Public Petitions Committee, 11 Mar 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Official Report 341KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Organic Waste Disposal (PE327)

The next agenda item is Dorothy-Grace Elder's report on PE327, which was presented on behalf of the Blairingone and Saline Action Group, on spreading sewage sludge.

I congratulate Dorothy-Grace Elder and Dr Curnow on their excellent and useful report, which we will consider page by page. The clerks have raised some matters, which I will mention. If members have any points that they wish to make, they should halt me as I go through the report.

There are no points to make on the contents page. Do members want to say anything about paragraphs 1 to 5?

Paragraph 4 mentions transparency, which is one of the main reasons behind the report.

The clerks have asked whether paragraphs 6 and 7, which mention the environmental hazard investigation team are in the right place. There are several references to the team in the report. Would it be better to bring together those references in one section?

Perhaps we should take that advice. The EHIT report and the Transport and the Environment Committee's report do not tie up—they are entirely separate. The committee report was put together and totally ignored. The EHIT was set up and proceeded with its work oblivious of anything that the committee had said. There could be clarification.

There is a question of duplication.

I mentioned the matter at the beginning of the report and referred to it a couple of times to remind people of it. Andy Kerr produced an excellent report for the Transport and the Environment Committee. Points relating to the EHIT are in the conclusions, anyway. There should be some guidance for people reading the report.

If members agree that Dorothy-Grace Elder, in consultation with the clerks, can redraft the report so that references are brought together and things are tidied up, there will no problem. We should emphasise what Phil Gallie said.

Do members have any other comments to make on the page that we are discussing?

It is interesting to see what other countries do. They all seem to act better than we do.

Blairingone was known about in Brussels when I mentioned it there.

Blairingone has been put on the map.

It is famous now.

It is suggested that paragraphs 14 and 15, which again deal with the EHIT, should be put together with other material in a coherent passage.

Do members want to make any comments on the page that begins with paragraph 18?

The unsatisfactory way in which the matter has been dealt with is outlined. There has been secrecy.

It is suggested that everything that is mentioned on the page will be put together in one paragraph.

The next page begins with paragraph 18n.

I am scanning through the page, but I cannot find what I am looking for. When I read the report, I was struck by the fact that George Reid's list of individuals went missing. Although the fact is mentioned that the list went to senior figures in the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, who suppressed it, there is no comment on that. I would have thought that SEPA would have wanted to ensure that such information moved on. I am not sure where the matter is covered in the report. I strongly feel that the director of SEPA should be called back to say precisely what happened to the information that he had and why it was not presented.

You heard the evidence session on 11 February when we practically had to use forceps to get the information out.

Are we talking about the page that starts with paragraph 18? Paragraph 18d says:

"Mr Reid stated that he had sent the list three times to SEPA and had spoken to Mr William Halcrow of SEPA about it."

Is it agreed that we make Phil Gallie's suggestion into an additional recommendation at the end of the report?

Members indicated agreement.

We are back on the page that starts with paragraph 18n. Is there anything to say about that page?

It does not say much for SEPA, does it?

No.

It is very disturbing. The issue of odour seems to be missing from our pollution control. Noise is included, but odour is often worse than noise.

Susan Deacon brought that point out very well when she was discussing another petition last week.

Okay. If no one wants to have anything changed on that page, we will move on to the page starting with paragraph 25.

I agree with all the points that Dorothy-Grace Elder has made on the EHIT.

We move on to the next page, which begins with paragraph 31. The clerks have identified paragraph 35 for consideration. There is a reference to the fact that the type of meningitis involved could not be linked to the environment. Can that point be made in the conclusions as well as in paragraph 35? The point is made halfway down paragraph 35, which says that the medical adviser

"explained that meningitis of the type which could be linked with the environment had not been involved".

It is suggested that that be added to the recommendations because it is quite important.

That is also linked with the stress that was caused by the powers that be denying information for five years.

It is not suggested that we remove the information about meningitis, but we should repeat it.

Fine.

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Are the sections entitled "A village let down" and "New problems ahead" relevant? Could they be summarised? The report is meant to be about the health implications for the community. Although the sections are pertinent, they do not relate directly to health implications.

It looks as if the coal industry has not been very nice to the village and that it made promises that it did not keep. The land was then passed on to Snowie Ltd.

I am concerned about these paragraphs. The petition is about the specific issue of sewage sludge, but the report expands and covers a range of other issues such as British Coal and opencast mining. I know that there are strong feelings about such issues throughout Scotland, but I take exception to their inclusion in this report. It is one thing to investigate opencast coal mining, but it is not appropriate to do that in the context of this report. We should miss out that reference.

I am not sure that I go along with that. The clerks are concerned about the length of the report and want to make it as succinct as possible. Such issues can be referred to because they contribute to the villagers' feelings of being let down and to the effects on their well-being and health. It is just a question of summarising the information rather than going into great detail. I am sure that Dorothy-Grace Elder could agree a form of words with the clerks.

The medical adviser was very strong on the issue that Helen Eadie mentioned. He went by the World Health Organisation definition of health, which is not necessarily just the absence of disease. He felt that the village had been under severe stress for many years. Paragraph 40 says:

"If ever a village has been raided and pillaged repeatedly, it is Blairingone … Industry has hauled benefits out of it, put nothing back. The Reporter and Medical Adviser found that a boiling sense of injustice is one factor militating a sense of healthy well being among many."

Later, when the waste firm came in after all that other activity, it did so against a background of bad feeling. We think that we have produced proof that the locals have had every reason to be highly dissatisfied, stressed and anxious for the past 20 years about the way in which they have been treated by officialdom.

Now that Dorothy-Grace Elder has explained, I see where she is coming from. There is a similar scenario in my community of Westfield, where remediation and repair have never taken place. I understand the point.

Okay, but is it agreed that the information should be summarised to make it more succinct?

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraphs 50 to 58 give a personal history of the petitioner and his family background.

It is horrendous.

I accept that it is horrendous, but should it be in the report?

Perhaps Mr Hope should come before us with his own petition.

He has been to the committee.

It is a very sad tale indeed. However, the report is supposed to be about the health implications. Do members think that the personal information should be in the report?

It would be a shame to lose it, but I do not know whether it is really hitting the button as far as the remit of the report is concerned. I would hate it to be lost, so is there some way that it could be included as an appendix?

That is a possibility.

I was going to suggest that.

Do members agree to take that information out of the body of the report and add it as an appendix to give background?

It is an individual case that shows how, over the generations, a family has been let down. It was very touching to find

"Duncan Hope: gunner, died France, age 17"

on the war memorial. Today's Duncan Hope has not been treated well by the country that his relatives served.

Are we agreed to take that information out of the main body of the report and include it as an appendix?

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraphs 64 and 65 refer to Snowie Ltd making

"millions out of carcass destruction during the UK foot and mouth outbreak, gaining government contracts"

and making contributions to certain individuals in the Labour party. Are those facts or rumours and should they be in the report? Are they relevant?

They are facts. I put them to the directors of Snowie Ltd and they answered openly. There were rumours flying around the village of very great numbers. The directors confirmed that there was only one donation of £5,000. They were rather angered at the question and said that they were not really political people but had made the donation because one Labour MP had taken an interest in them.

The company has not given £5,000 to George Reid.

No.

The money was certainly not given to me.

However, you have written "one local rumour". We need to be clear about whether it is a fact or a rumour.

It was being rumoured that Snowie Ltd had made huge donations to the Labour party, so I thought that it was best to put that in the report. It was another point that caused stress in the village and it made people believe that there was something seriously wrong.

So the rumour was that huge donations were made, but the facts are laid out in paragraph 65.

The facts were pinned down with the directors. They did not expect that question, but they answered it. I admit that it was like the moment in "Pygmalion" where the old dustman asks Professor Higgins for one guinea and Higgins says that he hopes that Doolittle is not implying that there is anything improper between him and his daughter and the dustman says that he would have asked for five guineas if he thought that. I think it would take a bit more than £5,000 to influence a political party.

I suppose that there is a difference between the rumour referred to in paragraph 64 and the reality referred to in paragraph 65. Can you say that paragraph 65 is accurate?

Yes, and the company can confirm that. The question was asked openly and I felt that it was answered honestly.

Okay. I have just been advised that we should be careful to retain the focus on the effect on health of the spreading of sewage sludge. We are drifting away from that issue. Are members happy for those paragraphs to be left in, or should they be taken out?

Which paragraphs?

Paragraphs 64 and 65.

I am unhappy about paragraph 64. Paragraph 65 is okay, as it is factual, but it is not necessary to include paragraph 64, as it is based on rumour, innuendo and hearsay. We operate a justice system that is based on evidence. Unless we can produce evidence to back up paragraph 64, we ought to set it aside. If the directors say that one individual declared that he had made a contribution of £5,000, I am sure that that would have been registered in the appropriate way. The Electoral Commission has laid down that contributions of more than £50 must be declared in every election expense. That is the law of the land. A businessman or a businesswoman can no longer get away with not declaring financial contributions openly.

The directors made it clear that the contribution was not made under another name. Paragraph 64 can be taken out, if members wish. I thought that I should raise the issue of the rumour and get truth on the table. I think that I was being told the truth.

It has been suggested that Dorothy-Grace Elder could co-operate with Steve Farrell on redrafting paragraphs 64 and 65.

As I understand it, only one £5,000 donation was made. According to paragraph 65, "there had been one" donation of £5,000, but the way that that reads leads one to ask how many more donations there were.

The tense is not intentional.

That should be clarified, to make it quite clear that there was one donation and no more.

Dorothy-Grace Elder can sort out the drafting with Steve Farrell. There are no other points on that page or on the page containing paragraphs 67 to 73.

The section entitled "Composting—how safe is the air?" begins with paragraph 81 at the foot of the next page and continues for nearly two pages. It has been suggested that, as the section on composting is lengthy and is not directly relevant to the health impact of the spreading of sewage sludge, it is not necessary to include it. What do members think?

Composting was mentioned in the original petition. Mr Hope is in the public gallery and I think that he is nodding his head. PE327 referred to the health aspects of composting. Composting now forms the major part of Snowie's business at Blairingone.

Did PE327 mention composting?

Yes.

I am told that PE327 did not look at the health impact of composting but at that of sewage sludge spreading. Are you talking about the remit from the Health and Community Care Committee?

Although I do not have the original petition in front of me, it has been my understanding all along that PE327 deals with that issue.

If there is concern that the section on composting waters down the report, why do not we include it as an appendix, as we agreed to do with the section on Mr Hope? The section on composting might be interesting, but it might be better to include it as an appendix, given that the report is on the health implications.

It is suggested that we could summarise the section in the main report and include the whole section as an appendix.

I have just received a note from the Blairingone and Saline Action Group that makes a suggestion about another matter, but we are not at that stage yet.

I am not sure about your suggestion. If we were to refer to the original petition, we would find that composting was mentioned. I ask that we double check PE327 to find out whether it refers to composting. If it does, I ask that the section on composting remain in the body of the report.

We will do that. Dorothy-Grace Elder can liaise with Steve Farrell.

The issue is the distance from habitation. That is where the question mark is.

Dorothy-Grace Elder should liaise with Steve Farrell to double check on the remit. The section on composting will appear in the report in one form or another. I am sure that we can get agreement on that.

Composting is the suspect for the smell. Duncan Hope gave us evidence on that on 11 February, in addition to the original evidence that we received way back.

There are no points on the pages that begin with paragraphs 74 and 82. On the page that begins with paragraph 88, it has been suggested that, as the discussion of rumours in paragraphs 92(b) and 92(c) is not especially related to sludge spreading, those paragraphs could be taken out. Paragraph 92(b) refers to

"Mr Hope allegedly ‘campaigning' against new housing in the village"

and paragraph 92(c) refers to Sir Robert Stewart, former Lord Lieutenant of Clackmannanshire. Given that individuals are named under the heading "Rumours", we wonder whether those paragraphs should be kept in the report.

We might want to include those paragraphs as an appendix, as they contain research that the reporter has carried out. If they appeared in the main body of the report, they might take away from its main thrust, but it would be useful to include them as an appendix.

Paragraph 93 makes an important comment. It says:

"The EHIT turned out to be a model of secrecy. The tone was of a number of experts and professionals simply doing things ‘the old way' and handing down a verdict".

That might be why all the rumours grew.

There is no problem with paragraph 93; it is being kept in. It is suggested that paragraphs 92(b) and 92(c) be taken out, because they refer to rumours that were circulating.

There are strong allegations that the entire campaign centred on a mere handful of people. Most campaigns are run by a handful of people who do all the work. On an icy night—it was one of the worst nights of winter—up to 70 people, or most of the adult ambulant population, attended the meeting that I arranged, even though it was difficult to walk up the path to the church, despite the efforts of local activists to clear it. Some time before that meeting, there was a meeting of about 300 people in Saline. More than just a handful of people are deeply concerned about their health.

Paragraph 92(a) is staying. It is suggested that paragraphs 92(b) and 92(c) could be included in the appendices.

Paragraph 93 mentions the secrecy and the tone of the EHIT. Perhaps we could insert a sentence that said that that led to rumours abounding in the community. We could put in something along those lines, because that is the point that Dorothy-Grace Elder is trying to make.

Absolutely.

The EHIT did its investigation on five cases behind closed doors. One paragraph—I do not know which one—indicates that the EHIT did not know of any more cases. It was suggested that people should have written to the secret investigators. How could anyone else have written, when no one but the people who were involved in those five cases knew that an investigation was taking place?

That is a fair point.

That was a ridiculous situation. The second meeting of the EHIT did not happen—the EHIT was a scandal from beginning to end.

I agree with that.

Do we intend to put all the EHIT bits together?

It is suggested that paragraphs 93 to 96 should be included in a section with all the EHIT bits, so that they form a coherent whole.

Should the information about Saline—I am sorry that I keep getting the pronunciation wrong—be in the report at all? Although it is interesting, it is not strictly relevant to the report.

People keep telling me that there used to be packed dances in the hall in my village.

It has been suggested that paragraph 97 could be included, but not paragraphs 98 to 101. Although the information is interesting, it is not directly relevant to the report.

Purely from the health point of view, it is important that, although Saline is only about four miles away, there does not seem to be a problem there.

That is why paragraph 97 should stay.

It seems that there is no health situation in Saline, as far as Dorothy-Grace Elder is aware.

The village of Saline was included in the name of the Blairingone and Saline Action Group because there had been some complaints from Saline and also because the smaller village of Blairingone wanted to include the much larger village of Saline and its community council in the campaign. People from Saline have been emotionally supportive of the cause, but they have not had the same degree of problems. There have been complaints about smells in Saline, but the same level of nuisance has not been perceived.

If we develop paragraph 97 to make the point about the contrast between the two communities, we could leave out the detailed points about going to dances and so on.

Blairingone has lost every facility except its lovely church and school. Saline is thriving, however, and I think that it is good that the bigger village is protective of the smaller one and that we do not see the usual jealousy that can exist between villages.

Are we all agreed to tidy up that section in the way that has been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

We have some comments on the section headed "Comments and Recommendations".

Recommendation 1 reads:

"That the Scottish Parliament continues the system of questioning in public any group which has made a contentious public decision in private without any form of public consultation."

It is recommended that we accept that recommendation, with a slight change to the wording. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Recommendation 2 reads:

"Never again must any body investigating health meet in private without first intimating they are being set up, publishing their remit, proposed names of membership and ensuring proper and regular consultation with the public and their representatives."

Again, it is recommended that we accept that, with the addition of some clear reference to the EHIT process and the existing SEPA guidance and an indication of the need to place more emphasis on the importance of public consultation and to monitor what is done in each case. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Recommendation 3 reads:

"That there is another public meeting in Blairingone where the work of the Medical Adviser and reporter can be discussed and ideas taken forward for the future."

Again, it is recommended that we accept that. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Recommendation 4 reads:

"That a form of ‘Blairingone Revitalisation Group' be set up swiftly, composed of all players—local councils, health and social work services, the churches, community councils, Blairingone and Saline Action Group, Local MSPs, local councillors and companies to achieve: A Village Hall, protection of the future of precious remaining assets such as the school and the church, a by pass, a shop, post office, pub or cafe etc. (A new village hall could combine several functions). The Reporter is compiling a list of some bodies which might be helpful on finance."

It is recommended that, as that recommendation is not directly related to health impacts, it could be suggested that local authorities act to co-ordinate the proposal, separate from the report.

Locally elected members have a duty in that regard. It is up to them.

We should also take out the specific recommendations about what is to be done in the village. Decisions about that should be taken by the local group, once it has been set up, rather than by us. The situation could change over time.

Local authorities could consider the report and think about its implications. The Public Petitions Committee has always tried to encourage local authorities rather than tell them what to do.

Do we agree to ask the local authorities to co-ordinate the activity?

Members indicated agreement.

Recommendation 5 reads:

"That there should be a reasonable amount of new housing in Blairingone, preferably including some social housing for young families who cannot afford to buy. There is obviously a pressing need to increase population in Blairingone is a village ‘on the cusp'."

Again, it is recommended that, as that recommendation is not directly related to health impacts, it should not be included.

The recommendation should be sent to the revitalisation group as it concerns a matter that it should deal with.

There is a repeated reference to the need for new housing throughout the report. As a result of our research, the medical adviser and I both came to the conclusion that that was an important issue. When we visited a medical practice, the nurses and health visitors pointed out that the geography of the situation was problematic. The village is on the border of three local authorities and there are always problems with finding out, for example, which social worker was responsible for which part of the area. Blairingone is falling down between various stools. Everybody thought that revitalisation would be helped by the construction of a limited number of new houses and somewhere to meet. It is stressful for a community not to have anywhere to meet—nowhere for the brownies or for young mothers to meet, or for people to get together and have a pint to find out what is happening in their community.

I suggest that that concern would not form part of the core recommendations of the report on the health impact. However, we could suggest that the local authorities co-ordinate a revitalisation group to consider such important issues.

Dorothy-Grace Elder's point is important. The report should highlight the fact that Blairingone is on the boundary of three local authorities as that will have had some impact on the amount of control over the situation that the community has had.

Are we agreed to follow the recommended action in regard to this recommendation and to suggest that the revitalisation group consider that important issue?

Members indicated agreement.

Recommendation 6 reads:

"That there should be no more open cast mining in the area."

It is recommended that that should not be included as it is not relevant to the health impacts and it is for local authorities to consider all such applications on their merits.

I agree. The guidelines have been strengthened enormously in the past few years. I speak as someone who represents an area in which a lot of coal used to be mined. The issue is contentious in my constituency, but I believe that the controls that are in place across Scotland are strict and that we should deliberate this matter at another time.

Dr Curnow also recommends that there be no more opencast mining in the area. He said that the village has had enough of it and that he does not want the villagers to have to put up with the problems of extra dust and the associated stress.

In the documents that are before members, they can read that Scottish Coal said that there would be a risk of no more than "cosmetic cracks" appearing on local buildings, although it would be necessary to demolish Mr Hope's farm house. The man has already lost his livelihood.

I think that the recommendation would involve changing the national planning policy guideline 16, which would be a matter for the Scottish Executive.

The committee is divided on this matter. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point that Dorothy-Grace Elder makes about the impact that opencast mining is having on local people. However, the petition is about the health impact of sewage sludge being spread on fields and the recommendation opens up a completely new area. The matter could be referred to the revitalisation group, but that would have to be pursued separately from the report on the petition.

If we want to include the recommendation in the report to ensure that the message gets across that it is felt that the problems caused by opencast mining far exceed the benefit to the area, we could put it in as an annexe. That way, if someone were to make a planning application in relation to an opencast mine, objectors to such a scheme could use the report in their objection.

That would be reasonable, but the recommendation cannot stand as a core recommendation.

Dr Curnow wanted to be here today, but was unable to make it. He is extremely concerned about the future of the village because of opencast mining. I thank Phil Gallie for his suggestion.

Do we agree to follow the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

Recommendation 7 reads:

"No reassurance on any health matter should be issued without the full extent of the work on the issue being published in detail."

It is suggested that the recommendation ought instead to refer to "reassurance in relation to any publicly expressed concerns about sewage sludge spreading or similar practice." Do we agree to use those words instead?

I meant that recommendation to be wider. We do not know if the same thing has happened before or if it will happen again. Should the public be reassured without knowing that precious little work has gone into that reassurance? People will not simply accept the word of the great and the good nowadays—at least they should not accept it unless they know how much work has been put in.

I accept those points, but the context of our report is an inquiry into a particular problem and how that impacts on health. We have not considered "any health matter"; we have considered a specific health matter relating to a specific practice. All we are doing is rewording the report with that in mind. The point stays in, but we must reword the text so that it refers to what we are looking into rather than a general recommendation.

We could include, "for example, sewage sludge spreading", rather than confine the wording to that issue alone.

The objection is to the phrase "any health matter", because we have not taken evidence on "any health matter". Therefore, we cannot use the phrase. We must restrict the wording to what we are dealing with. Is the proposal agreed to?

Members indicated agreement.

Recommendation 8 reads:

"That the Scottish Parliament and local councillors continue a watching brief over Blairingone."

Should any monitoring role be conducted by local authorities and responsible public bodies, rather than by the Parliament?

I am sorry, but I would like to go back to recommendation 7. We should consider an issue that was raised with me by the chairman of SEPA: when a planning application is considered, no health impact assessment is considered by the relevant planning committee prior to the application being approved. That matter should be picked up. In many of the planning applications that I come across, I find potential health concerns that have been raised by local people. The chairman of SEPA told me that SEPA has to run with the issues following the approval of the planning application, which presents a problem. We should perhaps make some recommendation that addresses that issue and that states that health impact assessments need to be considered prior to planning applications being approved.

Sometimes SEPA does not even do an environmental impact assessment. I have been through the card with SEPA on the matter of the incinerator at Carntyne. SEPA is looking at things again after the Carntyne case.

Would Helen Eadie accept that SEPA should have a clear public health remit, at least to liaise with other bodies on public health? Time and again SEPA will say that it cannot consider health issues. Surely to goodness health should be part of its remit. Its remit should be reviewed.

In recommendation 7, we could say that the experience of Blairingone would suggest that public health impact assessments should be an essential part of the consideration of planning applications.

Members indicated agreement.

Could we address the fact that odour seems to be excluded from SEPA's considerations?

That should be borne in mind, as should what Susan Deacon said in relation to PE517 at last week's Transport and the Environment Committee meeting.

Which recommendation would that come under?

Odour would be embraced under the context of the wider health issues. Odour can cause people mental health problems and all kinds of other problems, and it can affect community well-being. The issue came up when I spoke to public health consultants in Fife, who said that we all need to be concerned about community health when dealing with planning applications.

What about SEPA's remit?

I suggest that we make an additional recommendation on odour, pointing out that the issue is being pursued in relation to other petitions and that, although it has been a problem in the case of Blairingone, it will have to be addressed on a national basis. I am sure that we could find a form of words.

SEPA has washed its hands of odour. That is one of the things that—

That is what I mean. It is important to include that point.

SEPA claims to investigate odour, but I have been through the matter with it in relation to dumping.

The point is that we can probably find a form of words that refers to odour and to the fact that the matter is being pursued in relation to other petitions.

We could stress the importance of tackling odour for the well-being of a community. Could we also have a clear statement that SEPA should have a health consideration—"consideration" is perhaps the best word to use—remit? It has dodged health matters in every single case of pollution that I have been involved with. SEPA keeps saying that health is nothing to do with it. What, then, is to do with SEPA?

Would Dorothy-Grace Elder agree to the inclusion of a requirement for health impact assessments prior to any approvals being granted at the planning stage?

Yes. That would be a good move. However, if possible, I would like to include something on the consideration of a health remit for SEPA. The public is wandering around from quango to quango. Indeed, Blairingone has been thoroughly quangoed; the community is suffering from quango-related stress. The public keep on being fobbed off and told that this, that or the next department deals with the matter. Responsibility for environmental matters is absolutely fragmented.

We have already agreed to refer to the need to conduct a public health impact assessment. We will also say that such assessments are being pursued in relation to other petitions that we have received. The petition that Susan Deacon has been dealing with, PE517, is being dealt with in a similar way. We will try to work in some references to odour so that that issue may be taken on board, too.

Thank you.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We return to recommendation 8:

"That the Scottish Parliament and local councillors continue a watching brief over Blairingone."

It is suggested that local authorities and organisations such as SEPA, rather than the Parliament as such, should have that watching brief.

That is a scary thought.

We could still mention "local MSPs"; it is a local matter, rather than—

Yes, we could put "local MSPs". The Parliament has to remain on the case.

Would a reference to local MSPs do?

We should refer to "local elected representatives".

Yes—including councillors.

Shall we put "locally elected representatives"?

Yes.

That would include MSPs and councillors.

As long as there is some reporting back to the Parliament. The thing about the secretive EHIT, which took place behind closed doors, is that the local MSPs were not told about it, let alone the local councillor.

There might be a concern over Blairingone getting the Parliament to look after it, whereas nobody else in Scotland gets such treatment. That is why we should refer to local elected representatives.

We could perhaps add a sentence restating that, if problems arise and if things do not turn out properly, there is the possibility of lodging a new petition with the Parliament. That would give some strength to people who are involved in local activities.

Would it be possible for us still to refer to the Parliament as well as to councillors? Lots of people might be able to wriggle off hooks otherwise. Look at what has happened so far: we were not even informed that an EHIT was being conducted.

We could say, "That a watching brief over Blairingone be continued by local MSPs and councillors, who have the right to refer any concerns to the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee."

That would be fine. That would cover it.

Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

Recommendation 9 reads:

"That it is accepted by the Scottish parliament that he spreading of untreated or semi treated sewage on farmland is a revolting concept to the public and to some farmers and parts of the food industry and that Parliament should work towards banning this practice completely by ensuring safe scientific methods of disposal. An expert group should be set up urgently involving the Scottish Parliament, Westminster, the European Commission, the Waste Industry, all relevant public health bodies, the agricultural industry and food industry to assess safety of current practices, conduct field tests in various parts of Britain, review current technology and decide on safer methods."

The suggestion on that recommendation is that it could refer to the Executive's consultation on sewage sludge spreading. It is likely that regulations will be tightened, which is to be welcomed. We could suggest that it is imperative that the Executive take a robust approach, and we could work that suggestion into the same paragraph.

This is a continuing problem. If there is no right to put any of that stuff into the sea, more and more spreading on land will have to be done—it is a growing problem.

The Transport and the Environment Committee has already made recommendations along the lines that are suggested; we should not interfere with that. We could take into account the fact that that committee has recommended steps that should be taken, so we could endorse the Transport and the Environment Committee's ideas.

The Transport and the Environment Committee is not, however, saying that we should one day end spreading of partly treated and raw sewage on fields. On the matter of the safe sludge matrix becoming part of legislation and so on, it would be useful if we took a tougher stance. The practice at Blairingone ended four years ago, but we have been dumping sludge on land only because Britain was not prepared for when the sludge boats stopped. When the sludge boats stopped, matter that was not safe enough for the sea was suddenly being dumped on farm land.

I am informed that the minister has said that the practice will not continue.

Was he referring only to raw sewage? Does that also cover partly treated human excrement?

There are all sorts of ways to dispose of the waste, such as pelleting and other far less disgusting or potentially threatening ways in which to deal with it using the proper technology. So far, we have not bothered to find the finances for that, although Europe gave us 13 years' warning.

It has been suggested that we recommend that the Transport and the Environment Committee monitor the Executive's consultation on the issue, in order to ensure that those items are properly dealt with. We do not want to get involved in the remit of that committee or to produce recommendations to rival the recommendations of the Transport and the Environment Committee, which has conducted an in-depth study into the issue.

Do you mean on an on-going basis?

Yes, we could recommend that, in monitoring the Executive's consultation on the subject, the Transport and the Environment Committee should consider those issues and ensure that the Executive honours its commitment to end the practice.

I am not sure that the Executive is fully committed to ending sewage spreading. Partially treated sewage is not nice stuff, either.

We can ask the Transport and the Environment Committee to monitor specifically whether the sewage is partially treated. It is that committee's role to do that, not ours.

We can ask the Transport and the Environment Committee to monitor whether the sewage is untreated or semi-treated.

Yes.

We have heard what the whisky industry has said. That is the bottom line.

Would members be happy if we framed the recommendation to say that the Transport and the Environment Committee should ensure that the practice is outlawed by monitoring the Scottish Executive's consultation?

Yes.

On an on-going basis.

Recommendation 10 reads:

"That the euphemism ‘organic wastes' be avoided by responsible Parliamentarians when referring to the element which means human excrement or abattoir waste. Public relations spin should not be indulged in - the public must know clearly what is being dumped near habitation. A rose by any other name will smell the same - but this is no rose."

The suggestion is that we accept that recommendation, but that we amend the wording to include only the first sentence.

We do not need the poetry about the rose—roses do not spring to mind in this context.

It is suggested that the second and third sentences be dropped, although the image in them is colourful. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Recommendation 11 reads:

"That a liaison group be set up between Snowie and the villagers for exchange of information on the company's activities. Snowie has agreed to this and it is now up to the villagers. As a first step, Snowie could let the villagers and Parliament know about the idea of a catch screen at their composting site, etc."

It is suggested that we accept that recommendation. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Recommendation 12 reads:

"That air monitoring by the responsible public bodies be conducted at Blairingone, and reported to Parliament."

It is suggested that the recommendation could be a more general call for appropriate monitoring to be carried out at other sites where concerns are raised about public health. We could broaden the recommendation a bit.

Should we include the phrase, "and other sites"?

Yes. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Recommendation 13 reads:

"That an expert group be set up to study health in relation to composting in Scotland."

It is suggested that that is outwith our remit and that it is not necessarily something that we should sign up to.

Is that the issue that we are looking into?

We are looking into the issue of composting. What did we agree to do on it?

It is mentioned in the original petition.

We can check our position on that.

The company is now pursuing composting at Blairingone. It is no longer spreading sewage there; it has not done so for four years and does not intend to do so again.

We will check our remit and clarify our position on that.

Finally, let us turn to the medical advisor's report, which contains lots of good material. The report is appendix E of the main report and was written by Dr John Curnow. Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.6 give the background to the problem and paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 detail the purpose of the health inquiry. Paragraph 5.1 provides a working definition of health, paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3 talk about the health of the village and paragraphs 7.1 to 7.3 are an analysis of the questionnaires that Dorothy-Grace Elder circulated. Paragraphs 8.1 to 8.7 contain a discussion on the health implications and the report ends with some conclusions. It is suggested that Dr Curnow's report could be merged with the main body of the report to make the final report, which could be redrafted and brought back to the committee, probably on 25 March.

Paragraph 11.10 brings us back to the danger of the compost fibres blowing in the air. That is what is happening now.

The reports duplicate each other in many respects. We could merge the two in a final draft with the appendices, as I suggested. The final report could then be brought back to the committee for approval on 25 March. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I suggest that we now take a two-minute break.

Before we do so, I think that we should thank Dorothy-Grace Elder for her extremely thorough report. I am sure that the people of Blairingone and Saline must be well pleased about the way in which the work has been acted upon. The community must feel empowered by the way in which it has been able to bring its concerns—which have been seriously addressed—to the Parliament. The report is another indicator of the way in which the Parliament is succeeding. We should offer our congratulations to the people of Blairingone and Saline, and to Dorothy-Grace Elder.

However, I also want to raise another matter, which concerns information that was in the papers at the weekend. I will not ask Dorothy-Grace Elder about it because I know that she has made an official complaint to the Standards Committee. Tricia Marwick has withheld official committee papers and should answer to the Standards Committee for that.

I do not know what Helen Eadie is referring to.

Let me explain to Winnie Ewing what happened. The papers were in the offices and were taken away—

If I may—

All that I want to say is that I think that Tricia Marwick should be called before the committee to answer for withholding the papers. She did that against the wishes of the clerk, the Presiding Officer and the committee convener. It is totally wrong that that should be allowed to happen.

I will explain: members will be aware of what has happened, but some activity has taken place in the background. An official complaint has been made to the Standards Committee, but the standing orders forbid us from commenting on the matter until the complaint has been dealt with. As soon as the Standards Committee has dealt with the complaint, we will have a full report back to the committee.

I quite appreciate that we cannot comment on the issue, but we can ask questions about why the papers have not been returned. I know that Dorothy-Grace Elder has had to work two full shifts without sleeping—30 hours at a go—in order to complete her work and to provide us with her paper. It is absolutely outrageous that a member of an Opposition party should put the committee in the position of not having the information that it needs.

Helen Eadie is beginning to stray into the matter of the complaint. We cannot say anything just now, but the committee will have a full discussion on the matter when the Standards Committee has dealt with and decided on the complaint. We will then report back in full to the committee, but until that time we must let the Standards Committee's complaints procedure go through its paces. When that is finished, we will have a full discussion on the implications for the committee and for the Parliament.

I agree with Helen Eadie; Dorothy-Grace Elder has done a wonderful job as reporter on the petition. Dr John Curnow has also done an excellent job in supporting her and both of them deserve our gratitude. I am sure that the final report will contribute to ensuring that the law of Scotland is in the future changed so that it puts people first.

We should also send a copy of the report to George Reid, who raised the issue originally in Parliament.

To be fair, George Reid has also played an outstanding role.

Absolutely. George Reid scaled a mountain before I, or anyone else, came on the scene.

To add what is perhaps a humorous point, if Dorothy-Grace Elder can manage to produce such a report on a matter that is outside her own patch, thank goodness that we did not ask her to do a report on cow burners in Castlemilk.

Perhaps she should be appointed as a reporter to the next Public Petitions Committee to carry out such investigations.

I always get the glamorous stuff.

We still have two items on the agenda, but I suggest that we take a two-minute comfort break—it has been a long morning.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

---

Alcohol and Drug Misuse (PE531)

I bring the committee back to order and move on to consider other current petitions. The first is PE531, from Mr and Mrs Robinson, which concerns alcohol and drug misuse. The committee considered the petition on 24 September and agreed to write to the Scottish Executive and to Perth and Kinross Council to ask for their responses to the petition and the points that the petitioners raised. We have now received a response from both the Executive and the council.

It appears from the Executive response that much work is being done to address any gaps in services for people who suffer from alcohol and drug dependency, and to improve existing services. The response states that progress is being made on the Executive's "Plan for Action on alcohol problems" and its drugs strategy, which are backed by increased funding. However, it also makes the point that local services should decide how best to address local circumstances and needs. That said, the Executive will continue to work closely with alcohol action teams and drug action teams throughout Scotland to introduce new and improved services.

Perth and Kinross Council's view is that progress is being made on developing its local services, and that the process has been assisted by the availability of additional funding from the Executive.

Although the responses appear to be reasonably positive, when the petitioner spoke to the committee, he was particularly critical of the effectiveness of support services. As a result, it is suggested that he should be invited to comment on the information that is provided in the responses. It could also be suggested to the petitioner that—as is mentioned in the Executive's response—the petitioner should liaise with the Executive on his specific concerns about the accessibility of public information.

Are members agreed?

On a point of order, convener. I know that, even if we all agree to the suggested action, it is still read out for the benefit of the Official Report. However, if we are all in agreement and the official reporters have the text of the suggested action in front of them, we could simply say that the committee agrees with the suggested action in the cover note from the words "Suggested action" to the end. That would save the time it takes to read out the text of all the suggested actions. We often did something like that in Westminster committees.

It has been suggested to me that members of the public—as well as the official report—need to hear what is being said. After all, some petitioners might be watching on the internet and will not have the papers in front of them. As a result, reading out the suggested action helps them to make sense of the proceedings. I know that it takes up time, but it is necessary so that people can understand what is going on. Anyway, given that I speak so quickly, I do not think that it makes much difference.

Do members agree the suggested action on PE531?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Doctors (Court Reports) (PE534)

The next petition is PE534, from Mr Duncan Shields on behalf of Fathers Fighting Injustice and the International Men's Organisation, which concerns doctors' reports in court actions. Mr Shields submitted an earlier petition—PE532—on the same issue and was unhappy when the committee decided to take no action on it. He then submitted PE534, which we considered on 3 December. We agreed to ask the Executive for its response to the petition; we have now received that.

Petition PE534 raises concerns about flawed medical reports in courts. It is alleged that the true cause of death in cases of suicide is often concealed in order to cover up circumstances in which court rulings that have prevented fathers from having contact with their children have contributed to the death. However, the Executive makes it clear that it has not investigated the purported link between litigation and family break-ups, and the increase in male suicide. However, the Executive document, "A National Strategy and Action Plan to Prevent Suicide in Scotland" acknowledges divorce as one of many risks that are related to suicide or attempted suicide. The Executive will establish a research programme to improve the quality, collection and availability of information on suicide and suicidal behaviour. It will also promote early and effective interventions and responses to suicidal behaviour. In the light of the Shipman inquiry, the Executive intends in the near future to amend legislation to require general practitioners to report the death of any patient that occurs on surgery premises.

That response appears to be reasonable and addresses in general terms some of the petitioner's concerns. It is suggested that we agree to take no further action on the petition.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Further Education (Funding) (PE552)

The next petition for consideration is PE552 from Marion Fellows, on the subject of further education and, in particular, the current financial crisis at West Lothian College. When the petition was submitted, up to 13 staff at the college were facing redundancy.

We sought the Executive's comments on the petition; its detailed response is included in members' papers. The Executive has made it clear that, far from reneging on the commitment to support West Lothian College's private finance initiative costs, the Scottish Further Education Funding Council has revised its funding arrangements to ensure that that commitment is met. Those revised arrangements have resulted in the college's funding being boosted to cover the projected 2005-06 activity levels four years early—by 2001-02. It is claimed that the college's current financial difficulties do not stem from any perceived failure to honour the commitment that SFEFC made.

Both the Executive and the funding council have made it clear that, although they acknowledge that many colleges are experiencing financial deficits, high priority is being given to achieving financial security throughout the further education sector. Significant additional funding—most recently an additional package of £26 million—has been allocated to the sector to assist in that process. The point is made that, although colleges can enrol as many students as they wish, the funding council can fund only student activity that is in line with its funding agreements with individual colleges. It is for individual college boards to manage that process.

The Executive suggests that one factor that has contributed to West Lothian College's financial problems is the difficulty that the college has experienced in managing its student numbers. It appears that 20 per cent more students have been admitted than were originally allowed for in the college's agreement with the funding council.

It appears that the appropriate action is being taken to address the general issues that the petition raises. The more specific local concerns that prompted the petition—the possibility of staff redundancies at West Lothian College—are a matter for the college's board. It is likely that in the new parliamentary session the successor committee to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee will conduct a review of the recommendations that were made in the report on its inquiry into lifelong learning, which referred to FE sector funding. For that reason, it is suggested that we agree to take no further action on the petition and that we pass copies of the responses to the petitioners and to the clerk to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for information.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Further Education (Funding) (PE561)

The next petition for consideration is from Mrs Mary Beck and relates to the review of the Scottish Further Education Council's revenue funding formula as it affects Hawick. At our meeting in November we agreed to ask the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Further Education Funding Council and Borders College to respond to the petition. All have now done so.

I draw members' attention to the fact that, since the papers were issued, an additional response has been received from Borders College. In that response, the college provides details of meetings that senior staff have had with the Hawick lobby group and other groups of stakeholders, including the new way officers group and the stakeholders consultation group.

The college explains that the proposed rationalisation of its accommodation stems mainly from the requirement for the college to overturn its significant operating deficit within a time frame that has been agreed with the funding council, and to maintain that situation into the future. The college has provided a full explanation of why it has decided to centralise on a single site at Galashiels and why it considers that that will allow it to take a more modern and cost-effective approach to the delivery of further education in the Borders. The college intends to submit to the funding council In March 2003 a full business case that will address the college's long-term property needs. However, that is dependent on the success of an application for funding under the European objective 2 programme, a decision on which is expected shortly.

The funding council has explained that the college cannot assume that any application for capital grant that it makes will be granted. Any application will be assessed carefully in terms of priority, value for money, strategic fit with the FE network and affordability.

The petition was prompted by local concern about the Borders College proposals. Clearly, the funding council will scrutinise and assess those concerns properly in the context of a full business case. It would not be appropriate for the Parliament to interfere in that process. It is also suggested that the issues that have been raised do not appear to justify a more general review of the revenue funding formula for further education colleges in rural Scotland. It is noted that, as a result of dialogue via the college's stakeholders consultation group, the petitioners have presented the college with a list of options that they would like to have considered as part of the business case. Those options are currently being examined.

It is recommended that we agree to take no further action on the petition and that the petitioners be advised to continue to pursue their concerns locally with the college. It is also recommended that we pass copies of the responses to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for information.

Members indicated agreement.

---

A96 Improvements (Elgin Bypass) (PE558)

PE558, from Pauline Taylor on improvements to the A96, was considered at a meeting of the committee in November. We agreed to request the views of the Executive and Moray Council, which have now been received. The Moray Council study on the Elgin bypass will be completed later this month. In view of that news, it is suggested that there would be little point in taking any further action until the study has been completed and the Executive has responded to it. It is therefore recommended that we agree to defer further consideration of the petition until early in the new parliamentary session and that we ask both the Executive and Moray Council to keep the clerks fully informed of any developments in the interim. We might also agree to pass copies of the responses to the Transport and the Environment Committee—for information only, at this stage.

It depends on how many years it would take, I suppose.

I know that it does, but we cannot proceed until the study is published.

---

Wind Farms (North Argyll) (PE493)<br />Renewable Energy Programme (Strategic Environmental Assessments) (PE559)

---

Wind Farms (National Strategy) (PE564)

The next item is PE493 from Miss Marilyn Henderson on behalf of Avich and Kilchrenan community council. Members will recall that we wanted a reply about VisitScotland's research project on the impact of wind farms on tourism. There are also two other petitions about wind farms, from John B P Hodgson on wind farm development in Scotland, and from Mr W R Graham on a national strategy for wind farms.

We have received responses from VisitScotland, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish renewables forum. Obviously, what they say is very different from what the petitioners say. The Scottish Executive has provided a fairly robust defence of its policy on renewable energy projects. Both the Executive and the Scottish renewables forum are of the view that the current planning guidance relating to renewables development is up to date and adequate. The point is made that Scottish targets for renewable energy and planning policy are mutually supportive, with the planning system making positive provision for renewable energy developments while simultaneously ensuring effective development control. The value of a strategic environmental assessment of Scotland's renewable energy programme is also questioned, on the basis that impacts of projects are always site specific rather than general. The forum notes that developers are working proactively with Scottish Natural Heritage and others to discuss projects at an early inception stage, so that the impact can be minimised. It urges the Parliament to support that approach and trusts that good practice, training and support can be developed on renewable developments to ensure that they are properly planned and constructed and that impacts are minimised.

The Executive refutes many of the claims made by the petitioners as to the limited value of renewable energy projects, and their claims that it is exerting undue pressure on planning authorities to approve developments in order to meet renewable targets.

In relation to PE493, VisitScotland states that its research shows that a quarter of visitors say that they will not return to an area in which they feel a wind farm has been insensitively sited, and where it detracts from the scenery that has been a major reason for their visit. VisitScotland therefore believes that there should be a presumption against development within or on the periphery of areas carrying landscape or environmental designations. In other areas, planning policy should aim to avoid saturation development in the countryside. It is suggested that members may wish to consider whether the concerns raised in the petitions, balanced against the responses received, justify further consideration by the Parliament.

Basically, the Executive is saying that there is no need for a strategic approach to the development of wind farms, because it is always site specific. The petitioners hold that that is not the case and that there should be a general policy or strategic overview on this matter. It is up to us to decide whether to pass this matter on to another committee for consideration after the election, or to end it here.

I find it strange that the Executive should suggest that it is exerting no pressure and that no strategic policy is needed, given that it has set the most remarkable targets for renewable energy. On that basis, parliamentarians should not let go of this matter. The petition should be passed on to the relevant committee. I am not sure which committee that would be, but this matter should certainly be passed on.

Okay. However, it has been drawn to my attention that one of the petitioners numbers among wind farm protesters who will stand as candidates in the election to the Scottish Parliament on this issue.

That is nothing to do with us, but we should be concerned with the Executive's response, which is that the Executive has a policy that it must push through. I find that response somewhat surprising.

Is it agreed that we pass the petition to the relevant committee in the new session, as it is too late to do so in the current session?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Domestic Abuse (Support) (PE560)

PE560, from Ms Claire Houghton on behalf of Scottish Women's Aid, is about the protection of children and young people who suffer from abuse. As members will recall, we sought the views of the Scottish Executive and the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on men's violence against women and children. We have now received both responses, which go into some detail.

The Executive states that it already provides funding for the 11 local women's aid groups that currently have no children's workers in order to enable the groups to provide support for the children in those refuges until March 2004. Beyond that date, a strategic approach to the funding of children's support services will be put in place that will involve a variety of partners. Several children's work projects are currently funded by the domestic abuse service development fund. The Executive is also taking steps to ensure a greater level of co-ordination at strategic level across Executive departments in dealing with the issue.

The cross-party group welcomes the Executive's plan to extend funding to ensure that there are more children's workers available in all local authority areas but is concerned that the money is not new money and represents only short-term funding.

The choice before us is whether we think that the Executive's response is reasonable, given the fact that it claims to be addressing the problem through short-term funding and arrangements for longer-term funding beyond March 2004, or whether we think that the petitioners' views on the Executive's response should be sought. We may want to do that in view of the cross-party group's concerns about the nature of the proposed funding. If we were to do so, we could ask the petitioners to comment with a view to dealing with their comments when the new committee is formed after the election.

We should go with option (b).

Okay, we will ask the petitioners for their comments on the Executive's response. The petition will appear again in the new session.

The subject matter of the petition is children and young people who suffer from abuse. Yesterday, a report was published about the plight of children in the care of unfortunate individuals who have fallen under the curse of drugs. Neglect and abuse perhaps go hand in hand, so is there any way of widening the issue? Somewhere along the line, we need to consider the effect of parents who are drug abusers bringing up young children.

We need to deal with the petition that has been presented to us. It would be for the subject committee to decide whether, on the back of the petition, it wanted to broaden out its consideration into other areas. At this stage, we will seek the petitioners' response to the Executive response. Whoever is on the committee after the election can reconsider what to do with the petition at that time.

---

Bus Services (Regulation) (PE420)<br />Rural Bus Services (PE567)

---

Bus Services (Re-regulation) (PE569)

We have been dealing with PE420, from Councillor Sam Campbell on the re-regulation of bus services, for some time. The petition has been linked to two further petitions: PE567, from Mr Rab Amos on public bus services, and PE569, from Mr William David Johnstone Cox on the re-regulation of bus services. The petitions from Sam Campbell and Rab Amos deal with Midlothian, but Mr Cox's petition deals with the Borders, and in particular with the closures that have taken place in Peebles and Kelso.

From the responses that we have received from the Scottish Executive and from Scottish Borders Council, it is clear that there is a big disagreement. The Executive is clearly satisfied that the provisions of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 for quality contracts and quality partnerships allow local authorities an adequate framework within which they can take forward their local transport strategies and revitalise Scotland's bus services. The Executive considers that re-regulation would offer no additional benefits that cannot be provided under the existing legislative framework.

The petitioners who submitted PE420 and PE567, along with Midlothian Council, are of a contrary view. They feel that, although the legislation is helpful, it does not go far enough. Both Midlothian Council and Lothian Buses plc are of the opinion that neither re-regulation nor the implementation of quality contract schemes would address the fundamental problem, which is that councils do not have the money or the resources to subsidise non-profitable bus services in rural communities.

In response to PE569, Scottish Borders Council offers no comment on the new legislative framework but indicates that it does not agree that the current bus service provision is damaging to the economic and social fabric of the Borders. Bus depot closures in the Borders appear to be a purely commercial matter.

We can take two positions on the matter. We could agree with the Executive that the provisions of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which include the quality contract and quality partnership approach, are the right way forward and should be given time to bed in. If members are of that view, they could agree to take no further action on all three petitions. On the other hand, we could agree with the petitioners that the petitions present an opportunity for the relevant provisions of the 2001 act to be reviewed by the successor to the Transport and the Environment Committee in the new session, to determine whether they are effective in practice. If members are of that view, they could agree to refer the petitions to the Transport and the Environment Committee in the new session.

I do not think that there is any harm in suggesting that legislation should be reviewed as time moves on. Indeed, by the time that any committee got round to doing so, the legislation would have had time to bed in. As a result, I recommend that we refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, which will probably not get round to the work before the end of the year. I ask members to support that approach.

I take an opposing view on the matter. We in this new Scottish Parliament have gone to a lot of time and effort to examine the content of and pass a whole raft of bills. Although I recognise that the way in which we consider our legislation is somewhat deficient, and that at times legislative scrutiny is not of the highest standard, I think that reviewing the 2001 act—on a major issue that the Executive must have considered—so shortly after its implementation simply demeans the Parliament. Therefore, I feel that we should choose the first of the suggested actions.

Actually, the second option in the recommendation suggests that we would first consult the Transport and the Environment Committee and find out whether it would be prepared to accept the petitions as a means of reviewing the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. If it said no at that stage, we could decide that there is no point in going forward with the petitions and the matter would stop there. If we choose the second option, the Transport and the Environment Committee will at least be approached in the new session and asked whether it is prepared to consider the petitions as part of the review of the 2001 act.

I am feeling awkward today, convener. It is an absolute nonsense to pull back a bill that we have just put through Parliament on such a major issue. If we had been talking about a minor tweaking, that would be fair enough. However, the petitioners are seeking a major change. If the Executive and the ruling parties have not considered the issues before they put together a bill that we vote for—or, indeed, vote against—they have not done their job. I am prepared to accept that, on this occasion, the Executive has done its job, has considered all aspects and has put through the bill in good faith.

With respect, I think that we must accept that there are many local authorities and individuals out there. I have just had a major public meeting in my constituency on the issue of bus services and will have another one next week. In some areas, the services work very well, but in others, they are not serving the communities' needs. If that is happening because resources are not available, we must revisit the matter. However, that does not mean that we need to revisit the entire act. For example, after receiving representations from doctors, Malcolm Chisholm is revisiting an aspect of one of the bills that he put through Parliament.

No one in the Scottish Executive would claim that all its bills are perfect; there is always scope to do better than we are doing at the moment. We are not doing well enough in the area in question, and people are suffering as a result. As the people from Midlothian and the Scottish Borders pointed out, although many people like to use bus services, they are unable to access them. I can tell the committee for a fact that bus services are an issue in my area; indeed, wherever I have gone in the past few months, I have heard nothing but complaints about bus services across my constituency. The system is not working and we must ensure that people are better served by buses.

For Phil Gallie's benefit, I should point out that the second option under discussion does not suggest that there should be a review of the entire Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Instead, it suggests there should be a review of the sections of the act that deal with subsidies for rail and bus services.

It goes further than that. It pushes us along the lines of re-regulation, which I am sure the Scottish Executive considered. The situation with respect to doctors that Helen Eadie mentioned is entirely different in that a specific, unforeseen flaw has been identified in the legislation in question. Such a minor tweaking could bring major improvements. However, these petitions deal with the philosophy behind and a major aspect of the 2001 act that the Executive should have considered during its passage through Parliament. If the Executive failed to address the issue at the time, it might bring into question the authenticity of the 2001 act itself.

The information from Midlothian Council and Lothian Buses supports your point to some extent. It concerns neither re-regulation nor the implementation of quality contract schemes, but resources. We want to encourage the public to travel by bus, because it is great for all of us that they do that. If resources are not provided, some who want to travel by bus cannot access buses. We must ask for the reasons for that and review the situation. There is nothing wrong with reviewing and revisiting a bit of a policy that is not working. That is all that we ask for; we do not ask for the entire act to be reviewed. Clarification is needed. Many people are hurting because we cannot help them with the provision of buses.

If we cannot reach a resolution, we can have a vote.

Is it not part of the remit of the councils that are involved to provide the services that people in their area require? At present, any one of those councils could adopt the policy that the petitioners seek, but if the issue is resources, to which Helen Eadie referred, that is a matter for the Parliament. If councils require those changes, the Executive must ensure that it can fund them. We should not look to legislative change in such circumstances, because we have the powers already.

Legislative change is not being suggested. Option (b) in our briefing papers suggests that we defer consideration of the petitions until the new session, when the new Transport and the Environment Committee will be asked whether it would be prepared to examine subsidies for rural bus services, which are at the heart of the petitions. We are not asking for a new transport act or for re-regulation.

I suggest that we take a vote and get rid of the matter.

If the Transport and the Environment Committee receives the petitions, what will it consider? Will it consider the allocation of resources? If we are talking about resources, should we not send the petitions to the Finance Committee?

Could we approach the Transport and the Environment Committee first in the new session? We will make no steadfast decision. The question is whether we should keep the petitions going. If we have a vote, I suspect that Phil Gallie will lose.

I do not mind. How I feel is on the record and I will not press the matter to a vote.

Do we agree to option (b) and to refer the petitions to the Transport and the Environment Committee in the next session to find out whether it is interested in taking the issues up? We will draw Phil Gallie's concerns to that committee's attention.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Borders Railway (Stow Station) (PE570)

PE570 is from Mr W J L Jamieson and is about the need to take urgent steps to ensure that towns and villages in the Scottish Borders, such as Stow, are properly served by the proposed Borders railway. We agreed to take up the petition with the Waverley railway partnership, which will sponsor a private bill in Parliament to establish the new Borders railway.

The partnership has replied that it has clear and valid reasons for the decision not to include Stow in the proposals, not least of which is that including it might jeopardise the perception of the line's viability and make much harder the case for reinstating passenger links for the larger population of the central Borders. It is suggested that we agree to defer consideration of the petition until the partnership has introduced the private bill. At that time, the committee could decide whether to refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee's successor for further examination, because it will deal with the bill.

Why not send the petition to that committee now?

That committee will not have time to deal with the petition and the committee will be different when the private bill is introduced.

We are sending PE420, PE567 and PE569 to the present committee.

No—we will send them to the new Transport and the Environment Committee. There is no point in sending PE570 to that committee now, because nothing will be done between now and the end of the month.

Okay.

---

Complementary Medicine (PE571)

PE571 is from Mrs Ethne Brown and is about the implementation of complementary alternative medicine. I declare an interest, as my wife runs a national health service homeopathic clinic in Dundee. We wrote to ask the Executive and the British Medical Association for their responses to the petition. We have also received letters from Dennis Canavan MSP and from the General Osteopathic Council in support of the petition.

The Executive again stresses the need for NHS boards to decide how best to deploy their resources to meet the health care needs of their local populations. It says that it would be inappropriate to introduce legislation to remove NHS board discretion over the provision of complementary alternative medicine. The Executive also highlights that it is funding four current projects and one research fellowship on complementary medicine.

The BMA stresses that the efficacy of complementary medicine must be determined to justify any action that will be taken to introduce a comprehensive provision policy or to implement compulsory training as part of the medical curriculum.

Although it is unlikely that the Executive will move from its firm position on the discretion that NHS boards take in allocating their resources, it is suggested that the committee agree to put the petition on hold until after the election. In the meantime, the clerks will monitor the progress of the Executive's current research projects. As the Executive suggested in its response, the committee may also wish to write to the General Medical Council seeking its comments on the issues that were raised in the petition. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 (PE573)

The final current petition from Dr J Beatson calls for an amendment to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. In particular it calls for the removal of the assessment and certification work requirements that have been placed on general practitioners.

The committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive and the BMA's Scottish general practitioners committee. Responses from both have been received, and it appears from the Executive's response that it recognises the difficulties that general practitioners have in complying with the provisions in part 5 of the 2000 act. The Executive plans to consult on proposals for changes to the code of conduct as well as on amendments to the act itself, including those that the BMA suggested.

It is suggested that the committee agree to put the petition on hold until after the election. In the meantime, the clerks will monitor the progress of the Executive's consultation. Following the election, the new Public Petitions Committee may decide to ask the successor to the Health and Community Care Committee whether it wants to continue considering those petitions.

I welcome the Executive's stand on the matter. I also welcome that it is considering implementing necessary change and wants to proceed as swiftly as possible. Such progress may make it unnecessary to remit the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee.