Current Petitions
Lamlash Bay (No-take Zone and Marine Protected Area) (PE799)
The first of our current petitions is PE799, from Tom Vella-Boyle, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to support the Community of Arran Seabed Trust's proposal to close an area of Lamlash bay to all forms of marine life extraction, which would establish a so-called no-take zone, and to close the rest of the bay to mobile fishing gear, which would create a marine protected area.
At its meeting on 28 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to the petitioner, to Professor Callum Roberts of the University of York and to the Scottish Executive. Responses have been received and circulated to members.
It is good that the Executive is now responding directly to COAST. Given that that seems to be a positive outcome, the committee might consider not taking any further action.
We might not need to take any further action, but I am not sure that this is the end of the road for the petition.
I think that some further action should be taken, but I appreciate that another committee, such as the Environment and Rural Development Committee, might be better placed to deal with the petition.
I am disappointed with the response that the committee received from the Executive. Apart from the fact that it took three months, it seems to be an exercise in filling up space without saying an awful lot. It also seems to have been put together quite quickly—it must have taken about half an hour to cut and paste. However, it took the Executive three months to send it to us and the only conclusion to come out of it—after the references to other pieces of work—is that the minister will write to COAST in the near future with his formal response. That is what he said four months ago. Members of COAST—Tom Vella-Boyle and Howard Wood—are present in the gallery and I can assure you that COAST has not heard from the minister in those four months. If that is the Executive's idea of "shortly", I would not want to have to wait for what the Executive considers to be a long time.
I am disappointed that that letter is the result of the Executive's three-month consideration of the petition. It refers to work that is in hand—fair enough—but offers no conclusions. We do not know what the minister's considered and formal response is.
We might simply delay matters further by asking the Executive what the formal response is. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the Environment and Rural Development Committee to take up the issue and examine it more thoroughly.
I was disappointed in another aspect. Of the bodies that we invited to respond, I do not think that North Ayrshire Council responded. However, I believe that it is the body that is tasked with implementing the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan in this area of the Firth of Clyde. It would therefore have been quite informative if it could have told us what its opinion was of the COAST proposals and what progress it has made on implementing the UK BAP.
Perhaps we can ask why North Ayrshire Council did not respond and what progress it has made. Whatever the committee decides to do, I would like to put on record the fact that COAST has overwhelming local support for its proposals. Further, virtually all the scientific and expert opinion supports what the group is asking for. There appear to be only two flies in the ointment: the Clyde Fishermen's Association—and I am not sure how many people it represents or, therefore, how much value we should put on its subjective opinion—and, unfortunately, the Scottish Executive, which appears to be holding the process up. It would be helpful if, in the three months that it took to write this letter, it could have told us what its objection is.
I agree with you on that point. The Executive indicated that it would have a response for us this morning, but it never arrived. I am disappointed that the relevant department is not co-operating with us in that regard. It would have been useful to know the answers to the points that you are making before we considered the matter further.
However, even if we had that response, I think that we would have to conclude that the petition required further scrutiny. Therefore, I think that sending it to the Environment and Rural Development Committee would be a good route to go down. However, I would still like to see the response from the Executive. We could send the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee and forward the Executive response to it once we get it. However, I think that we have to do something with the petition this morning.
Given that, at the end of his letter, the minister says that he will respond directly
"to COAST on its proposals",
we should perhaps wait until COAST receives that response and then seek its views. After all, the minister says that there will be
"a Ministerially chaired stakeholder group"
that
"will comprise the chairs of existing national stakeholder bodies, such as the Scottish Coastal Forum"
and various other local groups, environmental non-governmental organisations and so on.
Interestingly, the letter also refers to pilots, including one for the Firth of Clyde. I wonder whether the minister proposes to include COAST in that pilot, because such a move would enable the organisation's serious concerns to be taken on board. As long as we are keeping the door open for COAST and are protecting its position, we should wait until it receives the response from the minister and then seek its views.
We were expecting the Executive to tell us what it was going to tell COAST. We should still wait for that response, which will let us know the Executive's intention in that respect. As a result, it will do no harm to follow my suggestion of referring the matter to the Environment and Rural Development Committee while we await the Executive's response and then advising the committee of that response when we receive it. I just do not see any purpose in holding things up.
Last night, when he addressed Scottish Environment LINK as part of Scottish environment week, the minister made great play of the marine conservation area that will form the subject of a forthcoming bill. In that respect, I remind the committee of the excellent example of what happened when concerns were highlighted about smells from sewage treatment plants. Those concerns fed into the waste strategy, which became part of the Environment and Rural Development Committee's work, and were then taken forward in the subsequent regulations and primary legislation. It would be an important move to refer the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, as it highlights the community's interest in looking after the near sea bed and inshore waters and will strengthen the debate within the committee about any proposals that the minister eventually puts forward. Having that parallel track would certainly help COAST.
Are members happy to take the suggested course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
Telecommunications Masts (Council Land) (PE839)
The next petition is PE839, from Peter John Convery, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to develop clear and concise guidance for local authorities on the use of moratoriums to exclude telecommunications masts from being sited on council land.
At its meeting on 6 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, and a response has now been received and circulated. Do members have any comments? Are they content with the response and do they wish to close the petition?
We might want to wait and see how the petitioner, Councillor Peter John Convery, responds to the proposed review of the guidance in national planning policy guideline 19. People throughout Scotland are concerned about this issue. Indeed, my own local authority, Fife Council, placed a moratorium on erecting mobile phone masts, although it reconsidered its position because of the guidance. The review will take place in late 2006; I know that that is a long time to wait but, instead of simply closing the petition, surely it would be better for us to wait until Councillor Convery and the others are satisfied that their concerns have been addressed.
Are members happy to keep the petition open? I am not too worried either way. However, the review seems a long time away. It might be better to close our consideration of the petition, given that the guidance will be reviewed, and suggest to the petitioner that he could submit another petition on the back of the review. If we keep the petition open, it will lie until after the review is completed. Doing that would not make an awful lot of difference.
People have it fixed in their minds that if the petition is open somewhere, it is in a safe place. However, you are saying that the petitioner could come back to us after the review. Will that option be flagged up to him?
We would be more than happy to receive another petition if the petitioner were unhappy with the review's outcome. The petitioner will receive a copy of the Official Report, in which he will read our suggestion. If, after the review is complete, he thinks that another step should be taken, he can petition the Parliament again to address his concerns. That would be a different petition, which it would be legitimate for him to submit.
I just wanted to check that it would be okay for the petitioner to do that. That is fine.
We will close the petition but leave open that option for the longer term.
Community Sports Clubs (PE868)
The next petition is PE868, from Ronald M Sutherland, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce legislation to create a right to buy for member-based community sports clubs that occupy or use land and/or premises for recreational or sports purposes.
At its meeting on 22 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, sportscotland, the National Playing Fields Association and COSLA. Responses have been received. Do members have comments on the responses?
I am a bit disappointed that the Executive is
"not convinced of the need for legislation … to give member-based community sports clubs a right-to-buy",
because I remember the evidence of the tennis club representatives and all the issues. The Executive says that it
"is aware of a range of pressures facing sports clubs"
and that it proposes research to establish information on the range of issues that affect sports clubs, which it hopes that those bodies will participate in. Given that
"Officials are currently working up proposals for Ministers' consideration on how best to take forward"
the commitment
"to pilot an extension of the Land Fund to assist communities not currently eligible under the scheme, with the purchase of land for community activity",
we might obtain the solution that the petitioners seek, but that seems to be taking a wee bit longer than hoped. We had hoped that there might be a nice, straightforward, simple answer.
Are we suggesting that we should keep the petition open and ask the Executive for its view on the position of sportscotland and the National Playing Fields Association?
I note that COSLA has not responded. We should give it a wee dunt.
Perhaps that is not the technical term, but I know what you meant. We will ask COSLA for its views, which would be helpful. We will keep the petition open and ask the Executive for comments again.
Members indicated agreement.
Limited Companies (Court Representation) (PE863)
Petition PE863, from Bill Alexander, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to amend the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 to allow limited companies to be given either the right to apply for legal aid or the right to represent themselves in court.
At its meeting on 28 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, the Law Society of Scotland, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry Scotland. Do members have comments on the responses?
We could write to seek the petitioner's views. I remember the petition, which was quite moving. The petitioner's views would inform our next step.
We will go back to the petitioner.
I note that CBI Scotland has not responded, despite being sent a reminder. It has not taken the petition very seriously.
We will write to give the organisation another opportunity to avail itself of.
CBI Scotland has plenty to say most of the time, so it would be nice if it responded to the petition.
Okay.
High Voltage Transmission Lines (Potential Health Hazards) (PE812)
Petition PE812, from Caroline Paterson on behalf of Stirling Before Pylons, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to acknowledge the potential health hazards that are associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage transmission lines and to introduce as a matter of urgency effective planning regulations to protect public health.
Following the previous consideration of the petition, I want to concentrate on three points to do with health concerns, which were the thrust of the petition.
The first point concerns the progress that is being made by the stakeholder advisory group on extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields. Members will remember that SAGE is the stakeholder group that was set up after the National Radiological Protection Board advised the United Kingdom Department of Health
"to explore precautionary approaches to limit exposure to electric and magnetic fields lower than the levels in the NRPB guidelines".
SAGE met on 6 December 2005 and recommendations are expected in May, but planning guidelines may be several months away.
The Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care states that the UK Department of Health considers SAGE to be the appropriate forum for evaluating research and developing guidelines. While we wait for such guidelines, it is surely pragmatic to take a precautionary approach when siting new power lines. That is the main thrust of the petition.
The World Health Organisation and the Health Protection Agency recommend the need for further precautionary measures to be considered. Stirling Council regards the health threat that is posed by the Beauly to Denny power line as being "a major material consideration". The proposal that Anne McGuire and I have made as, respectively, the MP and MSP for Stirling, is very much along those lines. Given the range and scope of the objections and a perceived lack of public confidence in the project, the Executive may well have to decide that the only way to deal with these issues is to move the whole project for consideration by a public inquiry. We have gone into the health issues in detail.
The second issue is the Draper report, which should not be dismissed out of hand. It was a massive study, which was publicly funded by Scottish ministers among others. The petitioner takes issue with some of the comments that the minister makes in his reply. One of those is the quote from the report that there is
"no accepted biological mechanism to explain the epidemiological results"—
although I am a scientist, I find some of these words hard to pronounce. The petitioner says that there are at least seven independent studies, including human studies, into the disruption by magnetic fields of the nocturnal production of melatonin—a powerful antioxidant—which could account for the increases in cancer, depression and miscarriage.
Another quote from the report in the minister's letter with which the petitioner takes issue is the statement that
"the relation may be due to chance or confounding".
The petitioner argues that, given the scale of the study—60,000 children were involved over 33 years—and the consistent results, which even exhibit a grading in levels of childhood leukaemia relative to distance from power lines, that is highly unlikely. The Draper report concludes:
"There is an association between childhood leukaemia and proximity of home address at birth to high voltage power lines, and the apparent risk extends to a greater distance than would have been expected from previous studies."
The report also states:
"The most obvious explanation of the association with distance from a line is that it is indeed a consequence of exposure to magnetic fields."
Moreover, the petitioner argues that previous pooled international studies showed a similar doubling of childhood leukaemia for those who live in close proximity to power lines where the magnetic field is greater than 0.4 microtesla. That information is in the summary of the Draper report and in Professor Henshaw's letter to the Public Petitions Committee, which predates the Draper report. The committee has received all that information in previous correspondence.
It is not acceptable to play down the number of children affected by stating that only
"4% of children in England and Wales live within 600m of high voltage lines at birth."
For those unfortunate children, the risks are high—they are doubled.
The third issue is Professor Denis Henshaw's letter to the Public Petitions Committee. There is little comment in the minister's response on the content of Professor Henshaw's letter other than a somewhat dismissive comment about his corona ion theory by the advisory group on non-ionising radiation, although his theory is also referred to in the Draper report as a possible explanation for electromagnetic field effects being monitored at large distances. Professor Henshaw is accused of being "pre-emptive" in advising that no new lines should be sited near housing or the converse. Members will remember that the Public Petitions Committee sought Professor Henshaw's advice on the issue in the full knowledge that it related to the possible construction of the Beauly to Denny line. As we have said before, we must also remember that some countries—including Sweden 10 years ago, but more recently Australia, some US states, some Italian regions, Holland and Switzerland—have acted on the body of research that has been gathered from 25 years of international research.
The petition was submitted in December 2004 as a matter of urgency in the light of the Beauly to Denny 400kV power line proposals. Public health did not feature in the routing process, despite Stirling Before Pylons informing the companies responsible, Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Power, of the threat posed to those living along the proposed routes. No action was taken. Indeed, it could be argued that, in some parts of the Stirling area, the line will be brought closer to people's homes, breaking the nominal 100m clearance that the companies said they were working to.
The petitioner argues that the route through Stirling could place more than 800 homes within 600m of the line—a distance within which the Draper report recorded a significant increase in childhood leukaemia. However, I have to sound a note of caution. Because of the deviation corridor that has been used by Scottish and Southern Energy, it is difficult to know exactly where the power lines will go, so the figure might not be as high as that estimate suggests. However, the public are concerned about health issues. Approximately 18,000 objections to the Beauly to Denny proposals have been lodged, with well over half raising health issues as a major concern.
The petitioner feels that the minister's response allays not one of her fears. On the contrary, it raises fears that public health is not the main interest. There is no serious discussion of the scientific evidence. Rather, there is an attempt to dismiss and discredit theories that have been put forward in an attempt to explain the epidemiology, which itself is not in dispute. Scotland has a great opportunity to protect its public health, now and in the future, and to ensure that the transmission of renewable energy is sustainable. The petitioner argues that a poorly sited line that threatens lives will seriously threaten the development of renewables in Scotland and will not have people's support.
I have tried to fit a lot of information into a short period of time.
You have. Thank you very much.
I echo Sylvia Jackson's concerns, which she has put to us briefly and well. To someone who believes in the precautionary principle, it seems somewhat perverse if, given that SAGE has been set up to consider the issue and, as Sylvia said, it is only a month or two before its findings are published, the matter is not left on the table until those results are available. Anybody who has read the Draper report will know that it raises serious concerns about high voltage transmission lines. Although the minister's letter appears to be dismissive, I appeal to the committee to leave the petition on the table.
I think that we can do more than that with it.
The committee business today has made me scared to leave the building, what with electromagnetic fields, the sun's rays and the various other things that are flying about in the air out there, but these are all important issues.
Given that, as Sylvia Jackson has pointed out, the petitioner is not entirely happy with the deputy minister's response, I think that we should seek the petitioner's views and ask the deputy minister to keep us updated on developments in relation to the SAGE recommendations.
Are members happy to return to the petitioner as suggested?
I agree with Rosie Kane's view. I feel that the issue serves to underline, yet again, the great concern that exists across Scotland and the feeling that a health impact assessment needs to be included as part of our process for considering planning applications. I know that there is resistance to that in some quarters, but I feel that, since its inception, the committee has had nothing but health concerns about planning issues brought before it. We cannot underestimate the level of public concern about that and, as politicians, we ought to take that on board.
I would be more than happy to give the petitioner the opportunity to tell us specifically what concerns her about the responses that she has had and the questions that remain unanswered, or about any points that she wants to contest. When she responds to us, we can return to the issue again, and I am happy to keep the petition open until she has had the opportunity to advise us of her remaining concerns. Are members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Bankruptcy Law (Sequestration Recall Process) (PE865)
The next petition is PE865, from Edward Fowler, calling on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the sequestration recall process and to consider amending the law to allow a right of appeal for those made bankrupt by mistake and to have all such appeals heard by a sheriff.
At its meeting on 8 September 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive. A response has been received and members are invited to comment.
Given the informative response that we have received, I think that the whole issue should be referred to the Enterprise and Culture Committee, which is currently considering the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. The petition raises serious issues and I imagine that the petitioner would welcome such a referral.
Okay, we will do that.
Health Service Provision (North Clyde) (PE735)<br />NHS Clinical Strategies (Cross-boundary Working) (PE772)
The next petitions are linked. Petition PE735, from Vivien Dance, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to require NHS Argyll and Clyde and NHS Greater Glasgow to make a special agreement on transferring responsibility for the design and provision of health services in the north Clyde area and, when appropriate, to amend existing legislation so that the boundaries of the two health boards are adjusted to achieve the transfer of authority for the north Clyde area from the former to the latter.
Petition PE772, from Jackie Baillie MSP, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that any proposed clinical strategy emerging from national health service boards such as NHS Argyll and Clyde must clearly demonstrate cross-boundary working in the interests of patient care.
At its meeting on 19 January 2005, the committee agreed to keep the petitions open pending the outcome of reviews. The committee has now received an update from the Minister for Health and Community Care, and an announcement was made by the Scottish Executive in December last year regarding health services in Argyll and Clyde. Are members happy that the matter has been dealt with?
I think that it has.
We cannot do much more than abolish the NHS area, can we? I think that what the Executive has done has addressed the issues behind the petitions, so will we close them?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Civic Forum (Funding) (PE895)
Our final petition is PE895, from Dr James Crowther, calling on the Scottish Parliament to debate the implications of the recent decisions by the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body regarding the provision of funding for the Scottish Civic Forum.
At its meeting on 9 November 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive and to the SPCB. Responses have been received. Do members wish to comment?
The Executive has given a fairly detailed response. It has always agreed that the Scottish Civic Forum plays a key role in supporting the founding principles of the Parliament, and the Executive's response tells us that it has provided more than £1 million pump-priming funding since the forum's inception. From the outset, the Scottish Executive made it clear that there was no open-ended commitment on the part of the Executive to provide core funding to the forum. I know that that is an on-going issue for the forum and I know that it has played an important role, but I understand that detailed discussions have taken place elsewhere with regard to the issue, so perhaps we should simply close the petition.
Do members agree with that? I can see that Rosie Kane is swithering.
I know.
Do members agree, even reluctantly, that we should close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our business. I thank everyone for attending.
Meeting closed at 11:48.