Public Petitions Committee, 09 Jun 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 9, 2004

Official Report 280KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Scottish Transport Group Pension Funds (PE500)

Welcome back colleagues. We move to item 3, which is our consideration of current petitions. The first petition is on the subject of the surplus from the Scottish Transport Group pension funds. The petitioners are calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to increase at the earliest possible date the amount on offer to the former members of the Scottish Transport Group pension funds so that they receive maximum benefit from the pension funds surplus.

Petition PE500 was prompted by the petitioners' concerns about the continued failure to make payments from the pension funds surplus to former members of the Scottish Transport Group pension funds despite the fact that the Scottish Bus Group was privatised 10 years ago.

At our meeting of 3 March 2004, the committee agreed to seek further comments from the Executive on a number of issues arising from the petition. In particular, the committee sought confirmation of whether the £49.5 million surplus in the pension funds has been allocated to the Scottish consolidated fund. We also sought clarification of whether the interest that has accumulated since December 2000 would be allocated to the ex gratia payments.

The committee also noted that a residual sum of £4.3 million from the £126 million that was allocated for ex gratia payments has yet to be distributed because the Scottish Public Pensions Agency is awaiting the submission of late claims. The committee asked whether the Executive has any plans to set a deadline for claims after which time the residual sum could be distributed among those who have submitted valid claims.

The committee has received a response from the Minister for Transport in which he states that the £50 million surplus was retained by the Treasury. He goes on to say:

"The actual interest accumulated in the pension funds after December 2000 and prior to their winding in 2002 was secured for the ex-gratia payments".

He also says that he is "considering the way forward" on the subject of the residual sum.

The committee has also received a response from the Inland Revenue in which it states:

"There are no ‘special' or exceptional circumstances under which the Inland Revenue will agree to the payment of an ex-gratia lump sum from surplus funds of an approved pension scheme to the scheme beneficiaries … There are, however, clearly defined circumstances under which we will consider approving an ex-gratia lump sum payment under the discretionary powers afforded by section 591 ICTA 1988."

The subject is complicated. Dennis Canavan is at the committee today to say a few words. I hope that he can take us through some of the issues.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the committee. I promise to be as brief as possible.

None of the letters that the committee has received constitutes a satisfactory response to its inquiries. I therefore respectfully suggest that the committee consider pursuing the matter by writing further letters to Nicol Stephen and Gordon Brown. Why Gordon Brown? The first bullet point of Nicol Stephen's letter states that the £50 million is

"wholly a matter for the UK Exchequer",

but we have never been given a satisfactory explanation as to why the UK Exchequer is holding on to that money. When the ex gratia payments were announced, the UK Exchequer and the Scottish Executive said that the aim was to achieve parity of treatment between the Scottish Transport Group pensioners and the National Bus Company pensioners south of the border. However, the fact remains that the National Bus Company pensioners got 60 per cent of their gross surplus and paid no income tax, whereas the Scottish Transport Group pensioners are getting only about 47 per cent of their gross surplus and are having to pay income tax.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has ministerial responsibility for the Inland Revenue, whose reply is also unsatisfactory, although the fourth paragraph leaves the door very slightly open by referring to the discretionary powers of

"the relevant Inspector of Taxes."

I suggest that we pursue that point with the chancellor.

In his letter, Nicol Stephen gives no details about how the interest was calculated and he claims that no interest is payable for the period from March 2002, when the scheme was wound up, to August 2002, when the first ex gratia payments were made, because he says it is "normal government practice" to treat such money as a fixed sum and not to pay interest on it. I do not think that Nicol Stephen is correct in saying that, because the Inland Revenue pays interest on late payments and the ex gratia payments in this case were undoubtedly very late payments.

On the residual sum that is referred to in the final paragraph of Nicol Stephen's letter, I suggest that we urge the minister to announce an early cut-off date for late claims and then divide the residual amount among all successful claimants. Average payments would amount to about £330 per pensioner, which is not a huge amount of money. However, that is the very least that the Scottish Executive could do to bring about a fairer deal for the Scottish Transport Group pensioners.

Thank you. I have taken a keen interest in and attended meetings with Dennis Canavan on the issue and I am amazed that unanswered questions are still hanging about. From the outset, the pensioners have consistently asked questions and the lack of answers has increased their frustration as time has worn on. We need to get to the bottom of why money remains outstanding and why people are talking about discretionary payments and what have you at a time when a decision must be made about what is to be paid out and when that might happen. The situation is very unsatisfactory and we must stress to the minister and the Treasury that we want a definitive answer to the questions that Dennis Canavan and others have continually asked without receiving answers. We must also stress that we want to know the timescale for the commitment to pay out the amounts in the surplus fund that remain outstanding.

The convener and Dennis Canavan know more about the situation than I do. Have efforts been made to track down the people who are entitled to payments but who have not come forward? How much money is being spent on doing that?

I understand that the Scottish Executive and/or the Scottish Public Pensions Agency have advertised and done everything possible to try to trace potential late claimants. I presume that the SPPA has access to the records of members of the pension scheme that would have been passed over when the scheme was wound up and I understand that the agency has been proactive in trying to trace late claimants.

However, let us suppose that the worst came to the worst: a cut-off date was specified, the residual amount was paid out to all successful claimants, and then some very deserving late claimant suddenly appeared. A huge amount of money would not be involved. The amount needed could easily be met from the contingency fund, although I do not foresee that happening at all. In the interests of justice, it would be fair to announce an early cut-off date and then pay out the remaining amount to all successful claimants.

That seems reasonable to me.

I agree with everything that the convener and Dennis Canavan have said. I, too, have constituents who have been affected. I suggest that we should do what Dennis Canavan suggests, which is—he can correct me if I am wrong—that we write back to Nicol Stephen about the interest. Dennis Canavan is right about that matter. We should also pursue the issue with the Treasury. Those are the two key points that have been made and I hope that the committee will write back along those lines.

I share everybody's frustration, as the matter seems to be simple. The money—plus interest—belongs to the pensioners and no explanation has been offered as to why people are sitting on money that does not belong to them. The responses simply state the sums and the facts—they do not offer any explanations, which is wholly unacceptable. I am happy to endorse Dennis Canavan's suggestions for pursuing the matter.

I think that Dennis Canavan will agree that, initially, Treasury rules prohibited any payment of any sort from the fund, but a change by the Government allowed moneys to be paid. Therefore, I cannot understand why, having decided to pay out the sums of money, it is prevaricating on how to pay out the money. That baffles me.

I do not think that Treasury rules prohibited such payments, but a Treasury attitude was certainly involved. To this day, the Treasury and the Scottish Executive claim that they have no legal obligation to give out a single penny in ex gratia payments—indeed, that is why such payments are called ex gratia payments. However, the matter has never been tested in the courts. The pensioners action group in Scotland has received a legal opinion to the effect that if the matter was tested in the courts, the action might very well be successful, as indeed the NBC pensioners south of the border were successful. There was not really a change of Treasury rules. I pay tribute to Gordon Brown and Henry McLeish. For a long time, there was no sign of the Treasury budging on the matter, but in December 2000, following a meeting between Henry McLeish and Gordon Brown, a joint announcement was made that £100 million would be allocated for ex gratia payments. Since then, there have been modest increases in that amount.

Do members agree that we must get answers to the questions that have been posed and that we should continue to pursue the matter further until we receive those answers?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, convener.

---

Eating Disorders (Treatment) (PE609)

The next petition is PE609, on specialised treatment of eating disorders. The petitioners are calling on the Scottish Parliament to ask the Scottish Executive to address, develop and fund the specialised treatment of eating disorders in Scotland.

At our meeting on 17 March 2004, the committee agreed to invite the Minister for Health and Community Care to comment on the view of the Scottish division of the Royal College of Psychiatrists that it is

"extremely concerned about the lack of appropriate specialist services for patients with eating disorders."

The committee also agreed to seek the views of Dr Harry Millar from the Aberdeen eating disorder unit.

The minister has stated that national health service boards are responsible for assessing the need for local eating disorder services and for providing appropriate services to meet such needs. Dr Millar has stated:

"Within Mental Health Services eating disorders are, for various reasons, often given lower priority than other disorders".

Do members have any comments to make on the responses?

I think, as I thought when the petition came up previously, that the issues are of serious concern. The issues probably fit in with a number of issues to do with various conditions and whether adequate resources are available. I note that the Health Committee has indicated that it has a heavy work load and might not be able to consider the petition in the near future. However, we should still refer it to that committee, as it might inform wider work that it is doing.

I have a variety of concerns about the petition, particularly the fact that the guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence are being implemented in England and Wales, but apparently there will be no equivalent implementation in Scotland. If we write to the minister, we should ask him why he has no plans to implement such guidelines, because that situation is simply unacceptable.

We also must be aware that the petition has now been passed between the Health Committee and this committee three times. We will have to stop doing that, because there must be a resolution to the issue for the petitioner's sake.

I am also particularly concerned about the point that Adele Wright made in her presentation to the committee about no service being made available to her daughter after her 18th birthday. It is an issue of concern that the system copes in a limited way until people are 18 but makes no provision thereafter for those with eating disorders, who have hitherto had the benefit of hospital care. Those issues need to be addressed.

They do. The Health Committee has indicated that it is waiting for us to get back to it about its need to pursue an inquiry. From what I hear from members, we believe that that is what is required. We will obviously not dictate the Health Committee's work programme to it, but this committee and the Health Committee recognise that the petition raises a number of issues that fit in with other health concerns that would form a part of any inquiry that the Health Committee is considering. We should leave the Health Committee to decide the appropriate way for it to proceed with the issue, but we should ask it to proceed.

We should say that we expect the Health Committee to make room for the issue at some stage in its work programme.

Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Motor Neurone Disease (PE674)

Our next petition is PE674, which concerns funding for services for sufferers of motor neurone disease. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider the funding of services for those who suffer from motor neurone disease in the context of the Scottish Motor Neurone Disease Association's "Manifesto for the Scottish Parliament".

At its meeting on 17 March 2004, the committee agreed to invite the petitioner's views on the Scottish Executive's response. The petitioner states in his response:

"I appreciate the view of the Executive on condition specific organisations, however motor neurone disease (MND) in itself does not compair to many aspects of other fatal diseases."

However, in its response, the Executive stated:

"The Committee is also aware of the Executive's view that the planning and management of services is in general best carried out at local level, and that the unified budgets made available to NHS Boards should be maximised rather than holding back funds to be used for specific conditions."

Do members have any views on how we should deal with the petition, now that we have had the responses?

My general concern about all such issues, which takes us back to the earlier petition on learning disabilities, is the accountability framework and the need to ensure that services are provided. That leads to people asking for ring-fenced resources for specific conditions, because they do not see evidence of the services being delivered adequately. Politically and ideologically, we might not agree with the action for which the petitioner asks, but there is a problem, because there is a perception that motor neurone disease is not given adequate resources or priority. That is something that the Health Committee should consider at some stage in any relevant item in its work programme and I imagine that, in many matters that that committee considers, the problem will inform its discussions.

So you are asking not for an inquiry but that the Health Committee somehow take into consideration the way in which funds are administered or the fact that moneys that the national health service has are not made specific to particular illnesses.

There needs to be a way of addressing the matter through accountability. I do not agree with the idea of having national budgets for each specific condition. Although I do not think that that is the way to run the health service, I understand the problems that lead people to draw that conclusion. It is a question of ensuring, through accountability, that the resources on the ground are adequate to deal with all the specific conditions in the appropriate way. It is important that the Health Committee is aware of that when it considers a raft of issues.

Perhaps the action that we should take is to pass the petition on to the Health Committee for information rather than for it to take action on.

Yes. We should ask the Health Committee to keep it under consideration.

We should make the Health Committee aware of it, as there is probably nothing further that we can do.

We will make the Health Committee aware of the petition and the general concerns that Carolyn Leckie has expressed. For information's sake, it is worth while passing the petition on to that committee. We will then close our consideration of the petition. Is everyone happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Historic Scotland (Remit) (PE703)

The next petition is PE703, which relates to the Executive's review of Historic Scotland. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Executive, as part of its review of Historic Scotland, to amend the organisation's remit to ensure that it is accountable for its decisions and responsive to the views of communities.

At our meeting on 31 March 2004, the committee considered a response from the Scottish Executive and agreed to seek further clarification on the recommendations in the review that relate to Historic Scotland's consultation processes, and the likely timescale for their introduction. The Executive states that Historic Scotland aims to consult on, and issue, new guidance by 31 December 2004; that it will over the next year engage with stakeholders in a debate about the organisation's practices; and that it will report regularly to the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. Do members have a view on the petition?

The final paragraph of the letter from the Executive discusses the engagement with stakeholders that Historic Scotland will undertake following the review. It is disappointing that local communities are not mentioned in the list of stakeholders despite their being affected by what Historic Scotland does. I wonder whether we should write back to the Executive to say that, although the proposed engagement process is welcome, we would prefer a more fundamental exercise, especially as it is my recollection that other petitions have been similar to petition PE703 in that they have complained about Historic Scotland's high-handed attitude. It is critical that a connection be made with local communities rather than with just the professional associations, welcome though that may be.

I agree. The letter fails to mention anything about communities. It mentions VisitBritain, which has no direct responsibility for Scotland within the United Kingdom, although it promotes Scotland as part of the UK abroad. The fact that bodies such as VisitBritain and English Heritage are referred to serves only to highlight the fact that there is no mention of communities in Scotland. It is important that communities be consulted, especially on highly sensitive matters such as that with which the petition deals. I think that it is on record that Historic Scotland ought to have realised that the issue would be highly sensitive. The proposed engagement process is a good example of a situation in which communities must be consulted. On that basis, perhaps we could write back to the Executive.

We could bring that issue to the Executive's attention. We will not close consideration of the petition until we have written back to the Executive to ask what it is going to do to involve communities. Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Street Prostitution (PE705)

Our next petition is PE705. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Executive to address the problem of street prostitution in residential areas.

At our meeting on 3 March 2004, the committee agreed to write to the expert group on prostitution to seek an update on developments in its work and clarification of whether it is considering the specific issue that the petition raises. The expert group states that its remit will allow it to examine the many issues that the petition raises and that it expects to be able to submit a report on stage 1 of its work to Scottish ministers in the autumn of this year.

Margo MacDonald has an interest in the petition. Do you want to make any comments?

I am a member of the expert group. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the matter, but I would rather do so as a local member, because I do not speak for the expert group. As the committee may know, I have a particular interest in the subject under discussion in that a bill in my name is before Parliament and is due to be considered again in December. I have been studiously careful in separating my work on the expert group, which is taking a strategic overview of all the different forms of prostitution, and my work on the bill, which seeks to address the particular problem of street prostitution and which would apply only to three cities in Scotland. I want the committee to be aware of the difference.

Members have seen the response. Do we have any ideas on what to do? Do we accept that the expert group will look into the issues, as requested by the petitioners, or is there something else that requires to be addressed?

I do not think that there is anything that we can do at this stage.

We will let the working group report and leave the petition at that, having made sure that it is addressed by the working group.

It is worth noting the comment from Lothian and Borders police, which I found to be helpful. It is important to put every side of the case.

There is a real and urgent problem in Edinburgh, which has given rise to the petition, but the matter is being addressed. That is all I can say at the moment, because I do not speak for the expert group. The matter is being taken seriously.

We cannot do anything else with the petition.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Planning Applications (Scrutiny) (PE710)

Our next petition is PE710, on planning applications in areas of historical and cultural significance. The petitioner is calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that local authorities, in considering planning applications in areas of historical and cultural significance, such as Briery Bank in Haddington, consult relevant bodies such as Historic Scotland and the Royal fine art commission for Scotland.

At our meeting on 31 March the committee agreed to seek the views of the Executive, including an indication as to what, if any, action is to be taken to ensure that local authorities in considering planning applications in areas of historic and cultural significance consult relevant bodies such as Historic Scotland and the Royal fine art commission for Scotland. The committee also indicated that it would be interested to establish to what extent local authorities are currently conducting such consultations.

The Executive has provided details of a number of areas where statutory consultation is required with Historic Scotland, and also where Scottish ministers must be notified if planning permission is granted contrary to the advice of Historic Scotland. Do members have any views on the information that we have gained so far?

The response from the Executive is full and helpful. Previously, in a letter to the committee in December 2000, the Executive said that it had concerns about development at Briery Bank, and that it therefore expected the proposed development framework to be prepared in consultation with Historic Scotland and the Royal fine art commission for Scotland. The Executive is echoing the petitioner's comments—which I hope the petitioner will find to be a helpful response—so we can conclude the petition.

Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Local Authorities and Public Agencies (Public Petitions) (PE713)

Our next petition is PE713, on consideration of public petitions by public bodies. The petitioner is calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to issue guidance to local authorities and public bodies, to ensure that they take into consideration relevant public petitions in their decision-making processes.

At our meeting on 31 March, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive seeking its views on the issues that are raised in the petition. The Executive states in its response:

"An important aspect of local government is its independence from central Government, with councils answerable first and foremost to the people who elected them. It is therefore for each local authority to determine the way in which it consults the public on its policies and proposals, and how to take account of views expressed … in setting policies and reaching decisions."

The Executive's response is not adequate. We should at least ask the petitioner for their response to the Executive's response, because it does not deal with the issues. Local authorities work within the legislative framework that is set by the Scottish Parliament. The Local Governance (Scotland) Bill will affect—all sorts of other legislation already affects them—local authorities. The Scottish Parliament could, if it was of a mind to do so, legislate to ensure that consultation takes place in a certain way.

The Executive has framed its response as if it cannot do anything, but it could if the political will existed. The response does not address the issues, so I would not accept it. I would ask for the petitioner's view, however.

Are members happy that we do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Judiciary<br />(Freemasonry Membership) (PE731)

Our final current petition is PE731, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to initiate any steps that might be necessary, including legislation, to require members of the Scottish judiciary to declare masonic membership. At our meeting on 28 April, the committee agreed to ask the Justice 2 Committee to clarify whether its previous inquiry into the matter addressed the question of why the situation in Scotland differs from that in England and Wales, where new judges are required to declare masonic membership. The clerk to the Justice 2 Committee confirms that the committee did consider the difference between Scotland and England and Wales, and provides details of that consideration. The position, that the Justice 2 committee conducted an inquiry and that that inquiry reached its conclusions, is not for us to challenge. The committee took into account an aspect of the petition on which we were not clear. That seems to have been cleared up, so it would appear that nothing changes.

Are members happy for us to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

We are about to go into private session.

Before we do so, I wish to make a general request of the clerks. When we get the background to current petitions, would it be possible for us to get transcripts of meetings of the subject committees that dealt with them? It is often interesting to look at what points were considered. I know that that would be extra admin for the clerks, but I would find it helpful; I am sure that other members would, too. From time to time, I have looked up the Official Report, but if the clerks could supply us with transcripts it would be much appreciated.

That seems to be fine—it would be helpful to members. Members are reminded that there is an extra meeting of the committee on Tuesday 29 June at 10 am in the chamber and that the next committee business is the event that we have organised at Discovery Point in Dundee, which is at 10.30 on Monday 14 June.

Sadly, I will not be at the meeting on 14 June, so could the details be circulated to other constituency members who might be interested?

Yes.

Meeting continued in private until 12:30.