Current Petitions
We now move on to responses that we have received to previous petitions.
The first response is to petition PE205, from Fred and Maureen Collie, which relates to sentencing for murder and other crimes. We initially dealt with the petition on 6 June 2000, when we agreed to pass it to the Minister for Justice for his comments. On 8 February 2001, we considered a memorandum from the Scottish Executive and agreed to seek further information from the Executive on the rights of victims and victims' families to attend or give views to parole boards.
A response has now been received from the Executive. Although it states that there are no procedures at present for murder victims' families to be automatically made aware that arrangements can be made for their views on the release of a prisoner to be made known to the Parole Board for Scotland, the Executive is considering ways to improve the information available to those concerned. That is being done in the context of the work flowing from the "Scottish Strategy for Victims", which was launched in January of this year.
It appears that the Scottish Executive is taking steps to improve the information that is available to victims and victims' families in relation to the process of sentencing and parole. It is therefore suggested that the committee agree to pass a copy of the Executive's response to the petitioners and to take no further action. The committee could also agree to pass a copy of the response to the relevant justice committee. One of the justice committees has announced in the news this morning a major inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The petition could be relevant to that.
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE279 from the Kirkcaldy Area Abuse Survivors Project. The petition calls for support services for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse.
The committee considered the petition at its meeting on 24 October 2000 and passed it to the Scottish Executive for a response. A members' business debate took place on 7 March 2001 on a motion lodged by Marilyn Livingstone on a strategy to tackle sexual abuse. Malcolm Chisholm, the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, replied to the motion. He has forwarded a response from the Scottish Executive that sets out its general approach to the funding of local voluntary organisations and what it is doing to address the concerns that are raised in the petition. The letter states that the Executive
"operates a number of grant schemes to assist voluntary organisations"
and that its
"general policy is to support national organisations who provide services and advice, leaving funding of locally-based organisations to local agencies".
The Executive goes on to point out the steps that it is taking. It appears that the Scottish Executive has taken—and is taking—steps to provide assistance to support organisations. However, its response does not recognise the specific request in the petition that a central fund be provided to establish a network of support agencies.
The committee could agree that the Executive response provides a satisfactory summary of the steps that it is taking to provide support to victims of sexual abuse and that no further action should be taken. Alternatively, members could take the view that further consideration should be given to the proposals in the petition. The committee could agree to refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee, although I think that the Social Justice Committee deals with the funding of voluntary organisations. It is open to the committee to decide what course of action to take.
At the weekend, I read a consultation document by the Executive. The document proposes that funding should go directly to voluntary organisations from the Scottish Executive. In a sense, that would begin to address the paragraph in the briefing that says that the Executive's response does not
"recognise the specific request made in the petition that a central fund be provided to establish a network of support agencies".
It is implicit in the consultation document that Scottish Executive ministers would be able to determine priorities and fund directly. I emphasise that the document is just a consultation document and will be subject to views from throughout Scotland and feedback from local authorities. Local authorities and voluntary organisations might not like a centralised fund to finance voluntary organisations directly. A big debate is looming.
I agree that we should inform the petitioners of the Scottish Executive's response and perhaps ask for the views of the Kirkcaldy Area Abuse Survivors Project.
It has been pointed out to me that the consultation document was not mentioned in the Executive's response, so officially we do not know that it is happening.
We can leave things as they are and pass a copy of the Executive's response to the petitioners or we can involve the Social Justice Committee and find out whether it wishes to take a view on the matter. Funding for the voluntary sector is an important issue.
It is a question of whether there are gaps in the system that are not being covered by voluntary sector or government agencies. We are not in a position to judge whether there are. Perhaps the Social Justice Committee will look into the matter to find out whether there are gaps and areas where funding should be given.
The suggestion is that we refer the petition to the Social Justice Committee.
That committee might want to create a report—or it might not.
I question the point about the Health and Community Care Committee. I have entered into quite lengthy correspondence about funding in my community in Fife. The health board gives funds directly to the Kirkcaldy Area Abuse Survivors Project. Should we advise the Health and Community Care Committee of the Executive's response and send that committee and the Social Justice Committee a copy of the Official Report of our discussion?
Sure. We will send a copy to both committees.
That is a wise move. However, the subject will probably not be accepted by the Health and Community Care Committee; it is a much better subject for the Social Justice Committee.
The Executive is sympathetic to the issue, as are all members of Parliament. The Executive's reply states:
"direct grants to voluntary organisations amounted to £35m".
The response mentions some groups that are funded, including Victim Support Scotland. However, anyone who read it quickly would think that the Executive gave £35 million to the organisations that are mentioned, whereas the £35 million is the amount of the Executive's overall grants to every kind of voluntary organisation.
Copies of the correspondence and the Official Report showing our views should also be sent to Marilyn Livingstone.
I meant to say that we should send the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee to keep it informed and refer the petition to the Social Justice Committee, which could further consider the suggestions about voluntary sector funding. We should also pass a copy of the Executive's response to the petitioners and to the cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse, of which Marilyn Livingstone is the convener.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The next response is to petition PE333, which is from Mr Charles Douglas of the Humanist Society of Scotland. The petition wanted legal status for humanists in secular marriage ceremonies. We discussed the petition on 6 February and passed a copy to the Scottish Executive and asked about compliance with the European convention on human rights. The Executive's response states that it has no plans to change the law so that non-religious celebrants other than registrars can solemnise a non-religious wedding in Scotland.
We will pass a copy of the Scottish Executive's response to the petitioner. We can also pass a copy of the petition and its response to the relevant justice committee either for information only or for further consideration. Do members have any views?
Just leave it.
The Humanist Society may have a point that humanists are being discriminated against. One of the justice committees should consider the matter.
It is up to one of the justice committees to decide what should be done. I agree that it should be referred for further consideration.
That makes two members in favour of referral.
I am happy to go along with that.
That makes three.
Dorothy-Grace Elder indicated agreement.
That makes four. The view of the majority of the committee is that petition PE333 should be referred to one of the justice committees. We will send a copy of the Scottish Executive's response to the petitioners.
The next response is to petition PE334, which was from Tony Southall on behalf of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The petition called for a review of emergency planning measures for nuclear-submarine accidents. We decided to pass a copy of the Scottish Executive's initial response to the petitioners and agreed to seek the views of the local authority that is responsible for the area to which the petitioners refer.
We have now received detailed responses from Argyll and Bute Council, from Nuclear Free Local Authorities (Scotland) and from the original petitioner. As one might expect, Argyll and Bute Council lines up with the Scottish Executive and says that there is no problem. Obviously, Nuclear Free Local Authorities (Scotland) and Scottish CND are opposed to that.
I would like the petition to be deferred for further consideration. Many detailed points are made in all the responses. Perhaps we could leave the petition and, if members have specific points about the responses, they could inform Steve Farrell and we will deal with them at a further meeting.
The cross-party anti-nuclear group will meet tomorrow at 1 o'clock and will discuss some of the issues.
There is a basic disagreement between the Executive and Argyll and Bute Council, which say that the planning procedures are absolutely adequate, and the other two bodies that we have consulted, which say that the procedures are not adequate. The responses are fairly detailed, so I would like more time to go through them. If members have any points about any of the responses that they wish to bring to the attention of the committee, they should let Steve Farrell know before the next meeting.
Essentially, you are deferring a decision on the petition until the next meeting.
Yes. I do not feel qualified to take a decision on it at the moment.
Nor do I. Nonetheless, I wonder how you expect the committee to proceed with the matter.
It would be discussed at the next meeting. I would like more time to pursue the issue of category 3 accidents—I do not fully understand whether they are covered by the emergency planning procedures of the local authorities in the area.
Are we seeking further clarification?
Yes.
If we are deferring the petition, we might also want to ask the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for its views. When I was a member of Fife Council, given that we had Rosyth naval dockyard on our doorstep, we had views on the plan—ROSPUBSAFE, which means "Rosyth public safety". The plan had to have input and agreement from the local authority, as it came under the protective and general services committee of the council. I imagine that COSLA will have a view on emergency services protection, because every local authority must have an emergency services officer, who is obliged to take a view on such matters.
We have already heard the views of Argyll and Bute Council, which is the relevant local authority, and Nuclear Free Local Authorities (Scotland), which involves about 18 different local authorities in Scotland. Would COSLA's view be any different?
It is difficult to say. If we want to be better informed, we might want to hear the view of COSLA on the issue.
It would certainly delay consideration of the petition further—we would be unable to deal with it at our next meeting.
Who evaluates the plans at Argyll and Bute Council? Is that person the sole arbiter as to what is adequate provision in the event of an incident? Does the Executive have a view or is it a matter for Westminster?
It is a partnership thing. It is for the Scottish Executive and the local authority to ensure that there are plans in place to deal with an emergency arising out of a nuclear accident. The question of whether there should be a nuclear base is a matter for Westminster—but that is a different issue. We are talking about the plans to deal with an accident.
One of the problems that I have with the responses that we have received is that they wander between what is the Scottish Executive's responsibility and what is the responsibility of Westminster. It takes a while to unpick that.
Can we assume that the Executive is happy with the situation as outlined?
Yes. The Executive and Argyll and Bute Council say that the procedures in place to deal with accidents arising from a nuclear emergency are adequate. The other bodies say that they are inadequate. I would like more time to think about it. However, if we write to COSLA, it will delay the whole procedure.
I do not mind, convener; it is your decision.
In the summary of CND's letter from 10 April, it says:
"The new draft safety scheme does not deal with the full range of potential accidents—only those up to a Category 2 accident … the MoD have not provided the Scottish Executive and local authorities with sufficiently detailed information on a full range of potential accidents. The new scheme does not comply with World Health Organisation guidelines".
That is why I suggest we defer the petition. I would like to write to CND to ask it to expand on that point, because I do not understand why the Executive and the local authority say that that is not the case.
It is too important for us to say yes, no or maybe today.
Do we agree to defer the petition for further consideration?
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE336. We heard evidence from Mr Frank Maguire of Thompsons Solicitors and Solicitor Advocates, acting on behalf of Clydeside Action on Asbestos. The petition called for a review of the procedures and powers of the Court of Session. There is some urgency attached to the petition. We have received a response from the Executive, which is detailed in the committee papers. We have also received further information from the petitioner about Chester Street Insurance Holdings, which was the employer's liability insurer of many of the companies that employed the asbestos victims. The company has gone into provisional liquidation, which has very serious consequences for the petitioners.
One of the positive aspects of the petition is that the Justice 2 Committee has said that it would welcome the opportunity to examine the issues raised in the petition. Therefore, it is suggested that we refer the petition and the response from the Executive to the Justice 2 Committee for further consideration. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE339, from Mr John Lyon, calling for farming practices to be restricted in the interests of wildlife. We have received a detailed response from Scottish Natural Heritage. The key point is that SNH has indicated that it plans to publish a wildlife and landscape code of practice that advises farmers and other land managers how to manage their land in a way that is sympathetic to the interests of natural heritage. The code will include guidance on the management of hedgerows and grasslands, including rolling, harrowing and cutting. As SNH is addressing the petitioner's concerns through its plans to publish the code of practice, it is suggested that we agree to pass a copy of the response to the petitioner and take no further action. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE340, from Mr Lawrence Fitzpatrick, on behalf of Scotland Opposing Opencast. We have received a detailed response from the Executive on the questions raised by the petitioners. It is suggested that, in view of the assurances given by the Executive, the committee should agree to pass of copy of the Scottish Executive response to the petitioners and take no further action. The Scottish Executive has already sent a copy of its response to the Transport and the Environment Committee for information.
The strength of feeling behind the petition was considerable and I am not sure that the petitioners will be entirely happy with the response.
The petitioners are asserting one thing and the Scottish Executive is asserting another. It is not clear who is right.
Indeed. As Burns said,
"facts are chiels that winna ding".
There is much more opencast in Scotland than in England. Although the Executive tells us that there is no reason to interpret the national planning policy guidelines any differently, the fact is that they are being interpreted differently. Therefore the de facto case exists and is not being addressed.
However, the report says that the Executive believes the Scottish guidelines are tougher than those in England. This is a very emotive subject. There are procedures to allow people to raise matters with the local authorities. I know that those procedures work well in Fife.
The Executive has stated that it believes
"that NPPG 16 sets a national planning framework that is robust, consistent and fair and provides significant protection to local communities and the environment from the adverse effects of opencast coal mining in Scotland."
We could write back to the petitioners to ask them to respond to the Executive's response and so leave the file open.
That would be my inclination. There is strong feeling throughout Scotland about the extent of opencast mining. I am prepared to accept the views of the committee.
Much opencast is very close to housing—in Airdrie, for example.
We must also bear in mind that local authorities set down planning conditions and criteria that must be followed by opencast developers. In my experience in the central belt, the developers have always been very willing to restore the land. The developments bring benefits in terms of jobs and the environment. Members should visit Fife to see the environmental benefit that we have gained through the restoration of areas after opencast. Some areas are far better than they were before the development took place.
Improving on nature.
The committee's view is not clear.
The petition is worthy of further consideration. There is much anxiety in Ayrshire and other areas.
Do we agree to send the Executive response to the petitioners and ask them to respond to it?
Yes.
Yes.
Obviously I am in the minority, because I do not agree, but there you are. I will just have to go along with that.
We are not disposing of the petition. We may take a decision next time to leave it and take no further action, but it gives the petitioners a chance to respond.
The next petition, PE354, is from Councillor Charles Kennedy, on the removal of acute medical and surgical services from Stobhill general hospital. I see that Paul Martin is here. This petition directly affects his area and he has an interest in it. Would you like to come to the table, Paul?
We asked for an urgent response from Greater Glasgow Health Board and it has sent us a comprehensive response, in which it details its position on the proposals for the north-east of Glasgow, which it says has changed as a consequence of wider consultation and debate. The board indicates that it was the final phase of consultation in December 2000 that elicited the greatest degree of public response, but despite that, and the obvious public support for Stobhill, no consensus on its future was revealed.
The board has confirmed that there is a reference group for the north-east of Glasgow, which is similar to but not the same as the one that is proposed for the south of Glasgow, and that it will involve a number of MSPs, including Paul Martin, Pauline McNeill, Patricia Ferguson, Frank McAveety and Sandra White. A Conservative list MSP is also expected to participate. Robert Brown MSP is keeping a watching brief due to his commitment to the south Glasgow reference group, and a similar courtesy has been offered to Tommy Sheridan.
There is to be an option appraisal process for the north-east of Glasgow, setting out four different options, which are indicated at the top of page 4 of the board's letter. One option is that Glasgow royal infirmary should close and Stobhill be rebuilt as the sole hospital for the north and the east of Glasgow. It is pointed out that, at this stage, options remain proposals, and no formal decision will be taken until the completion of the option appraisal, the preparation of the business case, which will be overseen by the reference group, and further public consultation. Full details of the consultation are available in annexe A of the board's response.
As no decision has been made on the future provision of acute hospital services in the north-east of Glasgow, and as Greater Glasgow Health Board has taken extensive steps in recognition of the public concern, including the carrying out of an option appraisal process by a reference group including several local MSPs, it is suggested that that will ensure that local interests are fully represented. There also will be further public consultation at a later stage in the process.
In view of the action taken by the health board, coupled with the principle that it is not for the Parliament to intervene in the executive decisions of health boards, it is suggested that the committee should agree to copy the response from the health board to the petitioners and take no further action. We could also agree to forward the petition and the 45,000 signatures to the reference group, and ask it to take it into account as part of its deliberations.
The claim that no further decisions will be taken is untrue. I met Maggie Boyle, the chief executive of North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust, which is responsible for Stobhill hospital. She advised me that they will be proceeding with a six-week consultation exercise on four acute services: orthopaedic services; ear, nose and throat; ophthalmology; and urology. I asked her to withdraw her proposal to proceed with the consultation exercise, given that the reference group was being set up. We were not aware of that fact until after the Public Petitions Committee addressed the issue, so I congratulate the committee for ensuring that we found out what the reference group was about. However, we are proceeding to six-week consultation on those four acute services before the acute services review is complete. My point, which has been made by others, is that the acute services process is flawed, because decisions are being taken before the process is complete.
We have a reference group, and one of the options that it will be considering is the closure of Glasgow royal infirmary. I met Maggie Boyle and I said to her, "Will we close Glasgow royal infirmary"—which I would not support—"if the reference group proposes it?" She said, "No, we will not close Glasgow royal infirmary. There would be no support for that." We are talking about setting up a reference group to consider options which, given the expenditure and commitment to the new maternity unit and the serious Scottish Executive investment, highlight the fact that this is a flawed consultation exercise.
I recommend that we ask Chris Spry, the chief executive of Greater Glasgow Health Board, and Maggie Boyle, the chief executive of North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust, to give evidence to this committee on what appears to be a flawed exchange of information, so that we can clarify where we stand.
I am glad to support Paul Martin's recommendation. I know that there is an issue with the remit of this committee; I heard the convener whispering that as I started to speak.
One of the issues that we have to bear in mind, which came up at the last meeting when I talked about my holiday reading over the Easter period, is that in Germany, petitions with 50,000 signatures give a mandate to the Parliament to become involved in a matter that normally would be left for local determination. I would be the first to defend local determination in regard to health boards, local authorities or whatever, but 45,000 signatures is not a kick in the teeth away from the 50,000 magic figure that I referred to, especially in the Scottish context. The committee ought to keep this as a live issue. We should not simply take no further action.
We have always said that the consultation has been flawed. Meaningful consultation does not set out the preferred options ahead of the consultation. If you have already made up your mind, what is the point of consultation? That is different from allowing the community to determine its views and come to a consensus based on that consultation. From what we have heard, the consultation has not been about going out and making presentations to the community and inviting comments. Instead, Glasgow City Council or other intermediaries have set up meetings. They were never initiated by the Stobhill team of health care professionals, who ought to have initiated the meetings. That is why we should treat this petition differently from other petitions in the past.
I support the view that, wherever possible, this committee should not intervene in the decisions of local health boards, but this is such a big petition—it draws parallels with Germany and other countries where, when a magic number is reached, a mandate is given—that it gives a mandate to the Scottish Parliament, although we have never agreed that formally.
I agree with much of what Helen Eadie said, but in this case local determination is absolutely essential. Our job is to ensure that the fullest consideration and consultation take place, but I disagree with Paul Martin that representations should be made to us by the chief executives of Greater Glasgow Health Board and North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust, because at the end of the day we will not be in a position to take a decision on this matter, nor would we want to be. If representations are to be made, they should be made to the newly formed reference group, and I would expect that to happen.
Unless you accept Helen Eadie's point that the Parliament should get involved because the petition has a particular number of signatures—an action of which no mention is made in standing orders or the Scotland Act 1998—given the committee's remit, our job is to ensure the fullest consultation, and we have succeeded in that respect. We should not do much more.
I agree with Helen Eadie that this petition should be a live issue. It is a remarkable petition, because it is the biggest one that we have received, but whether there are 45,000 signatures or 45, this is a national issue. It is not only a Glasgow issue, whichever way it goes. If the people get their wishes or a sensible compromise is reached, it could help many other areas that are undergoing acute services reviews. Who appointed those people to the reference group? I do not know. Perhaps Paul Martin does.
A couple of weeks ago, when I first saw the suggestion that Glasgow royal infirmary might close, I nearly fell off my chair. Who on earth thought up that suggestion? The infirmary has just undergone an extensive renovation in part. Such nonsensical suggestions are cropping up, so we must keep an eye on the board and the officials, who should have Parliament's backing for such a development in Glasgow. The decision will affect other areas, so please regard the matter as a Scottish issue, not a Glasgow issue.
What about the precedent that we would set?
The petition has 45,000 signatures, so it carries considerable weight with the committee. However, that does not justify our intervening in local decisions. We must be clear about that. We do not have the constitutional power to do that and it would be wrong for the committee to assume that it could intervene.
I am happy to keep the petition alive in the sense of seeking further clarification from the health board and the trust about the options that have been set out and particularly about the four services that Paul Martin mentioned, because they did not form part of the response that the committee received. We have not been given the full details.
I agree. I am happy to keep the petition alive, but we must not be part of the decision-making process.
I did not wish to suggest that the committee should determine the decision. However, we must be sure that the consultation process is transparent, which returns to the point that John Scott made. We all agree about that.
Difficulties arise with the Stobhill situation because the consultation process seems to be flawed. I am concerned about the standards, specifications and quality of consultation in Scotland. I know from experience in Fife that such processes have been flawed. We are beginning to address that issue more meaningfully there, and I hope that some standards and specifications can be set about how a consultation process ought to be undertaken. How the public are consulted is at the heart of the matter. The Parliament does not want to decide which option is preferred. It simply wants to ensure transparency. I agree with John Scott about that.
Yes.
I will say for John Scott's benefit that the important point is that the health board has said that it has not taken any decision. I have met Maggie Boyle, the chief executive of Glasgow North University Hospitals NHS Trust, who said that the process is not up for negotiation—four services will proceed to consultation immediately. She is under pressure from her medical representatives to do that. I entered the process of the acute services review with an open mind and I was willing to listen to a wide range of people—not just medics, but users, elected members and others. The trust is pre-empting the decision.
Information is constantly being exchanged, and it would help to have a verbal exchange that would allow examination of the issues, to satisfy the petitioners. We did that before with the petition on secure units. Members may recall that I mentioned the issues when we last discussed the petition. I asked about the issues, and the health board did not deal with them. If we cross-examine the chief executives, we can clarify the issues once and for all. As has been said, the 43,000 petitioners would be satisfied if the Parliament dealt with the petition in that manner.
We can invite the chief executives to appear before the committee and answer questions on the responses that the committee received, the four services that are subject to immediate consultation and were not mentioned in the answer that the committee received and how the reference group was established. However, we cannot go into the substance of the debate. It is not for the committee to decide whether one option is preferable to another. That is a matter for local decision. We can satisfy ourselves only about our committee having received the proper information that would allow us to decide whether the issue should be referred on or noted. That is the only way in which we can deal with the petition. We cannot interfere in the decision. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We will invite the chief executives to attend a meeting.