Public Petitions Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 12, 2004

Official Report 307KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Institutional Child Abuse (PE535)

Item 3 is consideration of current petitions, the first of which is PE535. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to establish an inquiry into past institutional child abuse, in particular abuse of children who were in the care of the state under the supervision of religious orders. The petition also calls for the Executive to make an unreserved apology on behalf of those state bodies and urges the religious orders to apologise unconditionally.

At its meeting on 25 March 2003, our predecessor committee considered responses from the Scottish Executive and the cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse. The committee noted with interest that the Executive was considering some form of inquiry into abuse in institutions, but expressed concern that there was no indication of the timetable for a decision on how the Executive intended to progress that extremely important matter. Our predecessor committee urged the Executive to develop its thinking on the matter and asked for an update to be provided to us early in the new session, if possible by mid-June 2003.

Despite a number of reminders, no response has been received from the Scottish Executive, although Executive officials have told our clerks that we should receive a response soon. We have also received further correspondence from the petitioner in which he argues that Scottish victims and survivors should be given the same recognition as survivors in Ireland. He also notes that

"Counselling, compensation and pastoral services help Irish survivors in the process of healing and reconciliation."

Does any member have a comment to make?

I was, when I read the paper, absolutely appalled to learn that our predecessor committee asked the Executive for a response more than a year ago, but no response has been forthcoming. That is completely unacceptable.

In October last year, following representation by people in my constituency, I wrote to the First Minister. An article had appeared in the Sunday Mail last June in which the First Minister said that he had ordered a study to be carried out into how the Irish Government under Bertie Ahern had progressed the issue. I did not get a response to the letter. In April this year, I wrote again, asking for an answer to my first letter.

Not only has our predecessor committee been badly ignored, but MSPs who have written to the First Minister on the subject have been ignored. I have waited for some seven months for an answer on the issue. I want the committee to write in the strongest possible terms to the Executive to say that it is treating Parliament with contempt, and that it is treating people who have suffered abuse and who are waiting for answers with the same contempt.

Like Linda Fabiani, I have pursued the matter at local level on behalf of a constituent who was abused in care. I have no doubt that the experience in Ireland, Wales and elsewhere has been much more positive in terms of addressing the issues and bringing a sense of closure for those involved. A number of not only emotional, but legislative issues lie behind PE535 and I support the establishment of a commission, an inquiry or some other way of progressing the matter for the survivors who must live with the legacy of abuse.

When I wrote to the Executive, I received responses from the ministers who had responsibility for justice. Although I cannot find the reference, somehow I got a sense that the Executive was considering the establishment of some sort of inquiry. If that is the case, I would support it whole-heartedly. We should pursue ministers for a timetable for the inquiry—people have waited long enough for one.

I agree with what has been said. Given the First Minister's apparent involvement thus far, we might wish to copy the letter from the petitioner to him for information.

I am certainly not an expert on the subject, but the people whom I am helping have expressed the concern that it is likely that some cases will become time barred in respect of compensation. I cannot remember the timescale in which that could happen, but it is another big issue. The delay in putting an inquiry in place could take away the rights of many people.

We discussed a petition earlier this morning in which the delay in a response from ministers was noted. That problem is also apparent in respect of PE535. I know that we have agreed as a committee that we want to tighten up our procedures so that we can keep on top of petitions; the clerks are working hard to sift through the outstanding issues so that we can keep up to speed. That work is part of the reform of the way we do our business.

Given that we have had on a number of occasions to comment on the lack of timeous responses from ministers, and that the First Minister is responsible for ministers and for how they respond, it would not be wrong of us to ask the First Minister to ensure that he and his ministers treat the Public Petitions Committee with some respect and give us the timeous responses that we seek. It is important that we do not go from one meeting to the next without eliciting a response from the responsible minister on an issue as important as this.

On that point, which is separate from the agenda item that we are discussing, it must be possible for the committee clerks each month to generate a report for us on the responses that have been received. I could provide the clerks with a piece of paper—if they do not already have it—that highlights the fact that such software is available.

The clerks have a grid in which they try to do something similar to that. If you wanted to approach them on the matter, I know that they would respond to any assistance that you could give. However, they have a mechanism for recording the information. The reform of how we do our business is designed partly to enable the clerks to remain focused on the position that has been reached with petitions and responses to them. I am sure that they would welcome an opportunity to talk to you.

I suggest that a report highlighting the cases in which we have been awaiting a response for more than six months be attached to the agenda for each meeting.

I am not trying to dissuade you, but I am not sure that it is appropriate to discuss in public how the clerks operate. It may be more helpful for you to discuss the matter with them privately than to do so in an open forum such as this.

A number of recommendations have been made in relation to the petition. It has been suggested that we write back to the minister, that we write to the First Minister and that we seek the information that the petitioner wants. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 (PE601)

The next petition for consideration is PE601, on solicitors' monopoly on paid court representation. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to commence sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, which will allow interested parties to make a submission for rights of audience in Scottish courts.

At its meeting on 3 March 2004, the committee considered responses from the Executive and the petitioner and agreed to request further clarification from the Executive on the issues that are raised by the petition. In its response, the Executive states that it

"does however wish a more certain evidence base on which to found a decision on whether or not to commence sections 25 to 29 of the 1990 Act. As our legal services market is very different in nature and scale from the much larger market in England and Wales, it would not be prudent to base a decision in Scotland simply on experience south of the border, however that experience is assessed."

The Executive confirms that it intends to commission research into the legal services market in Scotland and that it will let the committee know the outcome of its review of the research findings.

The petitioner has provided further material in support of his petition, in which he states:

"The case for research into the legal services market is to be blunt a ‘red herring'."

In a letter dated 1 April 2004, he states:

"It seems that the Justice Minister has made up her mind as to the outcome of the legal services research she has instigated and that there is to be no competition for Solicitors."

Mr Alexander also suggests that competition matters affecting the legal profession are reserved and come under the direct jurisdiction of the Office of Fair Trading.

Is there any indication of a timescale for the research?

There is no such indication in the papers that I saw.

I understand why the petitioner feels that it is a fudge for someone to say that they will examine an issue and do some research but not to indicate how or when that research will be done. That does not invite confidence. I am not giving an opinion on what I think the minister intends to do. However, I understand the dissatisfaction of petitioners who are told more than a year down the line that further research is required but the Executive does not know how or when that will be done.

I agree. Is it within our remit to write to the OFT to ask it how it views the situation in Scotland? Are we technically competent to do that?

I think that we are. The OFT covers issues in Scotland, including issues that relate to the Scottish Parliament. There is no reason why we should not write to the OFT.

Were the OFT to express a view on the matter, that might be further ammunition to encourage the Executive to move in one direction or another.

Are members happy to seek a response from the OFT and timescales for the research from the Executive?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Local Archives (PE628)

The third current petition is PE628, which is on local display and storage of Scotland's archives. The petition asks us to consider the introduction of guidance for local authorities to establish best practice for keeping, displaying and storing Scotland's archives where they are relevant locally. It also asks that such archives be publicised and that we ensure that such heritage is not damaged or diminished because of the lack of a national policy.

At its meeting on 25 June 2003, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive and the Society of Archivists and to ask Scottish Borders Council to provide details of its proposals to relocate the Selkirk archives. The Executive response states:

"The Scottish Executive recognises the cultural and historic importance of Scottish archives, at both national and local level, and is keen to see them properly preserved so that the best use can be made of them. It is not, however, for the Scottish Executive to tell local authorities where to locate their records or archives—that is entirely a matter for the authorities themselves to decide."

The Executive also states that it has begun preparatory work on the development of a Scottish public records strategy—or SPRS—which will introduce measures for managing public records in the 21st century. The particular needs of local archives will be an important part of the SPRS.

The response from Scottish Borders Council states that the council supports the petitioners' suggestion that the Executive should introduce guidance and make proposals on how archives should be publicised. Despite several reminders, no response has been received from the Society of Archivists.

Do members have any comments?

This is quite a common problem throughout the country. It is commonly known—as the Executive response states—that responsibility for the archives rests with local authorities. However, many local authorities find themselves in difficulties. As space for storing archives is scarce, the archives are invariably removed to a central location in order to safeguard them for future generations, which is not the best use of the archives. The petitioners clearly want us to encourage local authorities to retain their archives where they are relevant. There is no point in having an archive in Edinburgh that relates to somewhere quite remote from it.

Selkirk is in my constituency, so I have liaised with the petitioners and Scottish Borders Council, which proposes to move the archives to Hawick, which is not in my constituency but in that of my colleague, Euan Robson. Obviously, we separate on this issue.

In my latest discussions with Scottish Borders Council, the archive officers told me that their choice of location for the archives relied on the advice of the Keeper of the Records of Scotland, who had concerns about the safety of the archives in their current location. That is what stimulated the move to Hawick.

My discussions were about public access to the Selkirk archives, which are arguably important to the culture not only of the Borders but of Scotland, especially because they contain the decree in which Sir Walter Scott was made sheriff of Selkirk. It may be useful for the committee to know that we discussed how the records could be scanned and made available over the internet. Scottish Enterprise owns a converted mill in Selkirk that has access to broadband, which would provide an excellent location for viewing the records in a way that was both safe for the archives and accessible for school groups and others.

However, the council is relying on the Executive to introduce a strategy to indicate how scanning should take place and what processes should be used. It would be useful if the committee could make progress on that. When the move goes ahead, it would certainly reassure users of the Selkirk archives to be told that they would have access to the records through a medium that belongs to the 21st century rather than the probably limited access that was previously available in what was a rather unsafe room.

I wonder whether we could invite the Executive to tell us whether a strategy such as that could be part of the SPRS that they are establishing. We could ask whether use of the internet to provide access to such records is part of the SPRS. We cannot ask specifically about the Borders as that is a matter for Scottish Borders Council to deal with—I think that members appreciate that.

That is a good idea. Another suggestion is that we could copy the Executive's response to Scottish Borders Council, point out in our covering letter that accessibility could be provided in new and innovative ways and encourage the council to do so. That perhaps accommodates the point that Jeremy Purvis raised.

Would that allow us to close the petition?

We will have to wait until we get a response from the Executive. I expect that the Executive will either say yes or no. We will ask the Executive whether internet technology will be used as part of its strategy and when have received a reply we can determine whether to close the petition.

Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Forestry Commission (Consultation Guidance) (PE691)

The next petition is PE691, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the Forestry Commission's implementation of its guidance on consultation with residents of areas that have widespread logging, drainage and planting activity nearby.

At its meeting on 7 January 2004, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive to seek its comments on the issues that are raised in the petition and an indication of whether it is content that the Forestry Commission adheres to its guidance on consultation. The Scottish Executive passed the committee's request to Forestry Commission Scotland, which states in its response:

"In relation to the concerns of the Burnawn Residents Group, as expressed through Boyd Calder's petition, we can assure the Committee that Forestry Commission Scotland has adhered to its guidance in relation to consultation, and has sought to encourage the various parties involved to discuss their concerns."

The commission provides details of its consultation procedures and a case history of the issue identified by the petitioners. Do members have any comments?

I think that there is nothing else that we can do except send the response to the petitioners and ask for their comments. We can then reconsider the petition.

I was concerned that the paragraph that the convener read out from Forestry Commission Scotland's response states that it had "adhered to its guidance". Does that mean that it has adhered to the forestry guidance? If so, it might be worth asking about the comparability of the forms of guidance because as we all know—we have seen it ad nauseam in health boards throughout Scotland—different ways of consulting can produce different results. I would like clarification on that point. We should perhaps write to the Forestry Commission to ask what its guidelines are and on what basis it formulates them.

The guidelines are clearly set out. From the response that Forestry Commission Scotland has given, it is clear that it has adhered to the guidelines that are set out by Government on felling licences and consultation.

The point is that we know that for a long period of time guidelines have been updated regularly in different agencies and different Government departments, but we have uncovered that in some cases the last time that the guidelines were updated was a date that was not acceptable. That is the clarification that I seek. It would be useful to write to the Forestry Commission to ask it for a copy of the guidelines and to find out when they were last updated.

When the petition was originally presented, I think that it was determined that most of the activity to which the complaint relates took place on private property and was being undertaken by a private contractor outwith the remit of the Forestry Commission, although it issued the licence for the operation to go ahead. I do not think that the Forestry Commission had hands-on involvement.

In response to Helen Eadie's comments, I think that the point of the petition was that the petitioners were aware of what the guidance was and they did not believe that the Forestry Commission was adhering to its own guidance. That was the problem.

The Forestry Commission has written back to say that it thinks that it has adhered to its guidance. If we were to write to the petitioners, we could ask them to clarify where they think that the Forestry Commission has not adhered to its guidance and we could take matters from there. I do not think that our receiving the guidance would help us to consider the petition.

I am happy to support that, but there is the gatekeeper issue. The Forestry Commission is saying what the guidance is, but I would be happier if we could see what the guidance is.

If I may, I will try to explain the point. I think that there has been a misunderstanding on the part of the petitioners, who think that the Forestry Commission has somehow not followed the guidance. It is my understanding that the consultation process takes place before the tree-felling licence is granted; the note accompanying the Forestry Commission's letter confirms that. Thereafter, everything flows from that—there is no separate consultation for the replanting that takes place after felling.

The petitioners were concerned about the fact that the consultation took place before the felling licence was granted. They were worried about the fact that the Forestry Commission had allowed forestry drainage to begin before any input or objections from members of the public or statutory bodies had been received and considered, but such objections should have been submitted and considered before the tree-felling licence was granted rather than after the trees had been felled and replanting was to take place.

In my view, the Forestry Commission has given a very full response and the tone of its letter indicates that it has behaved entirely appropriately.

I accept the convener's suggestion.

We will ask the petitioners to give us a response. That will enable us to assess the issue from both sides. Is that fair?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Traffic Commissioners (PE692)

Our next petition is PE692, which relates to the responsibilities of the Scottish traffic commissioner. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the Scottish Executive's role in the appointment of the Scottish traffic commissioner; to consider whether road, freight and passenger transport should be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament; and to advise whether the Parliament can debate the alleged discrimination against Scottish businesses by traffic commissioners.

At its meeting on 7 January 2004, the committee agreed to seek clarification from the Executive on its responsibilities in relation to the work of the Scottish traffic commissioner and confirmation of whether individuals may seek redress for any problems that they may have with the actions of the STC. The committee has received a response from the Scottish Executive, in which it states:

"Issues relating to the registration of bus services are devolved but the other functions of the STC are reserved."

The Executive also provides details of where redress in relation to the STC's decisions may be sought. Do members have any views on that?

I seek clarification. I meant to read the Official Report of our previous discussion of the petition before I arrived, but I did not—I am sorry. From our papers, I am aware that we agreed to ask only about the traffic commissioner element of the petition; we have not addressed points (b) or (c). There must have been a reason for our not doing that, and I meant to look back to find out what it was. Can anyone refresh my memory?

I think that it was because it was clear that points (b) and (c) were identifiable as reserved matters.

That is what we agreed at the time.

Yes.

That is fine; thank you.

I presume that that closes our consideration of the petition, unless—

I agree that it closes our consideration of the petition. We agreed to investigate matters further and we have now done so. The response from the Executive is clear. I suggest that, if Trans Consult Co UK Ltd has lingering concerns, it should raise them with the Transport Tribunal.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Disabled People (Local Transport) (PE695)

Our next petition is PE695, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to ensure that local authorities make available affordable and accessible local transport to disabled people who cannot use public transport and asks that ring-fenced funding be provided to allow local authority and/or community groups to establish dial-a-ride projects for that purpose.

At its meeting on 7 January 2004, the committee agreed to write to the Executive to seek its comments on the issues raised in the petition and to say that it would welcome further details of the measures that the Executive was taking to promote accessible transport schemes for people with disabilities, especially in urban areas. In particular, the committee requested details of any plans to roll out to other areas the pilot schemes that operate in Angus and Aberdeenshire or to provide funding to ensure that local authorities provide dial-a-bus, dial-a-ride and other relevant services. The committee has received a response from the Scottish Executive, in which it states:

"Under the Partnership Agreement the Executive is committed to assessing improved public transport concessions for people with disabilities."

Do members have views on the response?

Perhaps we could obtain some other stakeholders' views. The committee could invite the Disability Rights Commission Scotland and the Scottish Disability Equality Forum to say whether disability issues have been addressed. That would help.

Are members happy to do that?

We could also invite comments from the petitioners.

We will reply to them with the responses. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Census Forms (Legal Status) (PE697)

The next petition is PE697, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the information on a census form should have the same legal standing as that on a birth certificate.

At its meeting on 21 January 2004, the committee agreed to seek the Executive's comments on the issues that the petition raises. The committee has received a response from the Registrar General for Scotland, on behalf of the Scottish Executive, in which he states:

"It is not possible in the conduct of a census to include the quality checks on individuals' responses which would be necessary to give them the evidential status of statutory register entries."

He also notes:

"From my perspective, therefore, I recommend that the Parliament should not support the petition."

Do members agree with him?

Members indicated agreement.

In that case, we will close consideration of the petition.

---

Minority Sports (Funding) (PE699)

Our last current petition, PE699, concerns sportscotland's policy on funding for talented athletes. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to review sportscotland's vision world class policy and to ensure the equal treatment of world-class athletes by sportscotland and the national lottery.

At its meeting on 21 January 2004, the committee agreed to seek the comments of the Scottish Executive and sportscotland on the issues that the petition raises. The Executive's reply says:

"The Scottish Executive is satisfied that sportscotland is prioritising sports in an appropriate manner according to agreed corporate objectives across the three Sport 21 visions: Widening Opportunities, Developing Potential and Achieving Excellence."

In response to the committee's concerns about consultation, sportscotland said:

"we find it difficult therefore to accept that we have not communicated our intentions with key stakeholders in sport and, indeed, other interested parties over these last couple of years."

The committee may wish to consider whether the response adequately addresses the committee's concerns about the scope and short period of the consultation on sportscotland's achieving excellence strategy. The committee may also wish to note that neither response addresses the petitioners' claim that sportscotland has £13 million in reserve funds.

Jeremy Purvis came to the meeting to speak to this petition, although he took the opportunity earlier to speak to another petition. I will give him the opportunity to comment first.

I am grateful for that and for the opportunity to speak to the earlier petition.

As the convener said, the responses highlight the fact that several matters are outstanding. I declare that I am a signatory to the petition. I cannot speak on behalf of all the petitioners, but I think that a great lack of clarity remains in the Executive and sportscotland about sportscotland's strategies.

I am a member of the Finance Committee, which has examined several targets on culture. Some targets relate to medal winners and success, whereas other Executive strategies concern widening access. The committee could choose to obtain a better understanding of how the talented athletes who are involved in minor sports, in participation terms, will fit into the wider strategies. The Executive has not addressed that. A high level of uncertainty remains about how sportscotland will interpret the Executive's position and its relationship with some of those groups, which have a big impact on communities but do not have the wider impact that soccer and rugby have.

Issues remain about the need for clarity from the Executive and about how some of the smaller sports, including field archery, can link in and have a voice in the process. If the committee decides to take further action, it could seek clarity in relation to those areas and it could ask the petitioners to comment on the responses from sportscotland and the Executive. There is still quite a gap between the views of the petitioners and the views that are stated in the responses.

I agree with Jeremy Purvis. We should write again to the Executive and to sportscotland for further clarification and we should write to the petitioners.

We could refer the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee, which has taken evidence from sportscotland. We discussed that option, especially in relation to the reserved funds, the first time that we considered the petition. Sport is part of the Enterprise and Culture Committee's remit and it would be useful if that committee could consider the matter and the issue of minority sports that Jeremy Purvis outlined.

When we invite sportscotland to give a more detailed response about the scope and short period of the consultation on the achieving excellence strategy, we should also follow up the petitioners' claims that sportscotland has £13 million in reserve and ask the organisation to respond to them.

In relation to the point that Linda Fabiani made, it has just been pointed out to me that the Enterprise and Culture Committee considered the matter in the context of the budget review.

The Enterprise and Culture Committee could widen the scope of its consideration—

That affects our decision about what to do with the petition. As I said earlier—and as I have said at other meetings—the Public Petitions Committee does not, as a general rule, contact the Executive and another committee at the same time.

I suggest that we seek more information from the Executive. If we think that issues are still outstanding after we have received the Executive's response, we can refer the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee and ask the committee to consider the problems that it highlights.

Okay. I go along with that.

For information, I am a member of the Enterprise and Culture Committee and I can confirm that we have touched on the issues that have been raised only in the context of our deliberations on the budget. There are no plans in the committee's current work programme to consider the matter more widely. The Public Petitions Committee may decide to refer the matter to the Enterprise and Culture Committee—I will say nothing about that or I might fall out with my colleagues on that committee.

We do not have to decide that this morning.

I just note that the Enterprise and Culture Committee has touched on the issue, but it is fair to say that it has not gone beyond that.

I do not want to pre-empt this committee's decision, but when we receive the Executive's response we could refer the matter to the Enterprise and Culture Committee for information.

I have two points. First, Ian Robson said in his letter to the committee that if the London bid to host the 2012 Olympics is successful, there is likely to be an adverse effect on the money that is available to sportscotland. I am extremely concerned about that.

Secondly, we should ask sportscotland to clarify how it prioritises individual sports. Although the priorities are perfectly laudable—I must declare an interest, because I am a curler—I am intrigued to know why the table entitled "Prioritisation of Sports Scores—Vision World Class" shows curling as the second highest priority, when other sports that might have greater participation are much lower in the pecking order. We are trying to tackle obesity and I would be interested to know whether sportscotland or the Executive sets the criteria.

We have highlighted a few outstanding points on which we would welcome further clarification. Perhaps we should keep the petition open until we receive further responses. We can then decide whether to refer the petition to another committee for information or to ask that other committee to address the points that have been identified. Are members happy with that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank everyone for their participation in the meeting.

Meeting closed at 12:44.