Official Report 239KB pdf
A96 Improvements (Elgin Bypass) (PE558)
Agenda item 2 is current petitions. Petition PE558, by Pauline Taylor, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to include a bypass for Elgin in the programme for improvement to the A96 as a matter of urgency.
I must say that I have enjoyed being here for the past wee while. It has been interesting.
Thank you. Do members have any comments on the information that we have received?
The petition has been open for a long time, as we can see from the amount of times it has been considered; it was lodged in 2002 and it is now 2004. I am not an MSP for the area so I do not know that much about it, but I take on board what Margaret Ewing said about the fact that the bypass is not included in the roads programme. Can we write to the Minister for Transport and ask him to say whether the bypass will be included in the strategic roads review, given that the current response says just that it might be?
I dare say that Margaret Ewing is aware that a transport study has been carried out. Apparently it found that a bypass would not provide any significant benefit to through traffic for the people of Elgin because local traffic is the main cause of the problem. Perhaps she might be able to shed some light on the findings of that survey, but it does rather detract from the strength of the case. She might wish to contradict that, perhaps not unreasonably; it would be helpful to hear her views on it.
A considerable amount of research has been undertaken by various organisations in the area. Our estimate is that there would be a 25 per cent reduction in the amount of major traffic that goes through Elgin. Anyone who has an office in Elgin, such as me, knows that one diverts through all sorts of cul-de-sacs and strange lanes in order to avoid the heavy traffic. Because of the nature of the trunk road between Inverness and Aberdeen, which covers an area that represents a significant part of Scotland's economy, we have a lot of heavy transport. Without the addition of better rail services such as the Orton loop we will continue to face problems. A 25 per cent reduction in the amount of through traffic would be worth while not only in terms of the economy but environmentally. We talk about reducing the environmental impact on the area—
Has the proposed bypass been subject to the Scottish transport appraisal guidance—or STAG—procedure?
Yes. The Babtie Group Ltd undertook an extensive appraisal, which I think was submitted to the Public Petitions Committee and the Executive along with other documents. The evidence is there and it would be wrong for us to turn our back on it, particularly given that it shows that the Elgin bypass is a priority improvement to the main trunk road between the capital of the Highlands and the capital of the north-east of Scotland.
It is true to say that every MSP could identify a piece of road that causes problems in their part of Scotland. In some cases, however, independent studies have been done, and I want to return to the independent study that was commissioned not by the Executive but by Moray Council. My understanding is exactly the same as John Scott's understanding, which is that the study found that a bypass was not the answer to the congestion problems. The study made a number of recommendations for improvements to the existing road network, which were felt would be better at reducing congestion. The council has said that, instead of pursuing a bypass option in the short term, it will pursue the recommendations for road improvements, and that it is in dialogue with the Executive. Is that not sufficient to deal with, in the intervening period, the congestion problems that we all want to deal with?
Perhaps I should have distributed a map to members of the committee. The most recent proposal was for traffic to be diverted via Wittet Drive and Wards Road on to the trunk road. The proposal was rejected on planning grounds because the demolition of houses was involved. Members can imagine that there was a strong reaction to the idea.
I do not want to suggest that Moray Council has reneged on that long-term objective. However, we understand that it has taken the study, looked at it and, in the short term, will follow through on some of the study's recommendations for improvements to the existing road network. In that way, the council hopes to resolve at least part of the problem.
Perhaps Margaret Ewing has not seen the Executive papers. There is no reason why she should have done so.
No, I have not seen them.
With the committee's agreement, I think that we should do Margaret Ewing the courtesy of making those papers available to her. That would enable her to take the debate further. Would that be helpful?
What I do not want to see is the Public Petitions Committee dropping the objective of getting the bypass. Members of the committee have received information from the Northern Scot and Moray & Nairn Express on the action that is required, some of which was interesting in terms of pointing out the realities involved. It would be wrong for the committee to say at this stage, "Well, the Executive has given its response and the council has said that it doing things. That is fine; we can leave it alone." I do not want PE558 to be left alone; I want it to be continued. I recommend that, in addition to allowing us to see the papers that have been submitted to the Public Petitions Committee—and probably to the Local Government and Transport Committee—further discussions take place.
In its response, the Scottish Executive says:
We have papers from the Scottish Executive that state that the project will be included in its considerations. John Scott has suggested that we provide Margaret Ewing with the papers that give us that information, as it is obvious that she has not been privy to it. I suspect that the petitioner has not been made aware of it either. Perhaps we should keep the petition open and invite a response from both Margaret Ewing and the petitioner to the information that we have received.
That is very satisfactory.
We can keep the petition open until the petitioner and Margaret Ewing have had a chance to examine the information and to respond to us.
We will certainly respond to the committee and to the Minister for Transport.
Complementary Medicine (PE571)
The next petition for consideration is PE571, from Ethne Brown, which calls on the Parliament to introduce legislation to require health boards in Scotland to integrate and implement in the national health service the recommendations of the 1996 report "Complementary Medicine and the National Health Service" by the National Medical Advisory Committee.
Might it be appropriate to send the Executive's responses to the petitioner and to seek her views, as we did with the previous petition?
As members can see from the papers, a constituent has contacted me on this issue. I understand the Executive's position and that it does not want to deal with the matter through primary legislation, but I do not think that its response outlined how it would encourage the use of complementary medicine in a mainstream way in the NHS. It would be helpful in the context of the petition if we could get an assurance from the Executive that it will do so.
The Executive is sponsoring several research projects on the value of complementary medicine. It is absolutely right for the Executive to say that it is for health boards to decide whether to promote complementary alternative medicine within their areas of responsibility. In fairness, it is up to those who wish to promote CAM to do so. No one is trying to stop them, but it is for each health board to decide whether it wishes to pursue CAM.
I am in no doubt about that. However, it would be helpful if the Executive were minded to encourage complementary medicine, subject to the research indicating that there are benefits to be gained.
It should not be up to me to respond for the Executive, but I read in our papers that the Executive has said that it is willing to consider further projects that have the potential for benefit.
The 1996 report suggested that benefits were felt, and it included health board guidelines. I dislike the idea that any treatment would be available on the basis of where people live. Some areas of medicine are more important than complementary medicine, but it would help to remind health boards of complementary medicine's benefits. Perhaps that should come from the Executive. We could ask it to write to health boards to make the point that the subject has been revisited because nothing much has happened since the 1996 report was accepted.
I agree totally with the views of Jackie Baillie and Mike Watson. We need to have a strong emphasis on clear guidance from the Scottish Executive that local health boards should take the issue much more seriously. I support strongly Jackie Baillie's views on that.
Do we accept the recommendation to write to the Executive?
Further Education (Governance and Management) (PE583)
PE583, which is by Joe Eyre on behalf of Further Education Fightback, calls on the Parliament to inquire into the governance and management of Scotland's further education colleges and to consider reforming the legislative framework that governs further education.
I have taken the trouble to speak to local college principals about the issue, because they lobbied me. The picture from them was clear: although they recognise that some colleges have issues, they feel that if an approach is taken that might change the structure throughout Scotland, that might be detrimental to the good progress that has been made.
The people from colleges in Helen Eadie's area who have contacted her seem more than happy with how the colleges are run. However, it is a different scenario in Glasgow. We all know from the papers about the case involving James O'Donovan at Glasgow Central College of Commerce. I do not want to speak about individual cases, but something needs to be done and the situation must be reviewed. The National Union of Students Scotland says that the governance system does not work properly. There are other concerns in addition to those of the petitioner.
I am not sure. We could ask that question.
That would be helpful. Helen Eadie says that the governance of colleges works fine in her area, but the troubles that we have had in Glasgow—
No; I am saying that we should allow SHEFC to deal with those problems. That should be one of the products of the review that has been taking place.
That was the point—
Sandra, the clerks advise me that the Executive will look at the review again in March 2005.
Given that ministers announced the package of measures that were aimed at modernising standards in March 2003, 2005 seems to be a sensible time to conduct a review.
That is what I was thinking, and it would allow us to get some more information.
March 2005 is only six months away, but the new governance procedures will only just have had time to bed in. An earlier review would have been pointless.
You have a point about the review date being only six months away. However, I have concerns about the way in which the situation is being handled in Glasgow. That is the big problem.
Sandra White is right—there have been some serious problems in Glasgow and in one or two other further education colleges in the west of Scotland. Motherwell, in particular, springs to mind.
What do members recommend that we do with the petition?
I would probably close the petition. We sought to have the inquiry into the governance and management of Scotland's FE colleges. That has happened and we now have new guidelines in place, therefore the petition's objectives have been achieved.
Code of Conduct for Councillors 2003 (PE702)
PE702, which is from James Milligan on behalf of Helensburgh community council, calls on the Parliament to review the code of conduct for councillors 2003, in particular with regard to their role in planning applications.
I declare my local interest as the MSP who covers that part of the world. This is a positive example of a petition changing what goes on, in terms of both legislation and the guidance for councillors in a planning context. My only negative comment is that the response from COSLA indicates that it is slightly out of touch with what is going on in communities. That said, I welcome the positive response from ministers to have action taken by the Standards Commission so that guidance is revised and councillors can participate freely and inform public debate in a way that some councillors feel they have, so far, been unable to do. For the Minister for Communities to agree that the Executive will amend the legislative framework to reflect the petitioners' concerns is a positive step.
I accept everything that Jackie Baillie has just said. She mentions the guidance and whether the Standards Commission has issued it. Will the Standards Commission write to all the local authorities, or is it the role of the Scottish Executive to ensure that that guidance is sent out to councils? I seek your guidance on that, as I am not sure whose role it is to communicate that information to councils and councillors.
It would be wrong of me to give an answer on that. Jackie Baillie's suggestion that we write to the Standards Commission to get the matter clarified might be the best way for us to get that question answered.
If the Standards Commission could clarify that point, that would be good.
The key point is that, if new guidance is to be issued, that should be done forthwith and as soon as possible—to repeat what I have just said. It is interesting to note, in Tavish Scott's letter to the committee, that the situation has been brought about by the European convention on human rights. That was incorporated in 1997 and many planning decisions have been made since then to which, apparently, councillors have acted not as they might have done had they known of the legislation and how it affects them. There is a can of worms in there. It is vital that councillors are made aware of the change.
Fife Council has been very much aware of the ECHR and has issued clear guidance to all councillors who are involved in planning. However, Jackie Baillie is right about COSLA being out of touch on this issue. I do not think that there is any way in which we can rectify that, but we need to note it.
We agree to do that and to try to speed up the process.
It is vital that a sense of urgency is injected into the process.
Local Government Elections (PE726)
PE726, by William A Perrie, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to appoint an independent body with responsibility for the regulation and training of returning officers for local government elections and calls for a complaints procedure to deal with any irregularities concerning those elections.
The response from SOLACE, which states that the Electoral Commission should be given the same statutory role for Scottish local government elections as it has for other elections, is interesting. That may provide what the petitioner seeks. We should ask the Executive for its views on that proposal.
I agree with Mike Watson. I know Renfrewshire Council; I cannot declare an interest because I am not a member of it now, but I know most of the people who are involved. I do not want to go over old ground. However, when I consider the amount of stuff that went missing, and when I look at the response from SOLACE and see that COSLA agrees with it, I agree that the best course of action would be to do what Mike Watson has suggested and invite the Executive to comment on what has been said about the different elections and the statutory role of the Electoral Commission.
Are members happy that we do that?
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (PE745)
PE745, from Yogi Dutta, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to amend the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 to incorporate a range of measures in relation to the accountability and responsibilities of the ombudsman and to produce guidance notes on the procedure for investigating a complaint.
May I not take a view, convener? I know that it is unusual for me not to take a view, but the specifics of the gentleman's complaint relate to my former employer. Although that is not a registrable interest, I would rather not take any part in the discussion.
I understand that. Thank you.
It might be appropriate to write to the petitioner to ask him to give his views on the response from the Executive.
Are members happy that we do that?
It would be sensible also to write to the ombudsman to request clarification of the guidance that is made available in hard copy and to request a response on the issue of service standards.
Yes. We can consider the matter when we get responses from both sources and make a decision at that point.
Sewage Sludge (PE749)
In PE749, the petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to seek a moratorium on the spreading of sewage sludge pending a full inquiry into its safety by a parliamentary committee and as a minimum—depending on the outcome of such an inquiry—to initiate legislation at the earliest opportunity to discontinue the current exemptions for spreading sewage sludge and to ensure that such operations are subject to planning control, including a public local inquiry.
In respect of the Sanquhar situation and the Newcastleton one, which was the instigator for PE749, the sewage sludge activity has stopped because of public pressure in the area. For the communities that are involved that outcome is satisfactory, but the issue of sewage sludge still needs to be addressed.
The papers that we have received contain helpful responses from SEPA, the minister and Scottish Water, which all indicate that the area is well regulated. Obviously, there needs to be a debate about that but, as a first step, perhaps we should send the responses to the petitioners, allow them to look at them and, if need be, come back to the committee. The responses contain a lot that will reassure the petitioners.
In addition, we should copy the responses to Mr Mundell and Sanquhar and district community council, because they have had similar experiences.
The responses should also go to Blairingone and Saline Action Group. Ross Finnie states in his letter:
It is relevant to note, however, that sewage sludge has not been dumped in Saline and Blairingone since 1997 or 1998. That is a completely different issue.
But it would be reassuring for the action group to see the work that has gone on. Jackie Baillie made the point that the reaction has been comprehensive, and it would be reassuring to close the loop for the public, so that they know the great extent of activity that has gone on. It would require only a letter to the people involved.
Absolutely. We did a similar thing for Margaret Ewing, who had not had sight of the responses. We will send the information that we have to David Mundell, and we will welcome his comments on it. We will also send it to the community organisations that he has been in contact with, and ask them to respond.
That is a helpful suggestion. My comments would include the observation that the sort of mechanism that has obviously been used in the present case in response to complaints needs to be in place when an application is made. That would mean that people could be reassured and have regulatory confidence when an application was being considered rather than during a protest.
Mr Mundell has raised an interesting point about the need for SEPA to play a more proactive role. If it is not playing a proactive role and is failing to provide reassurance for communities, that is not serving anyone's interests. Would it be worth sending a copy of the Official Report of this part of our meeting to SEPA and inviting it to respond to the suggestion that it is not taking a proactive enough role? The fact that SEPA's role is entirely reactive is causing difficulties to communities that it should have reassured.
I see no difficulty with that suggestion. It is worth asking SEPA for its view on that perception of its role. I look forward to receiving those responses. We will send that information to David Mundell and wait for his comments on it.
Thank you, convener.
Scottish Legal Aid Board (PE751)
PE751, which was submitted by Ronald Mason, calls on the Scottish Parliament to initiate an inquiry into the procedures and practices of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and to amend the rules governing eligibility for legal aid to include an automatic right for the disabled.
I found that there was more to the petition than met the eye. The responses of the Executive and of the three organisations suggest that no further action is necessary, because they—especially the DRC—do not think that there is any case for disabled people to get legal aid automatically. However, the DRC also says in its letter:
That is a valid question, to which it would be interesting to get SLAB's response.
I agree with that approach, but on the fundamental issue of automatic entitlement to legal aid for disabled people, I find the responses that we have had from all the agencies to be satisfactory. Monitoring is an important issue. I would hope that all organisations would take such issues into consideration. I think that it would be right for us to write to SLAB on the specific point that Mike Watson has raised.
Yes. It would also be sensible to write back to the petitioners, because they might know of examples of discrimination, even if, with the best will in the world, all the organisations that we have written to do not.
Do members agree to do that?
That completes our business.
Before we close, I congratulate the convener on securing a parliamentary debate on institutional child abuse in connection with PE535, which we considered a few weeks ago.
Thanks.
Meeting closed at 11:50.
Previous
New Petitions