Public Petitions Committee, 07 Dec 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 7, 2005

Official Report 240KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Fishing Industry (PE804)

Item 3 is current petitions, the first of which is PE804, by Carol MacDonald and Morag Ritchie, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to use its influence to return control over the fishing industry to Scotland. At its meeting on 9 November, the committee considered the response from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and agreed to seek the petitioners' views on the response. That response has now been received and I am happy to hear what members think of it. I am also aware that Richard Lochhead has indicated an interest in this petition. Richard, do you have anything to add to the deliberations?

Thank you very much for allowing me to make a brief contribution. The committee has rehearsed several times before why Scotland should not participate in the common fisheries policy. However, no one in recent years has put the arguments more eloquently and passionately on behalf of Scotland's fishing communities than the Cod Crusaders. I am sure that we are all very impressed by their activities and pay tribute to their hard work over recent years. Carol MacDonald's response to the convener's letter, which we will discuss shortly, again eloquently lays out why I hope the committee will support her petition. It would do the Parliament enormous good and gain the committee enormous respect if we were to support the petition. The Cod Crusaders have succeeded in persuading many people that Scotland should not be part of the common fisheries policy. Indeed, the petition has the support of more than a quarter of a million Scots. That speaks volumes about the strength of the arguments. I reiterate the point that was made in Carol MacDonald's letter, which said:

"If the Committee was to agree with 250,000 people who backed the petition's request to apply pressure on Westminster and free us from the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), then Scotland would have a great bargaining tool at Brussels in December which could work for the Scottish fleet's benefit."

That refers to the fact that in the annual fishing talks in Brussels later this month, the 25 member states will barter between them the livelihoods of thousands of Scottish families. I was at the talks last year. At one stage, they were not going in Scotland's favour and the Scottish and United Kingdom ministers' bargaining tool was the fact that there was a strong campaign in Scotland to take it out of the common fisheries policy. Scotland managed to get an improved deal because ministers were able to use that weapon. That and the many reasons that have been laid out by the Cod Crusaders and others in the fishing communities mean that the committee should take a tough stance today. I appeal to the committee to support the petition in a clear way.

Do members have any views on that? We know where the Cod Crusaders are coming from; the question is how we deal with the petition. They are asking us to do something very specific. We have written to the minister and we have received a response that says that he will not do what the Cod Crusaders are asking for. How does the committee take the petition any further forward?

Some of the minister's answers concerned me. For example, referring to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, he said:

"They did not ask for a contribution from me."

That concerned me. I have not seen what happens up north, but I am interested in what happens in Scotland generally. It seems from a united fishing industry alliance document, to which the minister referred, that

"fisheries could be managed from outside the CFP".

Has the petition gone to the European and External Relations Committee and the Environment and Rural Development Committee for their feedback?

No. We would not work in that way. We do not refer petitions to other committees and then ask them to tell us what they intend to do. They usually advise us, but we do not start a dialogue with them. If we decide that we want to refer something on to another committee, it then becomes a matter for that committee.

I know, but basically we have had nothing at all back from the European and External Relations Committee or the Environment and Rural Development Committee.

We have not asked those committees to look at the petition.

We have not asked them, but I wanted clarification on the concerning fact that Ross Finnie said that DEFRA did not ask him for a contribution.

As far as I understand, other committees have looked at the issue but not at this petition. It raises the same issue that has already been addressed by the committees to which you refer.

If you are suggesting that we should refer the petition to those committees, I have no problem with that, but that would be the end of it for us. We would pass the petition to another committee to do with it what it wanted. A committee might tell us what it wanted to do with the petition, but it would not be for us to tell it what outcome we expected or what route it should take—such decisions are for the other committee. If you want to pass the petition on to the European and External Relations Committee or the Environment and Rural Development Committee, that is fine—I have no issue with that. However, that would mean the end of our dealings with the petition.

I understand that; I just wanted clarification of what the committee can do. The petitioners want to back up the petition that will go to Europe. I would like to hear what other members have to say.

Sandra White's suggestion that we should refer the petition to the European and External Relations Committee is good. Ross Finnie has made clear his views. Whether or not we agree with him, he is the minister, so he represents our Executive's position. Fishing is very much a European matter, so the European and External Relations Committee might want to have something to do with the petition. Given that it has 160,000 signatures, the petition is important and should not be taken lightly.

We have sent petitions to several committees for information, but we have never sent one to two committees and asked them both to do something with it. That creates a difficulty.

I suggest that we send the petition to just one committee—the European and External Relations Committee.

We could send the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee for information, but if we send it to the European and External Relations Committee because we think that that is the best place for it to go, that committee will have responsibility for the petition. We cannot ask two committees to consider the same petition, because one committee would have to decide what it wanted to do in the light of what the other committee did, which would create a difficulty. Are you suggesting that the European and External Relations Committee would be the best choice?

That is my suggestion.

I hesitate to speak, because I am not an expert in the field. I understand the convener's point about sending the petition to one committee, but I think that the Environment and Rural Development Committee might have more of a body of expertise, although I will not go into the debate about which committee the petition should go to. I am conscious that much of the debate has been about the process rather than the substance. Which committee gets us to where we want to end up is a fine debate.

In his response, the minister cited "Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing" and comments from the Royal Society of Edinburgh report about remaining in the common fisheries policy. He talked about including the Fishermen's Association Ltd in implementation, the role of the regional advisory councils and involving fishing communities directly in shaping fishing policy, all of which we would endorse. I do not know whether that will deliver the outcome that we all want, so I am comfortable with referring the petition to a specialist subject committee that could consider it in more detail or advise us that it has done so and send it back.

I was a member of the European Committee when we produced a report on the common fisheries policy. I do not know whether Sandra White was also a member at that time; she was a member of that committee at one stage.

That committee recommended that zonal management committees should be established, and they have become the regional advisory committees. It might be appropriate for the European and External Relations Committee to examine the petition with a view to monitoring and evaluating how the regional advisory committees are working, as that recommendation was a firm outcome of the report. That would also tie in with the Scottish Executive's view that such committees are the most appropriate way to involve fishermen in the process. I support sending the petition to the European and External Relations Committee, to allow it to examine how regional advisory committees have worked out more than three years after it produced its report.

We will write to the European and External Relations Committee. It will receive a copy of the Official Report and will understand why we have referred the petition, but how it takes forward what the petition calls for will be a matter for it.

The petitioners call for pressure to be placed on Westminster, but Westminster has no petitions committee. Can the committee pass the petition to Westminster? I simply want to clarify what powers the committee has.

We could do so. We have done so before. We could write to the appropriate minister and say that we are passing the petition on for information and that we want to make Westminster aware of the debate here, but that would be all that we could do with it.

I would be happy if the petition were passed to Westminster and to the European and External Relations Committee, as the matter is a European matter.

Okay. Are members happy with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

We will close consideration of the petition at that, unless Richard Lochhead has another suggestion to make.

It would be helpful if a view were given on the petition today, if that is possible. I do not know whether giving a view would be appropriate, but members might want to consider doing so.

Who should give a view?

Can the committee give a view on it?

No. We do not give such views on petitions. We will pass it to the European and External Relations Committee. The petition will then be the property of that committee, which will deal with it as it sees fit.

Okay. I said that because the petition has been circulating in the parliamentary processes for a year.

I assure you that petitions have circulated for much longer than that. We will take whatever time we need with petitions that we are dealing with and trying to progress. If we pass the petition on to the European and External Relations Committee, we will have concluded our deliberations and the petition will become the responsibility of that committee, which will deal with it as it sees fit. We will also send the petition to Westminster for information.

---

Planning Procedures (Playing Field Land) (PE813)<br />Recreation Open Space<br />(Provision and Planning Regulations) (PE771)

---

Planning System (Recreational Spaces) (PE821)

Petition PE813 is by Ronnie McNicol, on behalf of Laighdykes residents group. I hope that I said that properly.

Yes.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review existing planning procedures and guidance to ensure that they are sufficient to prevent local authorities from using playing fields for development purposes.

Petition PE771, by Olena Stewart, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to consider whether there is sufficient guidance for local authorities to safeguard playing fields and recreational open space, and to establish whether additional legislation is required to cover conflicts of interest within local authorities on planning matters in relation to the loss of playing fields.

Petition PE821, by Sheena Stark, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that all planning applications for planning consent for change of use of recreational spaces be routinely sent to the appropriate minister for consideration.

At its meeting on 6 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to sportscotland and to the petitioners. Members will have seen the responses that have been received. What do members think? I invite Campbell Martin to say something first, as he has a particular interest in the matter.

Members have listened to the arguments that the petitioners have put forward on the three petitions. I do not intend to go back over those arguments, but each petitioner made a strong case. They won the argument, but unfortunately they still face losing the playing fields in their areas.

There are issues that we must consider before we move on. The main issue is probably that the petitioners—certainly the Laighdykes residents group—are frustrated because they have gone down the proper road and used the proper procedures to raise their concerns, but have come up against a brick wall whenever they have done so. They think that the local authority has ridden roughshod over their objections and concerns and that the Scottish Executive has not listened to their case. Obviously, the Public Petitions Committee's role is to facilitate a good hearing for the petitioners and to ensure that their case is heard. The committee has done that; it has allowed the petitioners to have their say and to make their case. As I said, they won the argument but—unfortunately—that does not mean much when people are faced by local government and central Government.

The petitioners have consistently asked why councils should have local and strategic plans and why there should be national planning policy guidelines if they are simply to be ignored when it suits local authorities to ignore them. That certainly seems to have happened with Laighdykes. Saltcoats and Ardrossan are also losing substantial playing fields. There have been contraventions of the local plan and national planning policy guidelines, but the proposals will almost certainly go ahead.

According to a recent survey, 30 of the 32 councils in Scotland are building a total of 300 schools using public-private partnerships. Problems arise because the multinational consortiums behind this programme of school building do not want to refurbish old schools; they simply want to build new schools on adjacent land. An additional problem in Laighdykes was that the land adjacent to the school was not a school playing field, but a public playing field. As a result, the local authority had to appropriate the land so that it could be allowed to build on it.

That brings us to a recent survey by Andy Wightman and Jim Perman on common good land, which is an issue that we have not really considered before. Given its history, the land in Laighdykes should almost certainly have been designated as common good land, because it was purchased by the former burgh councils and taken over by the subsequent local authority after reorganisation. However, despite that, the local authority has simply appropriated the land and it is likely that a school will be built on it. We know from reports that there has been almost no audit of the common good land and playing field land that is being lost to build the 300 schools.

I turn to the role of sportscotland in the petitions and in helping the committee with its deliberations. The Holmhills Wood community park action group estimate that 320 acres of playing fields will be lost to school building, which equates to 180 football pitches. Sportscotland, which is supposed to encourage people throughout Scotland to take part in sport, has gone along with the plan. My criticism of that organisation is quite strong: in my only personal contact with sportscotland when I was helping the Laighdykes residents group to save the playing fields in Saltcoats, the senior sportscotland representative certainly supported the council's proposals. It was quite clear that he wanted to accommodate the council's plans and, as the papers that I have submitted to the committee show, sportscotland has argued that it was able to support the plans because they would provide enhanced facilities such as a running track, floodlights and all-weather pitches. However, those enhanced facilities will be fenced off and people will be charged to use them. Local kids will probably not be able to afford to play on the floodlit pitches; they will certainly not be able to have informal kickabouts, because the land will be fenced off. Facilities are not enhanced if local people cannot use them.

I am really disappointed by sportscotland's attitude. Obviously, my specific example is what has happened at Laighdykes. Such areas are fenced off before a school is even built, so Laighdykes will lose its National Playing Fields Association-recommended area.

I am pleased that we have been able to let the petitioners have their say and make their case, but the land will be lost forever and we will not get it back. It seems that the committee's only option is to refer the petition to the Communities Committee to inform its debate on the planning bill, which will come too late for the communities that have petitioned us. The land will be lost. I just wish that we could do more to protect playing fields throughout Scotland and to support the petitioners, who I think won their case.

I am more than happy to hear any suggestion about how to take the matter forward.

We have heard a lot of detail about one particular petition, but nothing about the other two. The Communities Committee will want to consider the wider issues, not least the question of common good land. In that respect, I believe that the matter can be taken forward in the vehicle of the forthcoming planning bill.

My comment is also relatively brief. The petitions raise very real issues that must be considered. However, I should point out that the campaigners in Ayr had a physical victory, because South Ayrshire Council stuck to the planning guidelines and refused the planning application.

Notwithstanding that, there is no question but that the three petitions have highlighted a real problem. At least, the planning guidance needs to be updated. Sportscotland, of which Campbell Martin was so critical, perhaps acknowledges its own confusion. It is happy for the guidance to be updated through national planning policy guideline 11 on sport, physical recreation and open space.

I agree with Jackie Baillie—it is important for the Communities Committee rigorously to consider the matter during its consideration of the planning bill because there is a Scotland-wide problem.

Our experience shows that, even though petitions usually highlight a particular concern of a community or an organisation, it is seldom that community or organisation that benefits from the committee's consideration of the petition because, usually, the decision in respect of their case has already been made. However, other people benefit from their experience. Although the changes that come about cannot be applied retrospectively, they improve processes for the future. That may well happen in relation to Laighdykes and the other cases. It may be that the planning changes that will come about will protect other communities but that it is too late for the people who lodged the three petitions that are under discussion.

I do not want to go into the Glasgow situation—the use of tennis courts, bowling greens and that sort of thing, which is happening all over Glasgow and in other areas. However, I add that NPPG 11 is causing a lot of concern. Unlike Campbell Martin, I am quite pleased with sportscotland's response in that it recognises that bowling greens are being sold off and it will raise the matter under the new review.

We should send the petitions to the Communities Committee because it will be considering the planning bill—and, perhaps, discussing third-party right of appeal. Our briefing note states that a draft version of a new Scottish planning policy 11 is expected to be published for consultation in February 2006. I would like confirmation, perhaps from the Communities Committee, that that will not be published after the planning bill is considered by Parliament. It would not be joined-up thinking if the planning bill was passed by Parliament and the new SPP 11 came along afterwards. We do not know when the planning bill will be published. Can we get clarification of that?

As I have said in previous conversations on the matter, if we send the petitions to the Communities Committee, it will be up to that committee to deal with them. The Communities Committee will examine the planning bill and I am sure that it will have to take such matters into consideration. Sandra White has flagged up a genuine issue. I think that there is agreement that we should send the petitions to the Communities Committee. We can ask it to consider the specific issue and hope that it will be addressed.

As the three petitions raise similar issues, are members happy to send them to the Communities Committee for consideration during passage of the planning bill?

Members indicated agreement.

Obviously, I am not happy with the outcome, but I accept that the Public Petitions Committee has done everything that it can. I agree that the committee should send the petitions to the Communities Committee.

---

Small-scale Energy Generation Equipment (PE837)

Petition PE837, by Neil Hollow, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive actively to use its influence to ensure that, by 2020, all buildings in Scotland, including domestic, commercial and Government buildings, be fitted with at least one type of small-scale energy generation equipment, that such equipment should be brought within permitted development rights and that no charges for connecting to the grid should be made.

At its meeting on 11 May 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, Friends of the Earth, the Baywind Energy Co-operative and the Energy Networks Association. Responses have been received and circulated to members. I will be happy to hear what members think we can do with the petition.

I suggest that the petitioner be given an opportunity to comment on the responses. However, I understand that our colleague, Sarah Boyack, is considering introducing a member's bill on renewables. Perhaps we could send the petition to her for information?

I am happy to follow both suggestions. Do members agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

A90 Trunk Road (Upgrade) (PE856)

Petition PE856, by Iain McDonald, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to upgrade, as a matter of urgency, the stretch of the A90 trunk road between Tipperty and Balmedie in Aberdeenshire in the interests of safety and the environment.

At its meeting on 25 May 2005, the committee agreed to write to the minister with responsibility for transport and to Friends of the Earth Scotland. Responses have been received and circulated to members. Do members have any comments on those responses?

In the absence of contributions from other members, I say that I was encouraged by the response from Tavish Scott, the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, who says that he will consider what needs to be done to complete the work that is required for the scheme, which was previously held in abeyance. On that basis, I would be inclined to close the petition.

Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Children's Services (Special Needs) (PE853)

Petition PE853, by Ken Venters, on behalf of the Carronhill action team, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce legislation that would require all proposals that relate to the closure or alteration of facilities and services for children who have special needs to be referred to it and which would, in the case of such proposals, require detailed consultation of parents of affected children and the implementation of a moratorium that would prevent the closure of special needs schools until such legislation is in place.

At its meeting on 22 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Education and Young People and to Aberdeenshire Council. Responses have been received and circulated to members.

It would be helpful if I knew what the minister had said in his letter. Might I prevail upon you for a copy of the letter?

It is on our website. I do not know whether we can get a copy to you at the moment.

I am quite happy to continue. I have supported the parents of children at the special needs school that is mentioned in the petition and others across Aberdeenshire. There is an issue with regard to the council's previous approach to special needs schools. The enveloping state of the council's thought was that it knew best and that all children would more or less fit into whatever provision it cared to offer. However, that is not the case. Some of the children, particularly those at the school that is the subject of the petition, have tremendous special needs, most of which simply cannot be dealt with in the mainstream system.

A few days ago, I attended a meeting of the local area committee that covers the Carronhill area. Local councillors have unanimously supported the position of the parents and have sought to go to the full council, through its various committees, to recommend that the school be replaced on the same site with a building that is fit for purpose. The existing building has some failings, but the unit is good and the staff are unbelievably excellent. They support other base schools and attached units across the shire. Everyone acknowledges that the facility is superb but that, in time, a new building will have to be built so that capacity can be increased—there is a rising trend of need in the area.

I congratulate the petitioners on the work that they have done—as members know, they have collected thousands of names. The issue must be taken back to the minister because, if councils are suffering from budget difficulties or whatever, they are not always best placed to make decisions on special needs education and support. Certainly, the children who have gone on to lead fulfilling lives after having attended the school have said that they benefited from the system and from the fact that they were not in mainstream education. Some children will enter the main stream but it is important that we preserve units such as Carronhill Special School.

We need a clear signal from the committee—which could be passed on to the Education Committee—to encourage the minister to ensure that the parents' needs are listened to. If necessary, the Education Committee could visit the school, as other MSPs have.

The pro forma that was returned to the committee states that the petition has been discussed with Fiona Hyslop and David McLetchie. In fact, the petitioners have done far more than that: they have discussed the matter with a range of MSPs from all parties, and I have not come across one MSP who does not support their position.

Mike Rumbles has also joined us. Mike, do you have any comments on the petition?

I apologise for not being here earlier. I was at a committee briefing on the forthcoming registration of members' interests bill.

The petitioners asked me to tell the committee that they are—I am not sure how to put this—a bit disappointed that they were unable to address the committee personally when the petition was originally lodged. They would also have liked to speak to the committee today.

I take issue with what David Davidson has said about the local council: the council did not take the position that it knew best, but consulted widely. As David Davidson said, the area committee of the council is 100 per cent behind the petitioners, which is good news for the petitioners.

The letter from the minister's office states that

"it is not the Executive's policy to require education authorities to close their special schools."

It also states that

"the 2004 Pupil Census shows that overall there are 32 more publicly funded special schools and units in Scotland now than there were in 1996."

That is a positive response. On Carronhill and Stonehaven—which is in my constituency—and the wider issue of special schools, the petitioners are right; however, the issues are being addressed both by the local authorities and by the Executive.

The petitioners would have liked the opportunity to address the committee, as part of the process. I do not question the ruling that was made, which was that the petition was similar to other petitions; however, the petitioners feel that it was not.

We discussed the matter when the petition first came before us. We have built up a wealth of experience on a lot of issues. Earlier, we considered a petition on maternity services; it was the fourth petition that we have received on maternity services and those petitions have not been identical. We do not consider the specifics of individual cases, but the generality and the process.

The closure of a special needs school is the same issue as the closure of a rural school or any other school. The guidelines may be specific to special educational needs, but the process by which a decision is arrived at is exactly the same. The committee did not need to hear from the petitioners in respect of their individual concerns, because the general issue that they were addressing was dealt with by the committee in its handling of other petitions. We have built up a wealth of experience in that.

Although I hear what Mike Rumbles is saying, I disagree. I am sorry that the petitioners felt that they were snubbed or in some way not listened to because they were not required—that is the word that we use—to give additional information. However, I felt that we did not require additional information from them. We understand the issue, as we have dealt with similar issues, and we have received a response from the Executive that explains the process and the Executive's thinking. Members have enough information to enable us to make a decision on what we should do with the petition, and we do not require the additional information that the petitioners felt that they had to give us.

It has been an amicable meeting up to this point, convener; however, I raised that matter with you and the clerk because I thought differently from you on the subject. I do not want to go over old ground—the procedure has been pointed out, and that is fine. I think that we should refer the petition to the Education Committee, which is looking into the issue at the moment. It would be good to refer the petition to that committee to let it examine the detail of it. Everyone whose child needs to attend that special needs school has a right to be heard by the Education Committee, so we should pass the petition to that committee.

Have the petitioners had the opportunity to comment on the responses that we have had?

They have not as yet, but it is usual for us to ask them to do so. We can certainly ask them for their response to the Executive's response. Do you want us to hold back referring the petition to the Education Committee until we get the petitioners' response? I am more than happy to do so.

We should make it plain that it is probably our intention to send the petition to that committee in due course, but it would be fair to give the petitioners the opportunity to comment now because they feel upset that they did not get the opportunity to make a presentation.

Do you want to decide now to send the petition to the Education Committee or should we wait until we have received the petitioners' response?

It might be January or February before the petition even reaches the Education Committee, which is considering school closures at the moment. I am not on the Education Committee, but perhaps someone else can help me in that respect.

The alternative is to send the petition to the Education Committee now and ask it to contact the petitioners.

That is a better idea.

That would bring the petitioners directly into the debate with the Education Committee.

I am not trying to challenge any ruling, but it is rather odd that although the petitioners are in the public gallery now—

We are not going down that road. We have discussed the matter before and we do not ask members of the public to come to the table just because they are here; no committee of the Parliament would do that, let alone the Public Petitions Committee.

I am conscious of the issue about speed. Why do we not just refer the petition to the Education Committee? Then, either through their MSPs or after what they have heard today, I am sure that the petitioners will respond directly to the Education Committee without an invitation to do so.

I would like the invitation to be issued anyway, because people are at liberty to write to their MSP regardless of what a committee says.

So members want to send the petition to the Education Committee and ask it to contact the petitioners specifically about it.

I would prefer that.

That would allow the Education Committee to consider the petitioners' response.

Okay. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Gaelic Language Teachers (PE857)

Petition PE857 from Mrs C A Jackson, on behalf of Bowmore Primary School, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to take urgent action to ensure adequate provision of Gaelic language teachers.

At its meeting on 25 May 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, the Gaelic secondary school teachers association, the national group of parents of children in Gaelic-medium education and the Gaelic pre-school council. Responses have been received from the national group of parents of children in Gaelic-medium education.

Do members have any views on the petition?

The problem has been long and drawn out, particularly in relation to the primary school at Bowmore in Islay.

When one reads through the papers, it is interesting to note that the Scottish Executive has been aware of the situation and has liaised well with Argyll and Bute Council, which has responsibility for education in that area. Despite its best efforts, the council has not been able to attract a full-time teacher to take the post at Bowmore and I would like to know the current position. There have been tremendous developments in the Gaelic world during the past three or four years—Gaelic has become more established and a duty has been imposed on local authorities to promote the language, and particularly Gaelic-medium education. It seems strange, therefore, that a school in Bowmore in Islay, which is one of the key areas where Gaelic is spoken and used, is not able to attract a teacher. I wonder what the problem is.

It might be worth our while writing back to the petitioners to ask for their views so that we can get a bigger picture. We have received an Executive response that we could let them have sight of. I look forward to receiving their comments on it. We can then look at the petition again in due course.

I agree with that. We should write to Argyll and Bute Council to ask for its views on the situation.

Are members happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Ancient Woodland (PE858)

Petition PE858 was submitted by Andrew Fairbairn on behalf of the Woodland Trust Scotland. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to address the threat that is posed to the fragmented remnants of ancient woodland by fulfilling the commitment to protect the nation's rarest and richest wildlife habitat that it made as a partner in the United Kingdom forest partnership for action in preparation for the world summit on sustainable development in 2002.

At its meeting on 22 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Executive, the UK forest partnership for action, the Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Confederation of Forest Industries (UK) Ltd. Responses have now been received, so I would be happy to hear what members think that we should do.

I would like us to hear what the petitioners think of the responses, which are quite detailed.

I wonder whether we should pass the petition on to the Scottish forestry strategy review group, which is holding a consultation. I do not know for how long that consultation will go on, so it might be reasonable to pass the petition on to the group as part of the process that it is undertaking. We should also seek the group's views on the petition.

Are members happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

European Funding (South of Scotland) (PE850)

Petition PE850 was submitted by Andrew Wood on behalf of the supporters of the south of Scotland alliance. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to apply pressure on the UK Government to renegotiate the NUTS II—nomenclature of territorial units for statistics—boundaries with the European Commission, especially those that relate to the south of Scotland.

At its meeting on 22 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, the Office for National Statistics, the south of Scotland European partnership, Scottish Borders Enterprise, the Scottish Agricultural College and the office of the European Commission in Scotland. Responses have been received and circulated to members.

I remember this petition. It was interesting to find out how much money we will lose through the proposed reorganisation of structural funds. We have received some good responses and I would like to know what the petitioner—the south of Scotland alliance—thinks about them.

We must be careful. The petitioners are the supporters of the south of Scotland alliance, not the south of Scotland alliance.

Oh, I am sorry. That one wee word, "supporters", is important.

Members will remember the debate that we had when we first discussed the petition.

I could be taken to court.

We need to ensure that we write back to the right petitioners. Just for the record, we will be writing to the supporters of the south of Scotland alliance.

Absolutely. That was well spotted by the clerk.

Members are happy about that suggestion.

---

Therapeutic Work Initiatives (Funding) (PE820)

Petition PE820 was submitted by Graham Clark. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that adequate funding is provided for therapeutic work initiatives to assist people with psychotic psychiatric disability.

At its meeting on 28 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to the petitioner and to the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care. Responses have been received. Do members have any suggestions on how to deal with the petition?

I welcome the minister's response, which is highly positive. Given his response, the job has been done, so I suggest that we close our consideration of the petition.

Are members happy with that proposal? Do you have a different suggestion, Sandra?

I think that we have taken our consideration as far as we can. I would have liked us to have taken it further, but many of the matters with which the petition deals, such as therapeutic earnings, are reserved to Westminster. Attempts to employ people through the therapeutic earnings process are often overlooked and the difficulties involved are prohibitive. The people who take part gain nothing except work experience. I know that we cannot take the matter to Westminster, so I must agree with John Scott. However, the petition will have been worth while even if it does nothing but highlight the lack of joined-up thinking between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Scottish Executive on efforts to get people into therapeutic work.

What you said is right.

---

Vulnerable Adults (Medication) (PE867)

Petition PE867, our final petition today, was submitted by W Hunter Watson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to provide adequate safeguards to prevent vulnerable adults from being given unwanted, unnecessary and potentially harmful medication by surreptitious means.

At its meeting on 8 September 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, Alzheimer Scotland, the Scottish Association for Mental Health and the British Medical Association Scotland. Responses have been received and circulated to members. The committee has also received a submission from Enable Scotland and further correspondence from the petitioner. I do not think that we have concluded our consideration; given the responses, there is still some work to be done on the petition. Do members think that it would be worth writing to the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care to ask for his comments?

I think that it would. I also suggest that if Enable has not already seen all the responses that we have got, we should send them to Enable. I agree that we should seek the views of the new deputy minister on the responses that we have received from SAMH, Alzheimer Scotland and Enable.

Okay. We will see where we can go with the petition once we hear back.

We move into private session to deal with agenda item 4.

Meeting continued in private until 12:01.