Public Petitions Committee, 12 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 12, 2000

Official Report 288KB pdf

---

New Petitions

The first new petition is from Jim Gibson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to remedy the water price increases in the North of Scotland Water Authority area by ensuring that there is effective democratic scrutiny of the public service. I invite Jim Gibson and Bob Petrie, the petitioners, to come forward.

Before they start, I should declare an interest. I know both petitioners. They come from Dundee, and are members of my party, but that does not prejudice me in any way. I shall listen objectively to what they have to say. Jim, would you like to address the committee for a few minutes?

First, Bob Petrie and I represent the Campaign for Lower Water Charges; we are not here as individuals. Our petition was raised under that campaign's banner. I will make a brief statement, then field questions.

The petition is presented by the Campaign for Lower Water Charges in the wake of unprecedented increases in water prices in the North of Scotland Water Authority area. The range of price increases was staggering, starting at around 30 per cent and rising to 46.6 per cent in the Dundee area. It should be noted that the price increases took effect on 1 April. Public anger at the price increases was compounded by the total lack of public consultation. We look now to the Scottish Parliament for some kind of redress and balance. In the absence of other local mechanisms, we feel that there is a role for the Parliament in protecting domestic consumers.

Ostensibly, the price increases were caused by the need for investment in the infrastructure to meet European standards on water and sewage. We have no argument with the need for investment, but we advocate that it is unacceptable that domestic consumers should bear so much of the brunt of the increases. We would like the Parliament to take action in the following areas, which we call the "three Rs".

First, we would like a system of rebates to be established to protect the vulnerable against a regressive flat-rate tax. It is unacceptable to us that the poorest sections of society should have to bear a disproportionate burden. We seek redress. Secondly, we petition you on the basis that there should be a genuine mechanism of redress for domestic consumers. There is a role for Parliament in capping price increases beyond a certain level. Lastly, we seek a review. We ask the Parliament to undertake a full investigation and audit of the Scottish water industry to determine whether there is scope to rationalise the industry's structure to ensure economies of scale, alternative sources of revenue other than taxpayers, and long-term investment in the industry. We do not believe that there is a case for privatising this vital public asset.

Our campaign seeks to make a positive contribution to the debate on the future management of the water industry, but we look to the Parliament to resolve some of the initial problems.

Thank you. Papers were sent out to committee members before the meeting, but since then we have received a response from the North of Scotland Water Authority, which details the role of the water industry commissioner for Scotland in reviewing charges for water and sewerage services. The petitioners probably have not seen that response yet, but we will make it available to them after the meeting. Members received the response only today, as they arrived for the meeting.

I welcome Fergus Ewing, Margaret Ewing and Jamie McGrigor to the committee. Jamie is here not for this petition but the next. Fergus wants to participate in the questioning of the petitioners. Do any members have questions?

Are the petitioners aware that many MSPs have called for rebates on water charges similar to the rebates on council taxes?

Yes.

Paragraph 4 of your petition gives an interesting list of suggestions that you ask the Parliament to consider. It is for the committee to decide, but do you think that those suggestions should be submitted directly to the Minister for Transport and the Environment?

Yes. I see no harm in that whatsoever.

We are told in the letter of 11 September that the water industry commissioner—I am not sure whether the commissioner is a man or a woman—is holding public meetings. Would it be useful for you to speak directly to the commissioner?

We would very much like to speak to the commissioner; the problem is that access to him is very restricted. We are not at all sure what his remit is. In essence, our role is to fight the corner for the consumers, because nobody else seems to be prepared to do that. That is why the campaign was started.

Are you aware that the minister has the right to cap price increases that are proposed by the water authorities?

No, I was not aware of that.

The letter that we all received mentions the fact that the minister can cap those increases.

You mentioned consultation, and Christine Grahame picked up on that point. The letter talks about the second round of consultation and about tendering for a four-year process. It says that the Executive will hold public consultation. Would you have much faith in that consultation?

We would have to wait and see what happens with that. We are open-minded about it. If the minister has the power to cap, that is excellent and I would be delighted to talk to her about it.

You mention that the north of Scotland faces unique challenges. Services are being delivered to some of the most remote places. Do you not feel that, in a country with a social conscience, prices should not be so high?

I agree entirely. I would add that we may have to consider further rationalisation of the water industry to establish a fair redistributive mechanism, especially in terms of flat-rate taxes and rebates.

You say, rightly, that water charges are unfairly high, especially for pensioners and the low paid. Are you aware that the water industry commissioner, who describes himself as the "customer's champion", thought that the charges should be even higher for both this year and next year?

I was not aware of that; it is shocking. However, I do not know whether it is in the commissioner's remit to fight the corner for the domestic consumer. He does not project himself in that way at all. In a sense, even if he had that role, we have usurped it.

Katharine Bryan is the chief executive of NOSWA. One of the meetings that she referred to took place in Inverness. At the end of that meeting, on my instigation, four straw polls were held. Every one of the 200 plus people in the room voted that they were dissatisfied with the water industry commissioner in his role as a consumer watchdog.

I can understand that. We may well have to consider the commissioner's role.

Do you feel that the commissioner serves no useful function and that the £1 million cost of his office might be better spent on a rebate scheme for pensioners and those on low incomes?

Let us be open-minded about this. We do not know what sort of rebate £1 million could pay for. However, if we are to have a review of the industry, as I have suggested we should, we could consider that.

Do you feel that the chief executive of NOSWA—whose salary, I believe, is around £120,000—is paid too much? The First Minister's salary is substantially lower than that of water authority chief executives.

It is good work if you can get it. For us, the real issue is rebates for the lower paid and the vulnerable in Scottish society.

It would be helpful to the committee if we could stick to the petition and what it calls for.

I am picking up on points that arise directly from Mrs Bryan's letter of 11 September.

We can discuss those points later. At the moment, we are trying to elicit information from the petitioners.

Are the petitioners not certain whether the water industry commissioner should be saved or scrapped?

We want to promote the rights of domestic consumers—that is, households in the Dundee and north of Scotland areas. We have to be open-minded when considering such matters as the role of the water commissioner. I would advocate the case for a review; but, personally, I would need more information before I was prepared to pass judgment.

Thank you. We always give petitioners the chance to answer questions before we have a discussion in the committee. The petitioners are welcome to stay and listen to the discussion and to hear what we decide to do with the petition.

The letter from Katharine Bryan, the chief executive of NOSWA, was circulated only when members came into the room. It refers to the minister's capping powers, and says that the minister capped the increases in the West of Scotland Water Authority and the East of Scotland Water Authority this year, and that she intends to use the power next year for the North of Scotland Water Authority. I appreciate that members have not had the chance to take all that into consideration.

Given what the petitioners have said, and given the contents of the letter from NOSWA that deals with the commissioner's role, I feel that the commissioner is not really pertinent to the petition, as he simply carries out the powers that are given to him by Parliament. This is a political issue, to be resolved with the minister, so the recommendation is that we seek the views of the Minister for Transport and the Environment on the petition, before we reach a final decision. It is important to get ministerial input.

When we refer the petition to the minister, will we pass on the letter as well?

Yes.

The part about capping should be underlined. I appreciate that the minister will be aware of that power, but we should emphasise it.

I would like to ask the minister to ask the water industry commissioner whether he will hold a meeting in Dundee in response to the petition, so that the people involved can make their wishes known. I do not know how many meetings have been held so far, apart from the one in Inverness.

I do not know whether we can do this, but I would like us to reply to the petitioners to give them an exact definition of the water industry commissioner's remit. The petitioner kept saying that he did not know what that remit was, so a definition would be useful.

The chief executive of NOSWA, in her letter to the clerk of the committee, refers to the fact that the water industry commissioner is holding meetings throughout Scotland. To my certain knowledge, because I was there, the meeting in Inverness resulted in votes from all the members of the public who were present that indicated utter dissatisfaction with the water industry commissioner and with NOSWA. People felt that the charges were unfair to both domestic and business customers. The votes were almost unanimous. The votes were taken because I asked the audience whether they wished to vote; the chairman of the meeting—who is supposed to be on the consultative committee for NOSWA—refused to allow a vote to be taken.

Katharine Bryan knows all that. Members of my party met her last week. At that meeting, I asked what NOSWA would do differently following the consultation meeting in Inverness, at which NOSWA received what might be described as a massive vote of no confidence. The response was that nothing would be done differently. It would be helpful for the committee to ask Mrs Bryan for clarification of what has happened at all the consultation meetings to date. What is the point of having such meetings if we are not told about the views that are expressed and about the upshot?

As a point of information, Katharine Bryan states in the penultimate paragraph of her letter that NOSWA's average charge is £237. There are at least three ways of calculating that average, and she picked the one that produces the lowest figure. NOSWA's band D water charges are almost exactly £300.

As a point of clarification, it would be helpful to find out whether like has been compared with like in Katharine Bryan's comparison between the NOSWA average and that of South West Water. Did the comparison use the band D figure, or was it calculated on some other basis? That information would help the committee's further consideration of the petition.

I am sorry to have taken up so much time, convener.

I agree with Fergus Ewing's proposal to seek the views of the Minister for Transport and the Environment. I also want to highlight the fact that the Transport and the Environment Committee will hold an inquiry into the water industry, probably after stage 2 of the Transport (Scotland) Bill.

I met Mr Sutherland, the water industry commissioner. I found it easy to get hold of his remit, as it is readily accessible through the Scottish Parliament information centre. I had the benefit of his good offices in helping me to resolve a problem in my area that had been going on for 10 years. My constituents were delighted with the outcome. I welcome the appointment of the water industry commissioner for Scotland.

The value of commissioners is that they can become involved in dispute resolution as well as a variety of other matters for which they have a remit. I was one of only two MSPs who went to the water industry conference in July, which was jointly sponsored by the GMB union and the water industry. At the conference, those who work in the water industry called for investment. They can see at close hand the implications for people in Scotland if we do not modernise our water and sewerage services and if we do not meet the requirements of a variety of European Union directives. We should make that investment not for the sake of it, but because the health and safety of people across Scotland depend on levels of investment. We all hear that no one wants to pay for that investment: people do not want to pay for anything, through direct or indirect taxation, but the bottom line is that we must invest in the water industry.

I am conscious of the fact that we are 20 to 25 minutes into the meeting but we have not yet dealt with the first petition. The discussion is broadening out beyond what the petitioners are calling for.

There is a consensus to seek the views of the Minister for Transport and the Environment on what the petitioners are calling for—we agree to that.

Members indicated agreement.

As part of that exercise, we can ask the minister to give details to the committee about the role of the water industry commissioner in holding public meetings around Scotland, which we can pass on to the petitioners.

This discussion is timely: we will have time to get the views of the minister before the Transport and the Environment Committee has time to consider the petition. We will receive the minister's views before we decide whether to refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee.

We received a response from NOSWA, but we should not deal with it at this stage as it relates to a different petition. We will add that response to the correspondence that has been received about the other petition, to consider what to do with it along with PE243. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The second petition is PE246, from Kildalton and Oa community council, Kilarrow and Kilmeny community council, Kilchoman and Partnahaven community council, Councillor J Findlay and Councillor R Currie. PE246 is about the designation of special areas of conservation in the south-east Islay Skerries. A representative of the petitioners, Mr Ian Mitchell, will address the committee in support of the petition. Mr Mitchell, you may address the committee for two minutes, following which we shall ask questions.

I am deputising for Richard Grey, who is the chairman of the Kildalton and Oa community council, which is particularly affected by the proposed seal sanctuary to be located in the community council's area. Mr Grey runs the local post office and I am afraid that he did not think he could afford the time to come to Edinburgh. I wrote the objection document to the proposal, which was submitted to Scottish Natural Heritage at the time of its consultation, so I can answer questions on it.

We are against the sanctuary for two reasons. First, it has no scientific legitimacy. I hope that it is clear from the documents that I sent with the petition that the proposal was made a year and a half ago on a slightly different basis from the present proposal. The original proposal was for a site of special scientific interest so it was investigated by the Government's independent advisory committee of scientists, which looks into proposals for SSSIs where objections have been raised. That committee found that the scientific basis behind the designation proposal was inadequate. No work has been done since then, and we are still sitting with a designation proposal that does not have the approval of the independent scientists. All that SNH has done is to change a proposal for a designated SSSI, to which there is a statutory right of objection, to a proposal for a European designation of special area of conservation, to which there is a right of objection but no right of independent arbitration, which exists with an SSSI.

SNH is pushing exactly the same designation through a different bureaucratic route because the scientific basis behind the original proposal was rejected. The fact that no new work has been done indicates to us that SNH is not serious about trying to get a proper scientific justification together for the proposal. It has had a year and a half in which further scientific work could have been done to justify the designation, but it has not done that work.

Secondly, the designation lacks any form of democratic legitimacy. As I emphasised in the little document that came with the petition, when SNH designated the area, it took steps to ensure that the local community was not aware of the designation until after the closing date for the legitimate submission of public comments. That meant that anyone who then took up their right to submit comments on the original SSSI designation proposal was told that they were out of time. Then the scientific objection was made and upheld, so the designation fell.

SNH has now submitted the other designation proposal. People feel that there is nothing they can do about it, except to write a strong objection document to the minister, which was copied to members with the petition, and to invoke the powers of the Public Petitions Committee to bring some kind of rationality to the matter.

All three community councils voted against the designation, as did both the councillors who represent the island. Argyll and Bute Council voted unanimously against the designation and the local MSP is making representations against it to the minister. Not a single democratically elected representative is in favour of the proposal, and one would be hard put to find anyone on the island who supports it, apart from a few people who might stand to gain financially from it. All the fishermen and local residents are against it. Anyone who walks in the area is against it as they are frightened that the area will be closed off, and anyone who is interested in the tourist economy of the island is also against it.

The proposal has no democratic legitimacy; that is why we hope that the Parliament might be able to shine some democratic light on what we regard as bureaucratic bullying. The seals do not need it and the people do not want it. Therefore, we do not understand why the proposal should go ahead.

Thank you, Mr Mitchell.

Jamie McGrigor MSP is here to join the discussion about this petition. I received a note from George Lyon, who is the member for Argyll and Bute, saying that he is unable to attend the meeting as he has been called back to his constituency. He wanted to express his support for the petition, which he believes shows the strength of feeling in the community against designation as a special area of conservation. He urges the committee to take into account the scale of public opposition to the proposal and to pass the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee.

You said that no new work had been done since the initial scientific analysis, which indicated that there were insufficient grounds for granting SSSI designation, was carried out. However, our information is that revised scientific advice was produced subsequently by SNH, and that the Executive is using that advice.

The scientific advice consisted of a rearrangement of the existing figures. SNH did not do any further work or present any new seal statistics. It produced a view of the figures—it put statistical spin on them. It went on to put forward an argument based on density instead of population. Because of the way it had drawn the boundaries, it arrived at a high density of seals. I go into that in detail in my accompanying document. Basically, it was statistical sleight of hand. The density of seals would obviously be 100 per cent if the special area of conservation were the size of just one seal; the density would be negligible if the SAC were the size of Scotland. It is just about manipulating the borders. It is not new scientific work; it just puts a different gloss on existing work.

No survey or count of the seals was made in 1999. I do not know why: if SNH is interested in the number of seals, it would surely count them, but it did not even commission the sea mammal research unit of the University of St Andrews to count them last year. Nor has it this year, to my knowledge. It will not tell us.

We have been told that a consultation exercise has recently been completed. You mentioned a number of democratic bodies opposed to the designation—which was impressive. Were they part of the consultation?

They all submitted letters, which are contained as appendices to the document I submitted.

When was the consultation?

It was carried out recently. I think that the closing date was 29 March this year.

I would like to support this petition. It is ridiculous that a body such as SNH can trample over the wishes of community councils and Argyll and Bute Council. The Scottish Parliament is here to stop just this sort of thing.

Did SNH make any representations to any local people before this issue arose? Did it consult people in the area who knew about a possible shortage of seals? Did it ask any questions locally?

No. The only direct approach by SNH was to the Kildalton and Oa community council at the time of the first designation, which was of the site of special scientific interest. SNH offered to come round and give a briefing at a community council meeting. A woman from SNH did that, but said that there was no point in our objecting because the designation would go ahead anyway.

I asked a written parliamentary question on 30 June on this subject. It read:

"To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will give an assurance to Argyll and Bute Council and local community councils opposed to designation that the South-East Islay Skerries will not be designated as a Special Area of Conservation for common seals until the further scientific work identified in February 1999 by the Advisory Committee on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) as necessary before the area could be designated as an SSSI has been completed."

The answer I received from the Minister for Transport and the Environment was:

"The South East Islay Skerries will not be proposed as a candidate Special Area of Conservation unless there is a sound scientific case for doing so."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 30 June 2000; Vol 7, p 288.]

Anyone on the west coast will say that a shortage of seals is not the problem; an overabundance of seals tends to be the problem. I rest my case on that point. I think that this petition is very powerful and I give it my full support.

If no one has any further questions, I thank Mr Mitchell and we will now proceed to a discussion on the petition.

Members can see the suggested action on this petition: that the revised scientific advice that was produced by Scottish Natural Heritage was—whatever we might think—judged by the Executive to be sufficient to justify the consultation exercise it has now undertaken. Responses to the consultation are currently being scrutinised.

It is suggested that it would be inappropriate for us to interfere with the consultation exercise until it is completed, but that we could pass the petition to the Minister for Transport and the Environment to be considered as part of the consultation.

The Executive could also be referred to the Official Report of this meeting so that it may read what the petitioner and Jamie McGrigor had to say.

I feel that it is appropriate for us to play a role while the consultation exercise is under way. We have to consider the wider picture: huge parts of Scotland are covered under designations as SSSIs and under the new European designations. They have been arbitrarily imposed across Scotland against the wishes of many communities. This is of fundamental importance and the case highlighted in this petition is a test case.

People are losing control of their land and their shores because of such designations being put upon them without consultation. There is a democratic deficit here.

I can accept that, but that is not quite what the petition asks for. You have made the point clearly, John, that nowhere in Scotland should there be an arbitrary imposition of such designated areas against local opinion. I do not think that any member of the committee disagrees with you. We could pass this matter to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, to be considered during the consultation process, and refer her to the Official Report of this meeting and to the strongly held view of the committee that local opinion should be taken into consideration.

Members indicated agreement.

We now come to petition PE247, from the Epilepsy Association of Scotland. I welcome Hilary Mounfield, who is here to speak in support of the petition.

I am here to speak on behalf of all the people in Scotland who have epilepsy, and of their families and carers. That is a considerable number of people. Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological disorder, but it is, to all intents and purposes, invisible. It is badly served and much stigma and discrimination is attached to it.

The object of our petition is to draw this committee's attention—and, I hope, that of other committees—to the fact that because diagnosis of epilepsy is made inappropriately, by people without the correct experience, the level of misdiagnosis is at a shocking rate of up to 30 per cent. That means that there might be as many as 9,000 people in Scotland with a diagnosis of epilepsy who do not in fact have it. That is an utterly shocking statistic. It is not just a matter of their taking the wrong medication; their lives can be blighted in many ways.

On the other side of the coin are people with epilepsy who are not so diagnosed. That happens because epilepsy is not a simple condition. Realistically, we should talk about the epilepsies—there are at least 20 different types. Seizures take many forms, some of which most people would not recognise as epilepsy. That goes for most general practitioners, many registrars and physicians and accident and emergency personnel.

We would like to do many things for people with epilepsy but, above all, we wish to campaign, at the very least, for the diagnosis to be made by somebody with experience in epilepsy, and made early on. There are huge cost benefits associated with doing that. The longer it takes for someone to be diagnosed and to get on treatment, the worse the prognosis of their epilepsy.

We are seeking to establish a standard whereby anybody who has a seizure should be seen within four weeks by someone who has experience of seizures and epilepsy. We do not do so alone, but in the company of all the epilepsy organisations and virtually every clinician in the country. We will not be swayed over that. There are many other necessary things, but if the diagnosis cannot be made correctly and if things are not correct in the first place, everything else is like trying to put sticking plasters on an open wound.

We seek the support of this committee—and we suggest referring our petition to the Health and Community Care Committee—in applying pressure, in whatever way is possible under the parliamentary system, to ensure that this Cinderella condition is no longer ignored.

Epilepsy has been around for as long as man has been on the earth. If you have a brain, you can get epilepsy. It is everywhere, and it has been ignored. It is on nobody's priority list. We know that national priorities have been set and that epilepsy is not one of them, but there must still be some place in the pecking order of resources for the condition. It is so important, as it affects the lives of many people in Scotland.

In the first paragraph of the petition you ask the Scottish Parliament

"to ensure there are coordinated health and social services that will benefit the 30,000 people in Scotland with epilepsy."

That is quite a wide remit. I take your point about people being wrongly diagnosed—although, I must confess, I need to know more about the condition. Do you think that it would be useful to focus on one particular point? As it stands, the petition may have too wide a scope.

There is a cross-party group on epilepsy. Have you forged links with that?

Yes.

Today, I have spoken almost solely about diagnosis. We are trying to work on many fronts—with health boards and so on—but direction from the top adds impetus to the work that can be done in other areas.

Hi, Hilary; it is nice to see you again. I congratulate you on your petition and your presentation. I know that you work very hard at your operation in Glasgow, which I have visited many times.

You said that one in four patients is diagnosed incorrectly. I am not asking you to put a figure on it, but how many extra doctors and nurses would we need to put that right, in the long term rather than the short term?

It is very difficult to put a figure on it. There is a national shortage of neurologists, which no one expects to be put right in the short term. There is much that can be done about the way services are organised, so that whatever expertise exists is used to the maximum. It is accepted that protocols need to be established so that the doctors who are seeing people with epilepsy develop their expertise further. In Ayrshire and Arran Health Board, for instance, there are some imaginative ideas afoot. Admittedly, there are poor services in that area at the moment, but the health board is seeking a cost-effective way of co-ordinating what expertise exists to make it accessible.

We are seeking a willingness to examine the difficulties and admit that the services that people currently receive are poor. An increase in the number of epilepsy specialists and nurses would make a huge difference. Wherever such nurses have been put in place, whether in a primary care group, a local health care co-operative or a neurology clinic, that has made a terrific difference, both to the number of people who can be seen and to the quality of treatment that patients perceive they are getting. If someone has diabetes or asthma, they will get help in dealing with those conditions at every level in the health service, from GPs and from hospitals. There are many nurses with specialism in those areas. That is not the case with epilepsy.

Are you aware of the work that is being done at the moment? A major Government-backed investigation into the causes of death by epilepsy is under way.

We were responsible for Sam Galbraith committing funds to that in the first place.

Excellent. What about the work that is being done under the umbrella of the Joint Epilepsy Council?

I chair the Joint Epilepsy Council.

So referring this petition back to you would not be a good idea?

It would not.

You would like the petition to be referred on, rather than back to you.

Yes. We are speaking on behalf of many people and this is a very neglected area. As the audit that is being conducted will prove, people die of epilepsy. Many of the people who are dying are young people, but that is being covered up shamefully. Twice as many people die as a result of epilepsy as die from cot death. Everybody knows about the dangers of cot death, but still teenage children are being diagnosed with epilepsy and nobody is warning their parents that there is a possibility of death if they do not take their medication, if they drink too much or if they dabble in non-prescription drugs. That is shocking. All we need is information.

Do you know what stage the audit has reached?

It is about one third of the way through. It was meant to run for the whole of this year, but it was a bit late getting off the ground. The audit is being conducted by another group. We are hoping to get an interim report, but it should be finalised around April/May next year.

Do you have any notice of when the interim report may appear?

I do not think that there will be an interim report with statistical findings. It will just be an update on numbers seen. There are difficulties in getting referrals from procurators fiscal and with wording on death certificates.

I asked that question because, if the petition were referred to the Health and Community Care Committee, that committee would be unlikely to do much with it until it gets the results of the audit, to avoid having to go back over old ground. Do you think that this is something the committee should put on its agenda once the report has appeared?

The results of the audit are very important, but it relates only to 100 deaths in Scotland. I am talking about the hundreds of new diagnoses that will be made in the interim.

I want to return to the issue that Pauline McNeill raised. As your petition stands, it would tie in with the audit. If it concentrated on the specific question of investigating diagnosis of epilepsy in Scotland, the Health and Community Care Committee might be able to deal with that or the Minister for Health and Community Care might be able to respond to it more quickly. In its current form, however, the petition would not be considered until April.

That is probably a sign of our inexperience when it comes to parliamentary procedures. We are learning as we go along. I take the point that you make. The petition is worded in a very general way.

As there are no other questions, I thank the petitioner.

That was a very helpful question-and-answer session, for once. Obviously, the suggestion that we pass the petition back to the Joint Epilepsy Council is of no use, as the chairman of the council has made it clear that she does not want that to happen.

Because both the Health and Community Care Committee and the Minister for Health and Community Care are waiting for the results of the audit of causes of death by epilepsy and nothing is likely to happen until they are have received them, perhaps we should ask the clerk to write back to the petitioners explaining the situation and suggesting that they reframe the petition in a form that would allow for interim action by the committee or the minister.

That is one option. The other option is for the petition to lie until after the audit report has appeared. That might be an ideal time for the Health and Community Care Committee to consider the petition and to link it into the work that has already been done. The petitioners may want to come back with a specific issue or set of questions, but at the moment the Health and Community Care Committee is in no position to consider the petition. Given our work load, there is no way that we could do that during this calendar year. The best time for it would be after the audit has been completed.

We can ensure that the petition remains on our agenda by referring it to the minister and asking her for a detailed response. The petition would then reappear on future agendas of this committee.

I asked Margaret Smith to attend this meeting because she is convener of the Health and Community Care Committee and knows exactly what its work load is. Hilary Mounfield should be able to choose whether the petition is referred to the Health and Community Care Committee or whether it is remitted somewhere else. I say that because if the petition is referred to the Health and Community Care Committee it will lie for three or four months before it is considered. We are now in September. The petition could not be considered until early January, when the audit may be complete in any case. I would prefer the petition to be referred to the Health and Community Care Committee, as it would marry up with the audit that is being prepared.

All committees have told us that petitions should not automatically be referred to them when there is no prospect of work being done on them. It is our job to deal with petitions as much as we can.

One suggestion is that we could write to the petitioner to explain the different options and ask whether they would like the petition to go to the Health and Community Care Committee, or to be sent to the minister or to remain on the agenda. I am sure that the Epilepsy Association of Scotland is a democratic body whose chairman cannot make decisions on its behalf, just as I cannot make decisions on behalf of this committee.

I think that that is a cop-out, John. We should refer the petition to the minister and ask for her detailed consideration of it. If we are not happy with that, we should refer it to the Health and Community Care Committee.

Some of what Hilary Mounfield said impressed me, particularly the part about getting information to parents. All of us who are parents identify with that. What if we were to make representations on behalf of the petitioner to the Health Education Board for Scotland? I would like to know what it is doing to promote awareness of the issue.

Four different courses of action are being suggested. I see that Christine Grahame wants to speak again, so I suppose that we will soon have five courses of action. We could have as many as seven different views, but we should try to come to a consensus. We have already spent an hour on the first three petitions. If we carry on like this, we will be here until midnight.

I shall be terribly quick. It is our duty to decide where the petition is remitted. It is not appropriate that that choice is left to the petitioner. I am happy with Margaret Smith's comments about the work load of her committee and I think that this petition could tie in with the audit. I might be wrong, but the petitioners could be advised to raise separately the issue of the urgency of action with regard to diagnosis. That could be done either as a petition or in a letter to the minister. Obviously, something needs to be done in that regard soon.

Shall we vote on each view in turn?

You decide, convener.

On balance, I support Christine Grahame's suggestion. The committee should decide where the petition should go. If we always ask the petitioners where they would like the petition to go, we will end up in a mess.

I understand what Margaret Smith says and I am conscious of the work load of the Health and Community Care Committee, but I think that the petition has to go to that committee in time. It might help the committee if we asked it to focus on what the petition says in paragraph 2, about diagnosis.

The suggestion is that we send the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee and ask it to focus on paragraph 2. Margaret Smith is telling us that that committee will let the petition lie on the agenda for eight months.

That will happen because of the committee's work load and because that would be the most sensible time to consider the petition, given the timing of the audit.

If we do that, we will write back to the petitioners to explain what we have decided so that they know what is happening. Perhaps the clerk can frame the letter in such a way that I will know what has been done as well.

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from Sustainable Stewartry and calls for the Scottish Parliament to undertake or commission a public inquiry to secure effective freedom of choice for those facing death or arranging for funerals and burials in Scotland. We have with us Keith Mothersson to speak to the petition.

It is important that we realise how vulnerable people are when disaster strikes, especially the old and the poor, who might be terribly worried about being able to pay for funerals. People who have been bereaved are in no shape to start shopping around. That is why there has to be a responsible funeral trade. However, the cost of funerals has been rocketing and the Natural Death Centre in London has uncovered many cases of abuse, including firms refusing to itemise quotations and bills or to disaggregate services, withholding information about low-cost alternatives and boycotting those who threaten their profits, such as suppliers of cardboard coffins. Overmanning is rife, as is overcharging.

We should remember the unecological nature of most cremations. Department of Trade and Industry figures show that 12 per cent of airborne dioxins resulting from combustion come from cremations.

This issue is very much up the street of a Parliament that is concerned with consumer choice, social inclusion and sustainable development as expressed in Agenda 21. There is a qualitative dimension. The issue is about improving public mental health. Funerals are a source of anxiety. If people cannot talk about them or plan them in advance, or are being trapped by high-pressure salesmanship into funeral plans in advance, things are made much more difficult and the bereavement process is started off on the wrong footing. Bereavement and awareness of death are important to public mental health.

Another important dimension is that of better government for older people. It is not just that older people are more concerned with death and go to more funerals, although that is the case. I am 52 and it would be hard for me to get a job in many circumstances because agism is rife in our society. Why is it that people discriminate against older people? It is because they remind people that they are going to die. It is vital, therefore, that we have open and honest discussion of death so people are not ashamed and frightened of it. That will not happen so long as a section of civil society has a stake in people not discussing death in advance because it will threaten their profit margin.

I will end with a quotation, which applies equally to my other petition. Adam Smith said:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Maybe that is a slightly conspiratorial view, but I think that there is a serious worry about the situation that I describe and grounds for investigation. We count on the Scottish Parliament to help.

Thanks, Mr Mothersson. As a fellow 52-year-old, I sympathise with everything you said.

This one is a multi-dimensional petition. Does anyone have any questions?

Do you think that advertisements—not flashy advertisements—for different types of burial would help people to choose?

Yes.

The petition is comprehensive and covers a range of areas. Several committees would have an interest in the petition: because of the practices inside the funeral trade, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee would be interested; because of the environmental aspects of burials and cremations, the Transport and the Environment Committee would be interested; and the issue of living wills would interest the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

Rather than get into a debate about where the petition should go, it might be helpful to write to the ministers responsible asking for their views on the petition. That would help us decide what would be the most appropriate way to deal with the petition.

Is that agreed?

Members Indicated agreement.

We would be able to find out whether any department has something in the pipeline already.

We will write to the ministers and report back to the committee on the replies.

Mr Mothersson, we will now move on to your second petition, PE253, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate, promote and assist in the production of cars powered by compressed air. That is a topical issue.

Every day The Guardian—which is the newspaper that I read, for my sins—brings us more information about how serious global warming is and about how fast emissions of CO2 are building up—faster than the scientists believed possible before.

Global warming sounds cosy. In a cold country, people might think that we could do with a bit of that. However, it means global climate havoc. Places such as Bangladesh, which produces tiny quantities of CO2, are being swamped. They are suffering because of our sins of emission, as it were.

All of us are suffering a degree of moral pain. Subconsciously, we must know that every time we get into our cars, we are helping to flood Bangladesh. We are storing up trouble for future generations. It will all bounce back here; it is happening already.

The insurance industry's projections for 2020, 2040, 2050 or whatever are absolutely off the wall. The scale of the damage that is likely to be caused by climate havoc and species going out of existence is trillions and trillions of dollars and pounds. Why can we not spend the money in advance and get upstream? We should prevent the need to spend the kind of money that will be required to cope with the damage.

Denmark has responded alertly to this real crisis. In Denmark, more people are employed in the wind industry than in farming. The Danish are the world leaders in that industry, but they have a much lesser wind resource than we have. We have the best wind resource in Europe as well as terrific tidal and hydro-power. We could have zero pollution cars that run on completely clean energy, because the technology exists—it is a genie that is out of the bottle.

Normally, the multinationals suppress those things, but one powerful group is promoting that use of clean energy. It is not science fiction; the cars are being marketed already. Anyone can visit the website and put their name down for one. In France, 12 factories are in preparation for manufacturing them and in Mexico, the United States, Hong Kong, Malaysia and so on, the technology is coming fast. However, it needs to come soon because of the scale of the crisis that we are facing.

I sent the committee a supplementary paper, which gives the results of recent tests. A test run of the compressed air vehicles was conducted, on the EU urban test circuit, using Citroen AX cars that were driven by four motors that required different fuels—diesel, petrol, electric batteries and compressed air. The test measured how the refinery output of energy—beginning at 100 per cent—was diminished and wasted. For diesel cars, the percentage of energy that was usefully delivered was 13 per cent. For petrol cars, the figure was 9.4 per cent and for electric cars it was 13.2 per cent. However, the figure for compressed air cars was 20 per cent. Even with fossil fuels powering the power stations, a massive improvement could be made, and in Scotland, we have the opportunity to move to completely clean energy.

The genie is out of the bottle. We hope that the Parliament will investigate the matter or invite Guy Negre, or members of the company, to address a public meeting in this country. A workshop seminar with financiers could be held. If the argument is pitched in seriously moral terms, and if we draw attention to the moral pain that everybody is experiencing, in the back of their minds, every time they switch on a light bulb or drive a car, the scope is there for radical political development. Because of the scale of the emergency, I believe that the Scottish Parliament would be fully justified in using its tax-levying power. The factories are for sale, and it would be appropriate to investigate the possibility of investment.

Thank you, Mr Mothersson. Do members have any questions?

Members indicated disagreement.

The petition is very clear in asking the Parliament to investigate, promote and assist in the production of cars that are powered by compressed air. It is not appropriate for the Parliament to use its resources to pursue what would be a matter of commercial development for various interests. However, as Mr Mothersson has made clear, this is a topical issue that will increasingly become important.

We have two options: we can send the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee for further information, or we can write to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, asking whether she is aware of the project and seeking her views on the issue. I suggest that we do the latter. Because of the burden on committees, this committee should undertake to investigate the matter further before the petition is passed to another committee. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE256, on youth crime, comes from Mr Browning, on behalf of various retailers in Polwarth. We welcome Mr Michael Browning and Mr Mark Santangeli to speak to the petition.

We opened a shop in Polwarth about 15 months ago. It is a family business, a neighbourhood shop. About four months ago, gangs of youths started coming into the shop and causing all sorts of problems. They are all under 16. We called the police, but there is only so much that they can do. If anyone tries to get the kids out of the shop, they become intimidating. One of them actually assaulted my father-in-law in the shop. They are repeat offenders: they are charged and their cases go before the children's panel, but the next week they are out again. Some of them have committed 20 crimes, but they are still out on the street. We have no faith in the children's panel; there is no deterrent for these youths at all.

Our issue is that the police know who these people are—they are persistent offenders—but they do not have enough resources to deal with anything other than violence. It is clear that the police need more resources and more powers to prevent these people from going out on their crime sprees.

At the same time, the sentences that those young offenders are given—when they are given a sentence at all—are clearly not effective deterrents against reoffending. Treatment by a children's panel is too lenient and often seems to be biased in favour of the young offenders. The youths know that the system can do little to restrict them.

In summary, many of the retailers in the area in which we have our shop believe that the police need more resources and more powers to prevent such offences from happening. There should be stronger penalties for those offenders, and we are strongly against the proposal in the review paper "It's a Criminal Waste: Stop Youth Crime Now" to increase the age limit for dealing with offenders through the children's panel system.

Your petition deals only with the children's report procedures—it does not ask about policing, although you have addressed that.

The petition has quite a lot of signatures. Have you sought meetings with local police, through the chief constable or assistant chief constable? Has the chief constable addressed the matter first? It strikes me that it is a policing issue. I hear what you are saying about the sentencing, but it seems to be a matter of community policing.

The police are frustrated because they know who the offenders are; they arrest them almost daily—often several times a day. Nevertheless, they are back out on the streets the next day.

Have you had a meeting with the police about the matter?

Yes.

What was the outcome?

The outcome was that they told us that they were doing as much as they could. They catch the kids and charge them. The cases are referred to the children's panel and then the kids are out on the streets again. The police are just as frustrated as everybody else.

Similar issues have arisen in my constituency. I understand that there is another provision, and that cases do not have to go before the children's panel. However, I am not sure what the sanctions are.

I am aware that there is a problem in the fiscal service. The police may be charging people, but there should be joined-up thinking throughout the criminal justice system. The police may be doing their best; it might be an issue not of police resources, but of those in the criminal justice system not working together to a common end. Sam Galbraith has said a lot about the way in which he believes that youth crime should be dealt with.

Your petition is wide ranging. Perhaps we should clarify which sanctions are available in Scotland—do you agree?

We are not experts on how all this works, but it is quite clear to us that those people are not being taken off the streets and are being left to carry on committing crime. I do not know whether that is because of the police, the children's panel or the co-ordination between the two.

Who is your local MSP?

It is David McLetchie.

Have you discussed the matter with him?

We have had extensive discussions with him.

Does he support the petition?

Yes, he does.

Some of the supporting papers refer to my constituency. I have had meetings with senior police in my area about two similar sets of incidents. The message that I got from those senior officers is that they are also concerned about increasing the age of criminal responsibility. They feel that early teenagers are the very group that they are having difficulties with at the moment. I echo what Pauline McNeill said. It is not just about resources; it is about the options that are available to the police. Changing the age of criminal responsibility could make things more difficult for them.

All sorts of side issues, such as access to alcohol, have come into the discussions that I have had. Those matters seem rather more important than mere resource issues on occasion, according to police in my part of Edinburgh. I think that one of the things that we should be doing—

You are supposed to be asking questions.

Have you had any meetings with your local police and schools? It is important to pull together all the different parts of the jigsaw. In the Corstorphine area of my constituency, that is what we have been trying to do. We have been trying to involve everybody, including shopkeepers, in tackling the problem, but we must find out exactly what we are able to do.

The majority of the kids go to Tynecastle High School. We have had a meeting with the community policeman, who says that the teachers are quite happy when the kids are skipping school, because they are not disrupting classes. Half of them never go to school anyway.

We know these people's names and addresses, which schools they go to, their ages and their parents' names. The police obviously know all that as well, but there seems to be little that the authorities can do to prevent them from offending.

The boy who assaulted my father-in-law has since committed another 15 crimes. I saw him last week; he is still on the street and still doing it. The police are catching and charging him, but we feel that the system does not provide enough of a deterrent.

There is a great sense of frustration among policemen, as much police time is taken up with such matters.

Thank you for coming to discuss your petition. This is a serious issue. I am currently involved in raising exactly the same issue in Dundee, where persistent young offenders are not being dealt with by the children's panels. It seems that the fault lies not with the children's panels themselves but with the powers that they have to dispose of young offenders who come before them. One of the problems is that there are simply not enough secure places in Scotland to accommodate the people who need to be placed in them. As a result, they are released straight back on to the streets or into children's units, from which they can march out to do the same thing all over again.

However, that is just my own personal experience. I suggest that we seek the minister's views on this serious problem. It is something that the committee can help to highlight and force the Parliament to do something about, because the present situation cannot be tolerated.

I support what you say. This is a Scotland-wide problem and one that is growing. This committee and the Justice and Home Affairs Committee should try to find a way of bringing the matter before Parliament. Guidelines should be issued to the police and to children's panels to address the problem.

I am just thinking aloud, and I realise that we might not have powers to do this, but—

That has never stopped you before.

It would be useful to find out what information David McLetchie, the local MSP, has. It strikes me that, if charges have been made by the police, the fault might lie with the procurator fiscal. It might be in order for us to write to the procurator fiscal and find out why the problems are occurring. As I understand it, cases do not have to go to the children's panel; they can go to court. It might be that the procurator fiscal's office has decided not to send cases to court. At any rate, it is worth exploring those possibilities.

If the children are under 16, the children's panel can refer them directly to the sheriff court, but only for very serious offences. The kind of offences that are commonly terrorising people do not fall into that category. The children are not killing or seriously injuring people, but they are smashing windows or intimidating and threatening people by holding knives to their throats. It is disgraceful behaviour but, because they are under 16, they are referred to the children's panel, which cannot do anything if there is not a secure place available.

In just one week in my area of Dundee, four kids with secure orders against them could not be placed because there was nowhere to place them. The places do not exist, and that is the issue that we have to deal with. The procurator fiscal's office is only rarely involved in offences involving under-16-year-olds; it handles only very serious crimes, such as murder and attempted murder.

You are talking generally about the children's hearing procedure. Would it be appropriate to make a specific request about this particular area, or should we address the whole system across the country?

It would have to be this petition that we referred to the minister. In referring it to him, we could say that the committee feels that it is a national problem, not a local one, and we could ask for his views on the national system.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE244, from the Holyrood View Residents Association, is about car clamping. I invite Mr Graeme Brown to address us.

I shall keep my comments brief. The key problems relate to residents returning home to find that no parking spaces are available. For example, there is a young lady who works shifts at the airport. She comes home after 11 o'clock at night, and sometimes after midnight, to find that no parking spaces are available. We are being denied the use of our own property.

Because outsiders are coming in and parking on the footpaths, wheelie bin access is denied and the wheelie bins are being left. As the petition states, we have taken the matter up with the police and the council, but they are powerless to act, although the overflowing bins are attracting rats.

As I see it, the only thing that worked satisfactorily in the past was wheel clamping. However, there was a case a few years ago—not involving our area—in which an outsider had the backing of a powerful lobby group, the Automobile Association. He took his case to court, and clamping was deemed to be theft and extortion. It was considered theft because the owner of the car was being denied use of his property. Of course, we do not have the backing of such a lobby group, so we could not put forward the case that we are being denied the use of our property—the car parking spaces that were paid for when the flats were originally bought.

The committee might like to consider whether this is a breach of human rights under protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, which deals with protection of property.

We have been made aware of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which gives local authorities power to act against pavement or anti-social parking. That might be a remedy. Have you pursued that?

I have spoken to the council and my local councillor has looked into the matter, but I must admit that this is the first that I have heard of such legislation. That might be worth pursing in relation to the specific problem of the footpath parking.

If the convener agrees, we could provide you with a circular on pavement parking, which suggests various self-enforcing alternatives. Goodness knows what they might be—tethering a horse or something.

It may be that because our footpath is private—it is part of the development, as distinct from the council pavement—it might not fall under the legislation.

I am just making you aware of those things. You might be able to use them.

We are aware of the general points about restricting cars. Some people use barriers. However, we cannot do that because it would mean closing off part of a public road. That is obviously a non-starter.

I was going to point out the barrier alternative, but you say that you cannot use barriers in that area.

No.

In the area that I represent, there are various places where people park, because it is near the town. However, attendants have keys to allow parking.

My road is a cul de sac and the car parking is immediately off the road. Any barrier would have to go across the cul de sac. I understand that that was investigated some time ago, but the problem is that it is a public road and people such as bin men need access. I am sure that we would not be allowed to erect a barrier across a public road.

I was going to say something similar. I have seen it work abroad—there was a gate and each car owner could press a button to allow them in and out. That was not a high-cost measure.

It is a public road.

I thought that you said that the area is privately owned.

One option would be to erect bollards. However, there are not enough parking spaces for every resident to have one. In neighbouring areas where bollards have been erected, they have been vandalised and have quickly fallen out of use.

I was going to pick up the point about putting a barrier across a public road. My street is a public road and we have a barrier at the end. I was partly responsible for getting that erected. The street used to be a rat run: 700 cars an hour were going along a residential street.

There are circumstances in which councils agree to put barriers across public roads and to change the road's designation. It depends whether the council thinks that the problem is serious. There is nothing to say that a barrier cannot be erected.

In our street, people who require access to the other side of the barrier are supplied with keys by the council. That allows people access to their homes but prevents people from using the street as a rat run to Queensferry Road. There are ways round it, but it took the residents in my area about 15 years to achieve.

Are there any other questions?

I thought that you were never going to look in my direction, even though I am on your left and you are a man who always looks left.

Mr Brown, have you had a meeting with the transport convener of City of Edinburgh Council?

No.

Do you think that that might be a useful step?

Having had a lengthy discussion with my local councillor, who is a senior councillor and seems to understand the problems, I do not think that such a meeting would be helpful. My councillor has told me that the problem is widespread. We have to get to the root of the problem, rather than find ways round it. We should deal with the problem head on and allow wheel clamping.

Is there a residential parking scheme? In some parts of Edinburgh, residents pay for a parking permit, which allows them parking allocation, although they do not get a specific space.

The neighbouring streets use that system. I would make the analogy of our car park being like a private driveway in a suburban house. There would be no question of a person in a suburban house being denied access to their driveway and having to park on the street and pay for a parking space. I do not see why we should be discriminated against in that way.

I lived and worked in London for 17 years. Do you accept that in London there are many flats of the sort that you describe, where bin men and other public agencies need access, which have devised barrier schemes similar to those mentioned by my colleagues? They are able to accommodate visitors because there is an agreement between the council and the residents. Have you explored alternatives such as those used in London?

On a public road?

Yes.

I am not aware of barriers being used on a public road.

Thank you, Mr Brown.

Members will have read the papers and the recommendations. I understand that Mr Brown is a researcher in the Scottish Parliament. As a first step, the note that has been provided for us could be made available to him. The key point is that wheel clamping on private land in Scotland was banned by a 1992 court case. That is the problem.

It is suggested that we write to the Minister for Transport and the Environment to ask whether the Executive has any plans to introduce provisions to allow wheel clamping on private land in Scotland or any other measures to deal with illegal parking on private land.

I want to get this straight. Are we talking about private land or public land?

It is private land.

If it is private land, the residents can put up a gate and allow themselves access. If it is public land, wheel clamping is allowed.

The road is public, but the parking spaces are on private land. It is one of those difficult things. It was even worse when we had regional and district councils and they owned different pavements.

I was interested in what Margaret Smith said. I suggest that we write to the transport convener of City of Edinburgh Council and ask what remedies have been used in other areas of Edinburgh. It is a problem that occurs all over Scotland. Several remedies are available and I expect one of them to provide the solution for these residents. I understand why they are aggrieved.

Is that an alternative to writing to the minister?

Yes.

I support that; it is a sensible approach. A solution should be found without recourse to changing the law. The case to which the petitioner refers makes it clear that as the law stands, clamping is not allowed on Scottish private land. There are pros and cons—at least we do not have cowboys clamping cars all over the place.

We should write to City of Edinburgh Council, which should have a more hands-on approach to solving the problem.

Do members agree to that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from Keith Cowan of Outright Scotland, on changes to pension schemes. There is an additional paper from Outright Scotland. The petition calls on the Parliament to change Scottish public sector pension schemes to ensure that they provide survivor benefits to interdependent unmarried partners of scheme members.

The suggested action is that we copy the petition to the Minister for Children and Education, who—surprisingly—has responsibility for pensions. We will double-check that. The Executive has told us that Sam Galbraith is responsible for that issue. After we have received comments from the minister, we can consider further what action should be taken.

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE248 is from Mr Robert Durward, on passing places. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation to compel slower drivers to use passing places in specified circumstances, in order to allow other traffic to pass safely, and to ensure that there are sufficient passing places, which are adequately signposted.

It is suggested that we write to the Minister for Transport and the Environment for comments on roadside landscaping, which is also raised in the petition, and that we seek the views of the relevant UK transport minister on the proposal to compel slower drivers to use passing places. Maureen Macmillan, the MSP for Highlands and Islands, has e-mailed the clerk to the committee to point out that the law does not need to be changed in that respect. In the past, sheriffs have fined slow drivers on single-track roads who would not allow passing. All that the public need to do is make a complaint. Sheriffs need to be reminded that they can fine drivers. The sheriff who is most famous for doing it lived in Gairloch, Wester Ross. It is illegal to drive too slowly and cause traffic chaos.

May I raise a practical problem? How do you see the car that is 10 cars ahead of you? You may never get to it to report it. As I live in a country area, I support this petition. Elsewhere in the world, if there are more than five cars behind you you are obliged by law to pull in and let them pass. Such a measure would require the provision of more passing places on roads, which might have a cost problem.

So the recommendations are to write to the Minister for Transport and the Environment in this Parliament about landscaping to provide more passing places, and to write to the UK minister to see what the law says and whether it can be beefed up.

When you say the law, do you mean the highway code? This issue may be addressed in the highway code.

We can find out from the ministers. They will write back to us with an explanation.

Can we ask also whether ministers have looked at legislating on this matter? We can ask what the current situation is, but can we ask whether they have looked at the issue?

Yes. The view of the relevant UK minister should be sought on the proposal to introduce legislation on slower drivers.

The next petition is on fuel duties and taxes, but the petitioner has phoned to make it clear to the committee that this has nothing to do with the current dispute, and in fact was submitted independently of the dispute over fuel duty. He is calling for an immediate halt to increases on excise duty or tax on road diesel derv, for the Parliament to legislate to prevent the illegal use of rebated diesel by all types of tractors, and to legislate to ensure that all tractors used on the public highway are the subject of yearly MOT testing.

The petitioner's concern is that people are getting red diesel for a cheaper price, then using it for the wrong purposes. The suggestion is that we pass this petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee for further consideration, because this petition is linked to petition PE65, which it is considering, on taxation and road haulage. The clerk of that committee has indicated that it would be happy to receive it. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from Mr Frank Harvey, on bail exclusion. Members will be interested to know that he is asking the Parliament not to repeal bail exclusion in the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Bill, but it is too late because the bill passed into law on 5 July and was given royal assent on 9 August. It is suggested that we write to Mr Harvey telling him of that development. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is on Gaelic in the Parliament. It calls for the Scottish Parliament to remove the requirement that an English translation be supplied with any petition submitted in Gaelic, and to develop a formal policy of using bilingual text on the Parliament's website to the maximum extent practicable, as recommended by the secure status for Gaelic report. There are two sides to this. The first is that the petitioners, who are members of Comann Ceilteach Oilthigh Dhun Eideann, wish to be able to submit petitions to this committee in Gaelic without an English translation. That is not practical: I do not think that any of us speaks Gaelic, so we would be at a disadvantage if there were not an English version of a petition. We should not pursue that request.

We could, however, take up the second point: that the website should be in Gaelic and English when dealing with Gaelic issues. It is suggested that the petition be passed to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body for a response on the issue of bilingual text on the website, and that the clerk respond to the petitioner, giving the reasons for the current petitions procedure for petitions in any language other than English. Are there any objections?

What are we doing?

The point about bilingual text on the Parliament's website will go to the SPCB and we will write to the petitioner saying why we insist that English translations accompany petitions in other languages when they are submitted to this committee.

And on the website we are asking for what?

We are asking the SPCB to comment on what has been suggested, as it is that body's responsibility.

The final new petition is PE254 in the name of Mr William McCormack, calling for the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation to ensure all lottery or public-funded advice services are subject to an annual independent audit to assess the quality of advice given by staff and volunteers. The supporting information with the petition refers to the details of a dispute between Mr McCormack and Dumfries and Galloway citizens advice service.

It is suggested that the clerk establish the current arrangements to monitor the standards and performance of citizens advice bureaux and other independent advice agencies. Once that advice is available, we should take a view on whether any further action should be taken on this petition. We must be careful, as the matter touches on the issue of confidentiality and making available details that have been given in confidence to CABx. However, the issue is important and perhaps our first step should be to write to the CAB asking for information about how it is monitored.

I want to raise a wee problem about this petition. Mr McCormack refers to all lottery or public-funded advice services. However, some services receive tiny amounts of funding from those sources and other voluntary agencies, so we are talking about a huge sweep. Furthermore, you have recommended that we talk to the CAB, which is not what the petition says.

Our recommendation includes other independent advice agencies.

I know. However, the petition talks about all lottery and public-funded advice services. Some voluntary advice services receive only part of their funding from the lottery, part from social services, part from the Parliament and another part from the voluntary sector. The petition seems terribly sweeping.

It is very sweeping. However, we can concern ourselves only with how public money is spent. Consideration of funding from other sources is a matter for those sources. The Parliament and the Executive have a responsibility to follow the public pound.

Perhaps we should write back to the petitioner and ask him to be more specific. Many centres such as advice centres and money advice centres are publicly funded.

The petitioner is concerned more with the CAB. If we can find out the monitoring arrangements for that organisation, that might help us to form a judgment.

The point is the quality of advice. This is a good petition; I have often wondered how much people who use CABx can rely on advice given by volunteers. Although I take the point about what bodies should be examined, the petitioner asks us to assess the quality of advice by staff and volunteers, even though I imagine that doing so might take a lot of work.

There is sweeping legislation—if that is the word—for CAB volunteers, as Pauline McNeill describes them. They are volunteers in the sense that they do not get much pay, just a remuneration, but they go on courses and learn, and any advice from the CAB is normally correct.

That said, is the petitioner targeting only the Dumfries and Galloway CAB? As you said, convener, the petition comes with newspaper cuttings and other details about the chap's experiences. Perhaps we should write back and ask him to be more specific than simply targeting all public-funded advice services. There are many publicly funded advice services, if they have not all closed down due to lack of funding. My worry is that he is concerned about this issue only because of his own experiences.

The petition does not refer to the specific case; he has provided only back-up information to indicate his concerns. He refers more to the standards and unaccountability of advice agencies. We have to satisfy ourselves on the general point and raise the issue with the Scottish Executive, which is responsible for the monitoring of these bodies. As significant public money goes into these advice agencies, surely there must be monitoring arrangements.

Are we asking only about CABx?

No. We will ask about other publicly funded agencies.