Public Petitions Committee, 12 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 12, 2000

Official Report 288KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

We move now to current petitions. We have 15 to deal with, so we will deal with them as quickly as we can.

The first petition is PE110 from the Greater Easterhouse Council of Voluntary Organisations. It asks the Minister for Communities to intervene with the local social inclusion partnership to fund it fully. We passed the petition to Jackie Baillie, the Deputy Minister for Communities, who has replied to the committee on behalf of the Executive. The suggested action is that a copy of the letter from the deputy minister should be passed to the petitioner and that no further action should be taken.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE127, from Edinburgh Student Action for Refugees. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to take a variety of actions regarding the detention of asylum seekers in Scotland. The issues that are raised in the petition are reserved. The committee agreed to seek comments from the Home Secretary. He replied on 8 May and a copy of his detailed reply is attached to the papers.

The response deals with the issues that were raised by the petition. Members must consider whether further action is required or whether we should copy the Home Secretary's reply to the petitioners.

Asylum might be a reserved issue, but the detention takes place in Scotland's prisons. In his report, which the Justice and Home Affairs Committee considered yesterday, the chief inspector of prisons expressed concerns about the way in which asylum seekers are detained. I would like to hear the comments of the Minister for Justice on the detention of asylum seekers in Scottish prisons and to compare them with what the chief inspector of prisons had to say. It is the second time that the chief inspector has raised the issue in reports.

So, in addition to the action that has been suggested, Christine Grahame suggests that we copy the petition and the response to the Minister for Justice and ask him to respond to the criticisms that were made by the chief inspector of prisons in his recent report.

Maureen Macmillan raised that issue in committee, so it is on record.

Do members agree that we should take the course of action that I have outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

I found the Home Secretary's letter, particularly the third paragraph of it, hard to understand. It states:

"many have had decisions on their application and their appeal against refusal of asylum has been finally disposed of."

It refers to people who have been told to leave the United Kingdom, but who have not done so and have been arrested. Their MP is now appealing against their imminent deportation. While the appeal is being considered, those people are held in prison in case they abscond again.

The next petition is petition PE146 from Mr McInnes on behalf of the residents of Main Street, Golspie. The petition requests a variety of actions by the roads network maintenance and management division. A copy of the reply from the Minister for Transport and the Environment was sent to the petitioner. He replied to that, and the minister has responded again. The suggestion is that a copy of the latest letter from the minister's office should be passed to the petitioner for his information and that no further action should be taken, on the basis that most of the additional points that the petitioner raises have been answered in the minister's letter. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE148 from Mr Brian Anderson on behalf of the Organophosphate Information Network. This petition was passed to the Health and Community Care Committee for further consideration, in consultation with the Rural Affairs Committee. We also agreed to write to the Minister for Health and Community Care, to seek her comments on the fact that there had been no response to letters that the petitioner had written to her department. In her letter to the clerk of 12 May, the minister responds to many of the petitioner's complaints. It is suggested that the letter be copied to the petitioner and to the Health and Community Care Committee, to be taken into account as part of its on-going consideration of the petition, which it has been sent.

Has the Rural Affairs Committee no further role, or would it be appropriate to send the committee copies of correspondence for noting? The petition refers to a health issue that is also a farming issue.

On its meeting of 27 June, the Rural Affairs Committee agreed to inform the Health and Community Care Committee that it supported the general principles of the petition. However, we could send the Rural Affairs Committee copies of the correspondence for information.

We should keep the Rural Affairs Committee informed of what is happening.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE160 from Ian Allan is about health and safety. We agreed that the clerk should write to the petitioner to inform him that Cathy Jamieson has lodged a motion on that issue. We also agreed to seek the views of Sam Galbraith and we have received a memorandum from the minister. It is suggested that a copy of the memorandum should be passed to the petitioner and that no further action should be taken.

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is petition PE182 from William Watson on behalf of Haddington and District Community Council and concerns safety around Haddington Infant School. There has been a considerable amount of correspondence between the petitioners, the committee and East Lothian Council. The petitioners have requested that the committee assist them in persuading the council to prepare a timetabled plan for dealing with safety around the school. The issues that are raised in the petition are a matter for the local authority, but if the committee is concerned that the authority might not be taking appropriate action on physical safety measures in the area, we could write to the council urging it to take on board the concerns that are outlined by the petitioners and to engage in further dialogue with them in an attempt to address those concerns.

Is there a council ombudsman who could be approached with a view to seeing whether that council is discharging its duties adequately?

There is. However, such an approach would have to be made through a councillor. The petitioner would have to approach the local councillor who would have to approach the ombudsman on their behalf.

Would it be worth finding out whether that route had been pursued?

Convener, it is not necessary to go to the local council or councillor; a person can pick up a leaflet with the ombudsman's address on it and express his or her concerns directly.

Does the committee think that we should not keep corresponding on this?

Convener, I would prefer the committee to take the action that you suggested. The ombudsman would simply consider issues of maladministration, but the matter is more to do with resources. From my recollection of the discussion that we had with the local authority, it was recognised that there was a problem of resources.

I am advised that the council has responded to the petitioners' concerns and that it is the fine detail of that response that is at issue. The council cannot be accused of not responding—it has done so. There might be political disagreements.

Are you now saying that there is no point in writing to the council? I supported that idea, because 1,375 people—not a small number—signed the petition. The council should pay attention to that.

Do members agree that we should write to the council?

Members indicated agreement.

The next two petitions—PE195 and PE209—are from the Irvine Pensioners Action Group and from Age Concern Dundonald. The first is about warden cover in sheltered housing in the North Ayrshire Council area, and the second is about care of the elderly in the South Ayrshire Council area. The petitions were referred to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee. Mike Russell addressed the committee at one of its meetings, at which I was present.

The committee took the view that there was insufficient information to make a decision on the substance of the petitions and it was suggested that they be referred back to the Public Petitions Committee for us decide whether there were national implications arising from the decisions of the two councils and whether those implications would merit an inquiry by the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee. It has been suggested that the committee should seek the views of ministers, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and constituency and list MSPs. The clerk, once he had that further information, would report back to the committee.

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from the Dunfermline Press Group on car parking charges in hospital trusts. We have received a response from the Executive, which deals with many of the issues that were raised in the petition. It sets out the Executive's policy in relation to car parking charges in hospital trusts. We have to consider whether the minister's letter provides satisfactory assurances that the national health service trusts involved are acting properly in charging for parking at their hospitals. If we are content, a copy of the letter would then be passed to the petitioners, with an indication that no further action would be taken. However, if we have concerns, the minister's letter should be passed to the Health and Community Care Committee for further consideration.

I strongly oppose letting this petition go—it has 20,000 signatures. A couple of weeks ago, Gordon Brown, Henry McLeish, Marilyn Livingstone, Lewis Moonie, Rachel Squire and Scott Barrie and I put out a joint press release on the matter, lamenting the arrogance of the acute services trust in Fife. Its representatives have negated the views of elected representatives on the council, in the Scottish Parliament and at Westminster. They will negate the views of virtually everyone in Fife.

It all comes back to the accountability of quangos. I ask the committee to invite the chairman and the chief executive of the acute services trust in Fife to the committee, so that they can be called to account. They have almost totally ignored the views of everyone who was democratically elected to represent the area. I think that the minister has had the wool pulled over her eyes. They did not, as is mentioned in the minister's letter, consult any elected representatives prior to taking their decision. They took the decision first and told us afterwards. They did not contact us; we had to contact them to protest about the issues concerned.

It would have been helpful had Margaret Smith, the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee, been here. The action that Helen Eadie suggests might be for that committee to take. In the first instance, I suggest that we refer the petitions and the minister's reply to that committee.

I know that my local trust is in clear breach of the guidelines that have been issued, but that was because it entered into a 30-year public-private partnership contract before the guidance was issued—the fools.

On a point of information, what is the guidance to trusts on this issue? Has the Dunfermline Press Group been provided with that guidance?

Not yet.

It might be useful, while other matters are being pursued, to intimate the current position. That will assist the petitioners in pursuit of the matter. I certainly do not know what the guidance is.

We will copy our material to the petitioners, so that they can see what the minister says. Can we agree in the first instance to refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee, asking it to—

I am not entirely happy with that. A precedent was set when Greater Glasgow Health Board was called to account. This is a case in which a public body has not properly consulted the public. Even now, with the benefit of hindsight, the board is not calling community councils together to consult them; it is speaking to individual representatives from each local community health council—it is still not embarking on a proper process of consultation. There is an issue of accountability. When we called in the chairman of Greater Glasgow Health Board, everyone in Scotland was sympathetic to Parliament standing up to people who were not really exercising their democratic accountability in the way that they should.

There was a specific set of circumstances in the Glasgow case. I am not at all happy with the response from the minister. The matter has been raised not only by representatives of hospitals in Dunfermline, but by representatives of hospitals elsewhere.

I agree with Helen Eadie in so far as I do not see why the minister's reply should end the matter. I would like the Health and Community Care Committee to address what I see as the real issue of the petition: access to hospitals and hospital visits, to which car parking charges form a barrier. I am not satisfied that this is simply a matter of local needs. We will have to find a route to return to the Health and Community Care Committee and advise it that we should address the questions whether the guidance is correct, or whether it should be removed. We should deal with the matter nationally, not merely locally.

Pauline McNeill's point is helpful. We are supposed to have joined-up thinking and joined-up government. Sarah Boyack always emphasises green transport plans. Why, despite the offer of help from the leader of Fife Council to develop a green transport plan, did the acute services trust proceed without considering one? Such a plan would take into account all the issues of getting people to hospitals for whatever purpose in a way that would help everyone, including the medical staff, and—most importantly—those who need urgent acute health care, but who are blocked from getting it.

I agree. However, it is not a matter only for Fife Acute Hospitals NHS Trust. Tayside University Hospitals NHS Trust is in exactly the same position and I am sure that most of us could speak similarly about trusts in our own areas. It is for the Health and Community Care Committee to take the matter on board.

Do members agree with the second option: that we copy all the relevant correspondence to the petitioners to keep them fully informed and that we pass it also to the Health and Community Care Committee and ask it to give further consideration to the petition, in the light of the minister's answer?

Could the Health and Community Care Committee be given a copy of the Official Report of this meeting?

Yes.

We should also encourage the Health and Community Care Committee to consider the matter nationally. That is a reasonable way to take into account the hospitals where car parking has already been charged for over a considerable time.

Is that course of action agreed to?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE216 from Mr Ronald McLeay on behalf of Staffin community council, on the upgrading of the road link between Staffin and Portree. We agreed to write to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, requesting her comments on the issues raised in the petition. The minister states that Scottish ministers provide Highland Council with a single block grant for capital expenditure, and it is up to the council to decide how to use that expenditure.

We indicated on 4 July that we would reach a view on whether to pass the petition to a subject committee for further consideration in the light of the minister's response. Although, given the minister's comments, it is clearly a matter for Highland Council in view of its local responsibilities, certain members have suggested that the Transport and the Environment Committee or Rural Affairs Committee should consider the petition because of the issue's impact on the economy and the area.

We have to remember the views of the Transport and the Environment Committee, which does not wish us to refer petitions to it that clearly involve local council matters. The Scottish Executive and the Parliament have nothing to do with how Highland Council spends its capital allocation. Although we can argue that we should be giving the councils more money, we cannot tell them how to spend it.

We should simply copy the minister's answer and draw it to the attention of the Rural Affairs Committee.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE217, from Glenorchy and Innishail community council, on doctor allocation, asking for the appointment of an additional part-time partner to assist the single general practitioner in the area. We have received correspondence from the Scottish Medical Practices Committee, indicating that both the committee and local health board do not think that the petitioners have a case. It is suggested that we pass the response to the Health and Community Care Committee, so that it can be taken into account in its consideration of the petition. Furthermore, a copy should be sent to the petitioner for their information. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petitions are PE221, from Councillor Rob Murray, on behalf of Angus Council and PE222, from Mr Simon Cole-Hamilton on behalf of Inverness and District Chamber of Commerce about the revised assisted area map. Copies of the petitions were passed to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to consider the issues and respond to the committee. The minister's response is attached, explaining why it is not feasible to include Arbroath or the parts missed out in the Highlands and Islands in the assisted areas map. The map has been finalised and no further representations are possible. It is therefore suggested that the minister's response be copied to the petitioners in each case and that no further action should be taken. Angus Council sought and lost a judicial review on the matter. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE225, from Mr William Ackland, about noise and environmental pollution. We agreed to write to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, seeking her comments on the current protection for residents near to quarrying from noise, vibration and environmental threats. The reply from Executive officials provides extensive details of current statutory provisions and planning policy guidance covering mineral operations. The response also covers possible changes in legislation, consultation and the issue whether the Parliament needs to review environmental impact assessment procedures. It has been suggested that the minister's letter be passed to the Transport and the Environment Committee and that our committee should take a view on whether existing provisions are adequate to protect the interests of people who are close to mineral working or whether there is a case for those provisions to be revised.

Adam Ingram asked about a discrepancy between the regulations and mining operations. It might be worth drawing the Transport and the Environment Committee's attention to that question and the Executive response.

I remember the question, but I do not remember the response.

I do not remember the answer myself. However, it might be useful for the Transport and the Environment Committee to know about that discrepancy in the regulations.

We will check that. Do members agree with the recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE228, from Anderston Tenants Association, is about Scottish Homes and its double-glazing programme. We have received a reply from Scottish Homes, which states that it has completed work on 43 per cent of the houses on the Anderston estate and that, depending on the availability of funds, it intends to improve on that percentage. I suggest that we pass the letter to the petitioners, and explain to them that the issue that is raised in the petition is one for Scottish Homes as landlord to deal with and not something in which the Parliament can become involved.

I have a particular interest in the petition because it relates to my constituency. I will take up the matter with Scottish Homes. The petitioners' worry is that, if there is no commitment to complete the programme, it might lapse when Scottish Homes is transferred under the auspices of the Scottish Executive. I am not sure whether that is clear in the petition.

The transfer will be part of the housing bill. I think that Scottish Homes will arrange for a housing association or somebody else to take over the factoring of the remaining Scottish Homes houses after it becomes an executive agency.

I have a daft laddie question, to which Pauline McNeill will know the answer: who funds that programme?

The Scottish Executive funds Scottish Homes.

If the Executive provides funding, there is an issue for the Parliament.

Scottish Homes has made it clear that the bid for funding for next year will include money for that programme. It is just a question of whether the Executive gives the money to it.

It is not correct to say that this is not a matter in which the Parliament can become involved, as it relates to funding from the Parliament. Is that right?

Indirectly we can argue for more funding for housing.

I just wanted to clear up that point.

At present, the question of how Scottish Homes spends its funding is a matter for it.

Pauline McNeill might see a direction in which the matter can be taken.

The petitioners and I seek a commitment that the programme will continue under any new management arrangement.

Will we write to Scottish Homes for confirmation that the commitment to complete the programme will continue even after it has become an executive agency of the Scottish Executive?

Members indicated agreement.

Should we write to the Scottish Executive?

Initially, it is a matter for Scottish Homes because the arrangements for the transfer will not be made until the housing bill is introduced. At the moment, Scottish Homes is in charge.

The next petition is PE230, on St Vigeans Primary School. We undertook to write to Angus Council, which has responded to the letter that the clerk sent following our previous meeting. The reply confirms that the petition will be taken into account. Members will see that there are differences between what the council and the petitioners say. It is suggested that copies of the council's letter be passed to the petitioners for their information, and to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to be attached to the other material relating to the petition that has already been referred to that committee. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE233, on technology teachers. We agreed that the petition should be passed to the Minister for Children and Education. We have now received a response to the four issues that were raised by the petitioners. The Executive's response addresses the issues that are raised by the petitioners and we should now consider whether any further action is necessary. I suggest that we send a copy of the response to the petitioners and take no further action.

I thought that it might be an issue for the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. There are not enough apprenticeships and applied technologists out there, although there are many people studying esoteric subjects such as sociology and politics. I should be interested to know whether the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee thought that there was a deficit in applied technology training in schools, which would have a knock-on effect on universities.

The petitioners are saying that technical education is a cinderella subject. There seems to be a wide gap between the tradesman and the academic, which might be filled by the applied technologist. It might be worth passing the petition to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for its views.

We could copy the response to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and ask whether it wishes to comment.

Do you mean that we should ask whether people are applying for university courses in science and technology? That is important.

Could you make clear what you mean to the clerk?

Yes.

I take Christine Grahame's point. We should copy the response to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, and copy the committee's subsequent response to the petitioners.

That would happen anyway. If the committee writes back to us, we will pass its response to the petitioners.

We are trying to identify whether there is a deficit in relation to places being taken up in universities. There are concerns about schools, and I think that there is something in those concerns.

The second last petition is PE235, from the shop stewards of North Lanarkshire's direct labour organisation. We have received fairly detailed responses from the Deputy Minister for Local Government and from the council—both are attached.

In their responses, the minister and the council make the case that they do not accept that privatisation is taking place. They say that they are simply trying to protect services and council tax payers. The council says that it has taken

"every step possible to provide the maximum protection for employees transferring to new service providers as a consequence of the Section 19B Direction."

It is suggested that the letters from the minister and the council be copied to the petitioners and that no further action be taken. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The last petition, PE242, is from Action of Churches Together in Scotland, the Scottish Refugee Council and Amnesty International, on the care of asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland.

We have received a response from Iain Gray, the Deputy Minister for Community Care, which confirms that

"under the devolution settlement, immigration and nationality, including asylum, is a reserved matter".

The minister points to the new National Asylum Support Service, which exists to provide

"accommodation and subsistence for asylum seekers whilst their asylum application is outstanding."

The minister also notes that the Executive

"will continue to reimburse local authorities for expenditure they incur in supporting"

asylum seekers already in Scotland prior to 3 April.

We may wish to consider whether any further action is required, or whether a copy of the minister's letter should be sent to the petitioners for their information.

This petition is slightly different from PE127, which dealt with prisons. PE242 does not refer to prisons at all, and I see no merit in referring it to the Minister for Justice, as it does not deal with asylum seekers who have been imprisoned.

I am advised to draw members' attention to the fact that the minister also says that

"the Scottish Executive is committed to reviewing the operation of the 1999 Act in Scotland some 18 months after its implementation in April this year. This review will have regard to the devolved matters of housing, health and education."

Therefore, the matter will stay on the agenda.

I understand that some of these matters are reserved, but some are not. Could we pass the petition to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee for that committee to note?

Pauline McNeill will tell members that refugees have problems with translation, child care and so on—certainly, refugees whom I have met have those problems. Therefore, these matters fall more within the remit of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee.

Shall we pass PE242 to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee for information?

Members indicated agreement.