrive at the right decision, whether that takes a long time or a short time. The other point that the petitioner raised—very vividly, as I recall—was that, if there was to be a public inquiry, those who did not wish to partake in it would be under no obligation to do so. I do not think that Helen Eadie's argument stands up, although I accept that, if the review is now well under way, it would be a pity to cut across it and insist on doing something else.
We should pass the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee with the recommendation that a public inquiry could be considered at a subsequent date if the review group findings are deemed to be inadequate.
The Executive's response will be sent to the petitioners as a matter of course. The petitioners will have a chance to respond to the letter before us, and we will probably be back in touch with them.
We could inform the petitioners of the Executive's position, as outlined in its letter, and write to them explaining that we are holding off from supporting the call for a public inquiry at this stage but that we have referred all the correspondence to the Health and Community Care Committee. We could also indicate that it is our view that the committee could consider the matter if the review group leaves many aspects unanswered or a large number of people dissatisfied. That would give the review group a chance to do its work in the first instance.
I agree with such a course of action, as it keeps the issue live in the Parliament. It does no harm for people, particularly the petitioners, to know that we are still monitoring the matter.
The petitioners can presumably return to the matter at a subsequent date.
They can write back to us at any time.
Even if just the committee regards the review group's decision as inadequate, could we still call for a public inquiry?
The petition remains live until we decide that it is complete. It is up to us. We can review it any time.
Welcome, Margaret—I am afraid that there is only one petition left.
Apologies for being late.
The final petition is PE284, in the name of Mr Fraser MacKenzie, and is covered in the paper that was issued just as we came in for this afternoon's meeting. Members will recall that the petition called for the Scottish Parliament to investigate the proposed sale of land in the area of East Mains, East Kilbride, by South Lanarkshire Council, and to urge that the sale be withdrawn in light of the loss of an open recreation area to the community.
We agreed to write to South Lanarkshire Council, requesting a statement and background information on the issues that were raised in the petition. The response has been received; a copy is attached. Although I do not want to go into all the details of the response, members will see that some of the concerns raised by the petitioners have been dealt with by South Lanarkshire Council, which has made the following conditions of sale: the retention of the existing woodland and tree belt; the establishment within the site of a new seven-a-side football pitch; the replacement within the site of the play area, using modern equipment; and the preservation of any existing rights of way.
Members may also remember that there was some concern that South Lanarkshire Council was not responding to the concerns of MSPs, MPs and MEPs. However, the council has answered that point fairly comprehensively, pointing out that it has dealt with more than 550 written requests for information from MSPs and that it has always been happy to meet any concerned politicians.
The issues raised in petition PE284 are matters for South Lanarkshire Council; it is not appropriate for the Parliament to interfere in local authority decisions. In addition, the council has made it clear that it has taken into account the objections to its proposals by applying appropriate conditions to the sale of the site. It is suggested that no further action should be taken in respect of the petition. The petitioners should be advised that, if they wish to pursue the matter further, they should do so with local councillors and MSPs who may be able to raise concerns locally on their behalf.
Perhaps it would be easier for Dr Ewing and me to raise the matter with the council. However, there was some sympathy with comments that Linda Fabiani made at the previous meeting of the Public Petitions Committee. Before we dispose of the petition, it would be fair to seek her views on whether the letter from South Lanarkshire Council is fair comment.
I was not sympathetic to Linda Fabiani's comments at the previous meeting, because she did not go through the correct procedures. If I were concerned about a constituency issue, I would identify the appropriate procedures through which to make representations. Linda Fabiani did not seek meetings with the council in order to take up her concerns and she did not ask whether there was something wrong with the way in which the council handled the situation. Had she done so and discovered that the local council had done something that was not procedurally correct, she would have been able to refer the petitioners to the local government ombudsman.
The Parliament has always been in danger of trying to usurp the role of local authorities. Members should be here to oversee the Parliament's legislative competence or to identify whether changes to legislation, additional guidelines or different emphases are required. In order to be fair both to local people and to the council, an MSP should speak carefully and sensitively to the council about the issues that have been raised. The MSP should also consult other MSPs.
Was the matter referred to Andy Kerr, who is the constituency MSP? I believe that he wants to speak to Linda Fabiani about the petition, because I do not think that she took that simple step. If she did not do so, the situation will become a matter for the Presiding Officer. MSPs must follow the Parliament's protocol that list MSPs let the constituency MSP know what is happening on their patch.
A lot of issues have been raised. We should accept the council's response and leave the situation to Linda Fabiani if she feels that the council has not given a proper response.
The five-page answer from South Lanarkshire Council goes into great detail. The correspondence to which it refers has been made available to the committee by the clerk; it shows that Linda Fabiani was in correspondence with the council. Comprehensive replies to that correspondence and offers of meetings were sent to her.
I am reluctant for the Public Petitions Committee to become involved in rows between list and constituency members and councils. As far as I can see, the council has acted perfectly properly, given that it consulted and listened to local protests.
I have no objection to drawing the correspondence to Linda Fabiani's attention—she is free to pursue the matter further with the committee if she so wishes. However, I suggest that we should be happy with the response that we received from South Lanarkshire Council and that we should write to the petitioners to say so.
Although we received that lengthy response from the council only a few minutes ago, convener, your approach to the petition is the right way forward.
I, too, am content with that approach, but do the points contained in the council's response meet the petitioners' requirements? We seem to have lost sight of the petitioners in our discussion. Will the steps that the council is taking answer the petitioners' objections?
The petition calls for the sale to be withdrawn, but it is not for the Parliament to order a local authority to withdraw the sale of land that is in its ownership. The sale is a matter for the authority, so we cannot respond positively to that part of the petition. We could raise concerns about consultation and listening to local opinion, but the council seems to have consulted and listened. It has made conditions of sale to meet the objections that have been raised locally. I do not think that the Parliament should interfere.
Winnie Ewing will not know that the committee has pressed the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for some time to set up its own petitions committee, because that would take away many of the petitions relating to local authorities that we receive. COSLA has resisted that suggestion but, if we keep up the pressure, it may listen eventually.
I would like to make one last point of correction. I just spotted that the response from the chief executive of South Lanarkshire Council says:
"Ms Fabiani has at no time contacted me or any of my officers to seek a meeting regarding East Mains."
If she had consented to do that, that would have been critical. The convener is right; we should leave the issue.
We will leave the petition and draw it to Linda Fabiani's attention. It is up to her how she responds to it.