Current Petitions
Palestine (PE536)
I ask the committee's indulgence. Petition PE536, on the Palestinian legislature and institutions, is down as the third petition that we are to consider under the current petitions agenda item. However, as a delegation from the Palestinian Legislative Council is with us today and I know that it will have a busy schedule at the Scottish Parliament, I seek the committee's agreement to move forward our consideration of the petition, which will let the members of the Legislative Council hear our discussion and then get on with their busy agenda.
Members indicated agreement.
PE536 is from Hugh Humphries on behalf of Scottish Friends of Palestine, on the Palestinian legislature and institutions. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to offer advice and training to those involved in running the Palestinian legislature and institutions, part of which would be on communicating the proceedings of the Palestinian Legislative Council to the Palestinian nation. The petition is prompted by the petitioner's belief that the Scottish Parliament is in an ideal position to advise and assist the Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian Legislative Council with the implementation of democratic processes and institutions.
On 8 October 2002, the previous Public Petitions Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on Palestine, the head of the Palestinian mission in the United Kingdom, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, seeking their respective views on the issues raised in the petition. The clerks have had some difficulty in obtaining certain responses, despite issuing several reminders. However, all responses have now been received.
The previous SPCB was of the view that it would be possible for the parliamentary services to offer advice and share experiences with those involved in running the Palestinian legislature. It suggested that that could be provided in written or electronic form, or could take the form of short visits to the Parliament or work shadowing. However, it made clear that no direct funding could be provided to support any programme of assistance. The aims of the petition are fully supported by all the other groups and organisations that were consulted.
I declare an interest as a founder member of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on Palestine.
And me.
Me too.
The experiences that we have had with establishing the various aspects of the Scottish Parliament's committee structure put us in a particularly strong position to offer support and advice to the Palestinian Legislative Council. There are strong links between Scotland and Palestine, which are effectively outlined in the letter that we have received from the STUC, and we should further strengthen relations. I believe that the SPCB ought to be asked to investigate what sort of support we could realistically provide. There will be financial restrictions on that, but I think that we should do whatever we can to take the suggestion forward.
I concur completely.
Considering the fact that the previous corporate body was sympathetic to the petition, I go along with Mike Watson's suggestion that we refer the proposals to the corporate body for further discussion. Basically, we would be asking the corporate body to tell us how it can take the proposals further so that we may be helpful to the Palestinian people and Government.
I entirely agree with that. It would be enormously helpful also to find out what the Palestinians would want of us, rather than simply suggesting how we could help. It would be useful to have such a dialogue. I welcome the positive tone taken by the corporate body and all the responses that we have received to date.
On what Sandra White said, I wonder whether we really need to get another referral back from the SPCB. If we ask the SPCB to take the matter forward, do we need it to write back to us to say whether it is going to do that?
Members indicated disagreement.
If we formally refer the matter to the SPCB, asking it to take it forward, we will have acted on the petition. Is that okay?
That would be fine.
I concur with what has been suggested, and I welcome the delegation. Some of the things requested by the petition have been acted on already and the programme that we are undertaking reflects that. That is good and we should welcome it.
I would like the SPCB to explore every possible means of assistance and acknowledge that it is very difficult for the Palestinian Legislative Council to arrange and fund visits. I would like the SPCB not to rule out certain methods of assistance and to explore all avenues.
As a member of the SPCB, I look forward to receiving the petition in due course. I agree with the sentiments expressed in the past by David Steel—and Mike Watson—that we should give all the help that we can to emerging democracies.
There seems to be broad agreement and strong support for the petition, so we can proceed in the way that Mike Watson has suggested. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I point out that after the issue was discussed in public, a letter of objection was received and, as a matter of course, we have to refer that to the SPCB. We do not have to go into great detail on the letter in case it causes any offence, but we should send it with the petition. Is that okay?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the members of the Palestinian Legislative Council who are with us today for their attendance.
State Hospital (PE440)
We return to the order of our published agenda. Petition PE440 is on the provision of care and treatment for patients released from the state hospital at Carstairs. The petition, which is in the name of Mr and Mrs Dave Crichton, calls on the Parliament to investigate the problems that are faced by patients who are ready to be released or transferred from the hospital.
The petition was prompted by the case of the petitioners' son, Darren Crichton. At the time of the petition's submission, Darren had been unable to leave Carstairs because of a lack of suitable beds and staff at Murray royal hospital in Tayside, despite having been assessed as ready to leave for more than two and a half years. The petitioners indicated that this situation is replicated throughout Scotland.
The Public Petitions Committee in the previous session considered a response from the Executive in September 2002, which gave details of the steps that were then being taken to address the shortage of available beds to allow patients from the state hospital to be transferred to a local hospital. Comments from the petitioners were considered in February 2003 and they expressed the view that they would like a firm timetable to be applied to the Executive's proposals, and a firm commitment to the wider funding of mental health services. It was agreed that the Executive should be asked to respond to those points.
The Executive has now provided information on the progress that is being made in addressing the issue through the opening of a new local forensic services facility in Edinburgh, and the continuing process of identification of suitable locations in other areas of Scotland. The Executive has also indicated that it will continue to work with NHS boards to implement the mentally disordered offenders strategy and that it will support improved care and treatment through the establishment of a managed care network throughout Scotland.
Additionally, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 provides a right of appeal against detention in conditions of excessive security. That provision will come into effect in the summer of 2006 at the latest.
Do members have comments or any recommendations on how we should act?
I am concerned about the timetable. It is suggested that the committee should accept that enough is being done. I would rather keep the situation under review and perhaps come back to it, because there might be issues that we are all concerned about. I am concerned that the timetable for setting up the forensic or medium-secure units might be stretched. We should keep an eye on that.
I am concerned that the petition was submitted in 2001 and discussed in 2002 and that the Executive did not respond to a submission that was made in January until September. We are now in 2003.
Given what is happening with the consultation process regarding the secure units, we cannot be specific and say that they will open on a certain date. We do not have a time scale for the managed care network, which is described as an early priority. I worry that if we say that no further action will be taken on the petition, the matter will languish again, perhaps for a couple of years. I would like to keep an eye on it—perhaps we should write to the Executive to ask whether it has a time scale for the specifics and to say that we are concerned about the secure units and the consultation process. We should not just say that we are satisfied with the answer that we have had.
I do not think that we have to write to the Executive to ask it to keep us updated, because the clerks can monitor the progress on the decisions. That is unless you want a specific timetable and a clear response from the Executive, which the clerks can then monitor to see whether it is achieved.
I would like to see a time scale for the managed care network, under which a national plan will be produced to oversee the situation. I would like to know how long it is presumed that that will take, because no date has been given, not even a year.
I appreciate what Sandra White says, but I wonder whether we should ask the petitioners if they are content with the Executive's response before we take further action.
We can do that. Is that a reasonable suggestion?
There is a list of actions that the Executive is taking.
It might be worth waiting to see whether the petitioners think that the action that they expected has been taken, but the on-going process will require the clerks to keep an eye on the situation.
Apparently, the petitioners were asked whether they wanted a timetable and they said that they would like one. That has already been asked for, so the clerks can monitor whether it has been produced. However, there would be no harm in asking the petitioners—
We should come back to the petition and review progress on the current consultations in case the timetable slips. There is concern that if that happens, the situation that led to the petition being submitted might still exist. The type of patient that the petition refers to might still be languishing in Carstairs and that would be a matter for the Parliament.
There is no harm in writing to the Executive and the petitioners to say where we are with the matter and to ask whether we should continue to review it. We should get the petitioners' views on how progress is being made, because they are directly affected. Are members happy for us to write to the petitioner and the Executive?
Members indicated agreement.
Miscarriages of Justice (Aftercare) (PE477)
The next current petition is PE477, which concerns aftercare programmes for those who suffer miscarriages of justice. Additional information on the petition has been passed to members.
The petition is in the name of John McManus, on behalf of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation. The petitioners call on the Parliament
"to urge the Scottish Executive to provide assistance in setting up an aftercare programme in the form of a half way home to help people who have been wrongfully incarcerated and have served long terms of imprisonment or whose conviction has been annulled at the appeal court".
They are concerned about the long-term effects of periods of incarceration in prison on people who have been wrongly convicted of crimes, and about the absence of aftercare provision when such people's convictions are quashed by appeal.
We considered the response from the petitioners on 3 September, when we noted that their application for funding for the development of MOJO Scotland had been turned down by the Executive. We agreed to write to the Executive to seek clarification of the level of support that is provided on release, specifically to those who have suffered a miscarriage of justice. A response has now been received, together with further letters from the petitioners.
It is clear that the petitioners and the Executive are at cross-purposes on the issue. The Executive considers that the services that are available to ex-prisoners, which include the enhanced throughcare system that is about to come on stream, are also available to those who have suffered a miscarriage of justice and that, therefore, those people do not require targeted support. That argument hinges on the fact that those services are designed to address a wide range of difficulties that ex-prisoners and their families may experience, regardless of the circumstances of their release.
The Executive states that a report on the joint Home Office and Citizens Advice pilot to assist ex-prisoners who are released on successful appeal against conviction in England and Wales will be published by the end of the year. A copy of that report will be passed to the committee as soon as it is available.
The petitioners are concerned that the committee agreed to ask the Executive for clarification of the level of service that is provided; they argue that they have made it clear that no services, help and support are available. They claim that prisoners who are released on appeal are not given counselling before release, because they have not been on probation programmes. They state that the type of counselling that they propose would be specialised and tailored to the needs of those who have suffered wrongful incarceration.
The petitioners are concerned that those who suffer a miscarriage of justice appear to be classified as ex-offenders. They remind members that a member of the committee in the previous session expressed concern about the justice system and prisons providing aftercare for individuals whom that system had failed. The petitioners also question the adequacy of the counselling that is available as part of the Home Office and Citizens Advice pilot project.
Do members have comments?
The Executive's response disappointed me. It gave only the facts, so I am disappointed that no services are provided specifically for people who suffer miscarriages of justice and that such people are dealt with in the same way as ex-offenders are. That is sad.
I would like to see the results of the pilot and to go a wee bit further. I would be happy for us to pass the petition to one of the justice committees, along with the report of the pilot when it is issued, and to ask a committee to investigate the matter.
I will take that as a recommendation.
I endorse the recommendation. I, too, am disappointed with the Executive's response. I would not say that it is flippant, because it runs to two and a half pages, but the Executive has failed to grasp the seriousness of the issue. Sharon Grant's letter says:
"As the enhanced throughcare service being developed in Scotland will be available to those suffering from a miscarriage of justice we do not consider that they require specific and targeted support."
I am astonished by that.
A few minutes ago, we were handed a revealing article from the Toronto Star that contains comments from Dr Adrian Grounds, who is a forensic psychiatrist from the University of Cambridge. He makes a couple of points that are obvious when they are read, but perhaps we did not think of them.
Most prisoners probably proclaim their innocence, but those who were wrongly convicted are telling the truth. They carry that burden all the time that they are in jail, which puts them in a different frame of mind from people who say, "Okay, I did it, although I may claim that I didn't because it might make me or my family feel better." Those who know that they are innocent carry that burden.
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that two people are each given sentences of 10 years. The person who committed the crime knows that he will stay in prison for that period and will gradually prepare for release. He may or may not have remission, but he will know well in advance when he will leave prison. However, a campaign could be conducted for the individual who was wrongly convicted and is also in prison for 10 years, and he might be told with just days' notice that he is free to go. That individual would have had no means of preparing for release and his situation could not be compared, even broadly, with that of someone who was put in prison for a crime that they had committed.
I am concerned that that has not been taken into account. The comments from Adrian Grounds highlight the issue. He says that, sometimes,
"the wrongly convicted suffer the kind of trauma experienced by victims of war crimes."
We should not forget that such people are victims. The Executive's response fails to comprehend that we are dealing with different situations.
The letter by Kirsten Davidson of the Executive, which dates from April, talks about reducing the risk of reoffending. How can people reoffend when they did not offend in the first place? That shows the level of misunderstanding that exists in the Executive. We should refer the petition to one of the justice committees and highlight in the strongest terms those points and others that members may want to raise.
I apologise for not mentioning at the outset that Tommy Sheridan is here to speak about the petition.
I concur with what Mike Watson and Linda Fabiani have said. Petition PE477 was submitted some time ago and there is no need for further delay. The petition should be referred to one of the justice committees. When one of those committees considers the petition, it might want to take account of the Home Office investigation in England and Wales.
The Executive has failed miserably to acknowledge the specific situation that is the subject of the petition. An assessment needs to be made of what support is necessary in cases that involve a miscarriage of justice. Because the people in such cases do not admit guilt—they are innocent, so why should they admit guilt—they do not get the rehabilitation and support services prior to release that would allow them to plan for their release. It is a complete and utter insult to suggest that those services should form part of the same strategy as the one that applies to offenders.
I am really quite upset on the petitioners' behalf. I imagine that the Executive's response to petition PE477 has compounded their suffering. It is a disgrace. Like other members, I argue strongly that we should move forward on the petition. We need to find a solution. A disservice has been done to these people in the past and that needs to be corrected.
I have nothing to add to what has been said so eloquently by other members, other than to say that I, too, am dismayed by the surprisingly unsympathetic response from the Executive—it is almost bizarre. I endorse totally what other members have said. We should refer petition PE477 to one of the justice committees.
The disappointment in the Executive's response can be contrasted with the positive comments from the committee. It is definitely helpful to hear those comments. In a previous life, I had occasion to spend four months in a training-for-freedom unit in a prison not far from this committee room. It is interesting to note that the training was called "training for freedom". It was aimed at prisoners who had been convicted, had accepted their guilt and were being trained to be reintegrated into society.
What about the people who are innocent? What happens when they are released as the result of an appeal decision or a campaign? The term "training for freedom" does not apply. People including Robert Brown, Joe Steele, Tommy Campbell and Stuart Gair were detained for crimes that they did not commit. Mike Watson highlighted the most important paragraph in the Executive letter. The Executive says there is no need for "specific and targeted support". It is incredible that it can say that.
If a miscarriage of justice takes place—unfortunately it is a fact of life that that happens—surely we must have a package of aftercare to target those who have been the victims of miscarriage of justice. I am pleased by the response of committee members, but saddened by the Executive's response.
I think that there is unanimity around the table with regard to our disappointment at the Scottish Executive's position. We have to convey that to the justice committees when we ask them to look into the issue quickly and forcibly. It is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed.
Our recommendation should include the suggestion that we should write to the Executive again saying that we note its response but that we are not content with it.
There may well be an issue about that but, if we write back to the Executive, we should split what we say into two parts. We asked for the facts about what was in place and the Executive gave us the facts. However, from the way in which the Executive responded, the language that it used and the suppositions that it made it appears that it completely misunderstood the point. The Executive has to take that on board.
I support what Linda Fabiani said. The Executive's response was unhelpful; it missed the point substantially. We have therefore not been able to progress our consideration of PE477. The recommendation that we should send the petition to one of the justice committees, along with a copy of the report from the pilot project that the Home Office is conducting, is sensible. There would be no harm in writing to the Executive in the terms that have been outlined.
When our clerk writes to the justice committees and the Executive, I ask that he specifies the comments that members have made.
It is standard procedure for the clerks to write back to the Executive to say what the committee has done with a petition. It would be worth pointing out to the Executive not only that it missed the point, but that that was the second time that it had missed it—the matter has been before the committee and been pursued previously. All the comments that members have made and members' strength of feeling will be conveyed in the letter to the Scottish Executive, which will emphasise the points that have been made about the extent of the correspondence and members' disappointment with the responses that have been received.
Solvent Abuse (PE580)
Our next petition is PE580, from Mr John O'Brien, on solvent abuse. The petitioner would like Scotland to be brought into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, where trading standards officers can undertake test purchasing by sending children into shops to buy alcohol, tobacco and lighter fuel. He would also like: an increase in the legal age from which a person can buy lighter fuel; a change in the law to make shopkeepers record every sale of solvents by asking for identification and a signature; a reduction in the size of canisters from 250ml to 50ml; and warnings of the dangers of solvent abuse to be displayed clearly on canisters.
The previous committee considered the petition on 14 January 2003 and heard a presentation from Mr John O'Brien. The committee agreed to write to the Deputy Minister for Justice seeking confirmation of the Scottish Executive's position on the issues raised in the petition, together with clarification on which areas of legislation regarding the sale of lighter fuel are reserved and which devolved. It also agreed to request comments on a number of issues that were raised from the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Scottish Consumer Council, the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on oil and gas and Shell UK.
Responses have now been received. There seems to be agreement that, although the issues that have been raised are extremely important and need to be addressed, the response needs to be proportionate to the scale of the problem. There also seems to be general agreement that improved enforcement of current controls, together with improved prevention and education involving the retail sector and young people, would be more effective than further restrictions on the sale of solvents. The Executive has provided details of the steps that it has already taken on those matters.
It is interesting to note Shell UK's efforts to have Bitrex, a deterrent product, added to lighter fuels and the problems that it has experienced in obtaining full industry support for that initiative. Clearly, that is not a matter for the Scottish Parliament, but the Scottish ministers could perhaps urge their UK Government counterparts to consider pursuing it further with the industry.
Do members have any comments?
As a matter of interest, I used to work for the company that produces Bitrex at its factory in Edinburgh, and I once had the horrible experience of a cheese roll that had been contaminated. Believe me, Bitrex is an answer.
That does not say much for the canteens at that place of work. Perhaps we should look into them.
The suggestion that we ask for the views of the family is the right one. We should take cognisance of their views on whether improved enforcement, prevention and education are enough, given their experience.
Once the family has written back to us, we could take the matter further with the ministers in the Scottish Executive who have responsibility in the matter.
We must consider better enforcement procedure, if that is at all possible, but we should wait for the UK survey.
Do members agree with that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
Robert Burns (National Holiday) (PE607)
The next petition is PE607, by Virginia Lingstadt on behalf of Safeway plc, on a celebration of Robert Burns. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to declare 25 January a national holiday in Scotland in celebration of Robert Burns. The previous committee considered the petition in March 2003 and agreed to write to the Executive requesting an indication of whether it would consider declaring 25 January an official holiday or national day. The committee also agreed to seek comments from Dumfries and Galloway Council and the three Ayrshire councils about the possibility of declaring a local holiday on that date, given the local associations with Robert Burns.
Responses have now been received. The Executive does not support the declaration of 25 January as a national holiday and cites as reasons for that view the established arrangements for agreeing public holidays, various practical difficulties of having a public holiday on that date and the fact that an additional holiday would cause disruption to education and industry.
The Executive considers that a national Burns day is not required, as Burns's work has been celebrated for more than 200 years, and it is confident that that tradition will continue. The Executive makes it clear that any local authority could declare the poet's birthday a local holiday in its area. Of the councils consulted, two are in favour but flag up the possible cost implications of such a move, while the other two councils do not support the proposal.
It is worth noting that the petition's signatures appear to have been collected as a publicity event at an individual Safeway store around the time of Burns day this year; the petition does not appear to involve a national campaign or to involve any Burns-related organisations.
We should take no further action, on the grounds that there are established local arrangements for agreeing public holidays.
I am interested in whether, if the petition were successful, Safeway would add the holiday to its employees' annual public holiday entitlement. If that were the case and if the move were replicated by all employers—and if they picked up the tab—there might be a good argument for the proposal. I stand to be corrected, but I suspect that that is not the case. It is significant that no Burns organisations are involved. We should take no further action on the petition.
We should let the member for Robert Burns country speak on the matter.
Thank you for your kindness, convener, but I am not the local member; that is Cathy Jamieson. Burns's birthplace is in Ayr, but not the part of Ayr that I represent.
I have received no representations or correspondence on the issue. I am in favour of doing everything possible to promote Burns and his works and the tourist venue of Ayrshire, but I do not think that we should take the petition any further.
Perhaps we should write to Safeway to ask whether it will give people Christmas day off.
It is important to note that two of the four local authorities that were consulted are not in favour of the proposal. One might think that all those authorities would be in favour of anything that they thought would boost tourism and an interest in Burns and the heritage of the area, but only 50 per cent of them were in favour.
The Executive is doing good work in promoting Burns through the Burns festival, which has been a huge success for the past two years. As I said, we must do all that we can to promote Burns, but that will not be achieved by creating a statutory holiday.
We must bear in mind what Burns would have thought about such a big conglomerate trying to stamp its badge on a public holiday in his name.
You never know—he might have shopped in Safeway.
Do members agree to the recommendation that we note the petition and take no further action on it?
Members indicated agreement.
Equal Opportunities (PE618)
Petition PE618, which is by Aitor Endemaño Isasi, calls on the Scottish Parliament to set up a single equality body for Scotland that is accountable to the Scottish Parliament in order to improve and develop channels of communication between the Parliament and people from ethnic minorities. The petition is prompted by the petitioner's concern about lack of awareness and understanding in the Parliament of what he considers to be the negative and discriminatory treatment that people of ethnic minorities who live and work in Scotland face.
We considered the petition on 3 September and agreed to write to the Executive to ask for its comments. We also agreed to ask the Equal Opportunities Committee for its views. Responses have now been received. The Executive confirms that the establishment of a single equality body would require legislation and that equal opportunities legislation is a reserved matter. There are exceptions, which allow the Executive to promote equal opportunities in Scotland and to impose duties on devolved public bodies to ensure that they comply with equal opportunity requirements.
The Executive confirms that a UK Government consultation on the merits of a single equality body ended in February 2003 and that an announcement on the outcome of the exercise is expected shortly. It is anticipated that any single equality body would cover age, colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, disability, gender reassignment, religion or belief, sex, pregnancy, marital or family status and sexual orientation. It is expected that any such body would be fully functional by 2006. The Executive explains that it still has to establish how the administrative arrangements would operate at a devolved level, although the consultation made it clear that they would have to reflect Scottish needs and interests. It also states that any new machinery must have a strong, well-resourced presence in Scotland, with a remit that is clearly tailored to Scottish needs.
The Equal Opportunities Committee explains that it has agreed to await developments in relation to the UK Government's proposal for a single equality body before conducting an inquiry into the matter. It provides details of the work that the previous Equal Opportunities Committee did in relation to race issues and makes clear that the current committee is committed to developing that work in this session. The committee has appointed a race reporter, who will work to improve channels of communication between the Parliament and ethnic minority communities. In view of that on-going work, the committee recommends that no further action is required on the petition.
Given that we have received such positive, comprehensive replies, I suggest that we take no further action on the petition. It is evident that the matter will be progressed at UK level and that the Equal Opportunities Committee will maintain an interest in the issue of a single equality body.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Asthma Treatment (Prescription Charges) (PE623)
Petition PE623, from Vicki Henderson, concerns a proposal to abolish prescription charges related to the treatment of asthma. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to amend existing legislation to abolish prescription charges for all medication that is prescribed for the treatment of asthma. The petition is prompted by the petitioner's concern that the inability of many asthma sufferers to afford to purchase their prescribed medication is aggravating their condition.
In June, we agreed to ask the Executive for its views on the petition. Specifically, we asked it to indicate whether it plans to review the list of conditions that are exempted from prescription charges and to add asthma to that list. The Executive has responded, confirming its commitment to review prescription charges for people with chronic health conditions and young people in full-time education or training. It hopes to make available by the end of 2003 further information on the remit of the review and the consultation process that is to be followed. The Executive makes it clear that all patient interest groups, NHS professionals and other stakeholders will be invited to participate in the consultation. After the consultation has ended, the Executive will consider whether any change should be made to the current arrangements.
In response to the petitioner's strong concerns about financial difficulties that can affect patients' compliance with prescribed medication regimes, the Executive sets out the cost benefits of prescription pre-payment certificates and outlines the current arrangements for exemption from and remission of charges, including the help that is available under the NHS low income scheme.
Would members like to comment on the petition? Tommy Sheridan has indicated an interest in this matter.
I do not know whether I have an interest to declare, although one member from the SSP is proposing to lodge a bill to abolish prescription charges.
I was simply registering the fact that Tommy Sheridan would like to comment on the petition.
Obviously, I support the proposal to abolish prescription charges. Given that the Executive is to conduct a consultation on this issue, perhaps there would be no harm in our drawing the Health Committee's attention to the petition. At some stage, the Health Committee will take evidence on prescription charges. We may not ask the committee to act on the petition immediately, but we should ensure that it is aware of it. We should also let the petitioner know that we have referred her petition to the Health Committee.
The recommendation is to take no further action because there is on-going scrutiny of this matter at present. We should suggest that consideration be given to extending free prescriptions to asthma sufferers, some of whom are required to purchase medication almost daily.
It has been recommended that we ask the Health Committee to consider this matter. Other issues relating to prescription charges will also be raised. I know that there has been discussion of prescription charges relating to oxygen bottles and to people with chronic and terminal illnesses. All those issues are being considered.
That is the point that I wanted to make. I do not want to pick out one illness as a priority over others. As the convener indicates, there are a number of limiting illnesses that require constant medication. I would be happy to conclude consideration of the petition, subject to our ensuring that the Health Committee is aware of it, as Carolyn Leckie suggested. We should also ensure that people are included in the Executive's consultation process.
Are we asking the Health Committee to act on the petition or to note it? My view is that it should simply be asked to note it.
We could send the Health Committee a note of the contents of the petition.
Obviously, there are processes in train, a forthcoming bill and so on, but I do not want the petition to disappear and for it to be up to the petitioners to follow up the issue. The Health Committee should be made aware of the issue.
If we write to the Health Committee, giving it the details of the petition and asking it to note them, it would have to take the matter into account as part of the consultation process.
Is that agreeable to everyone?
Members indicated agreement.
Rail Network (Local Railway Stations) (PE629)
Petition PE629, by Norman Banski, calls on the Scottish Parliament to take all possible steps to facilitate the reopening of suitable local railway stations across Scotland, such as that at Laurencekirk, to improve access to the rail network and encourage the use of public transport.
We considered the petition on 3 September and agreed to request comments from the Executive, Aberdeenshire Council, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Local Government and Transport Committee. The Executive confirms that a proposal to reopen a railway station is a local transport matter and, as such, is the responsibility of the relevant local transport authority or transport partnership. It indicates that funding is available from the integrated transport fund if a robust business case can be made. Any new station would need to be acceptable on the network and in operational, technical and commercial terms. The Executive makes it clear that it would be willing to enter into discussions with Aberdeenshire Council, should any application for funding be made.
Aberdeenshire Council makes it clear that it fully supports the principles of reopening railway stations at Laurencekirk and other locations in north-East Scotland and is actively engaged in developing proposals for enhanced local rail services and facilities. It states, however, that that report is dependent on any such proposal not prejudicing the planned development of the Aberdeen crossrail scheme and other related strategic priorities. The council points out that, in the past few weeks, the Scottish Executive has passed to it a copy of a further ScotRail-sponsored study that develops previous feasibility work on the Laurencekirk proposal into a cost-benefit assessment. That study is being scrutinised prior to discussions with the Executive and ScotRail on how the matter might be taken forward.
The SRA indicates that it has supported ScotRail's consultation with Aberdeenshire Council to develop the Laurencekirk proposals further as part of the Aberdeen crossrail project. It also indicates that it is to issue process and procedure guidance on new railway stations by the end of 2003.
The Local Government and Transport Committee has agreed to consider the issue of new stopping services as part of a broader investigation that it is to conduct into improvements to the rail network. The clerks have been advised that the Local Government and Transport Committee would not, therefore, be seeking a formal referral of the petition.
Mike Rumbles and David Davidson would like to speak on this matter.
Norman Banski has campaigned for a long time for the reopening of the Laurencekirk station and I have held talks with ScotRail, Aberdeenshire councillors and the Minister for Transport. I want to ensure that the committee is aware of some excellent news. Members should know that, on Friday, a joint announcement was made by ScotRail, the Scottish Executive and Aberdeenshire Council to the effect that they had received the Scottish transport assessment guidelines report and that the matter will be considered by the infrastructure committee of Aberdeenshire Council on 27 November. All three organisations are making positive noises about the proposal, which has cross-party support. Hopefully, the proposal should move to stage 2 of the process. Everybody is giving it a fair hearing on the basis that a robust business case can be made. If that case is made, there will be a fair wind for the proposal.
A long time ago, at the request of the local community, I held a public meeting in Laurencekirk. I invited support from across the parties and the meeting was packed out. Norman Banski's name appears on the petition because of the vital role that he has played on behalf of the local committee.
I am delighted with the way in which the Public Petitions Committee has dealt with this petition, which has genuine cross-party support. However, given the stage that we have now reached, where the council is operating with ScotRail and the Scottish Executive, I am concerned that the committee should now leave the issue alone. The committee should not come back to the petition if the issue does not progress because, I believe, the Local Government and Transport Committee will deal with the issue at a later stage down the line. Also, we will need to ensure that the Scottish Executive has a watching brief on the issue.
I am grateful for the committee's support. I assure members that local people are desperate to have the station reopened, not just because of the dangers of the A90, but because people need to access work both north and south of the town. People also need to be able to get to educational and recreational facilities. Reopening the station would provide a prime example of how such developments can meaningfully benefit a large community: between 20,000 and 30,000 people live in the catchment area. I ask for the committee's continued support on the matter.
Do members have any views? If we are happy with that, we could keep our eye on the petition. Obviously, we cannot get involved in an individual decision, but we could maintain the petition as long as that process was on-going. If David Davidson and Mike Rumbles get the successful outcome that they hope for, that would suffice. If that does not happen, the petition could be sent to the Local Government and Transport Committee, which will consider the problems of the rail network in general terms. The petition need not go away, just because we have been told this morning that some progress is being made. I think that we could leave the petition open. Is everyone happy with that?
However, the petition is about a specific railway station, which is an issue that we could not comment on. If the specific issue is not concluded, the Local Government and Transport Committee could look into the process to consider the wider issues. As we cannot take the petition any further, we could just conclude the petition.
I think that we need to conclude the petition. The petition has been registered with the Local Government and Transport Committee, which intends to pursue an inquiry along similar lines to its inquiry into bus services. I think that that would be adequate as a monitoring mechanism.
I am almost in full agreement with David Davidson, except that I agree with what Jackie Baillie has just said. The petition has been useful and has served its purpose. Along with everything else, the petition has helped the process along. As the local member for the area, I am grateful to be able to tell local people that the issue has received the backing of the committee, but I am not sure what useful purpose it would serve to keep the petition open.
I agree with the sentiment that there is no useful purpose in keeping the petition open. In concluding the petition, we should send it to the Local Government and Transport Committee as part of its on-going investigation into improvements in the rail network. If that committee has already received the petition, the petition has done its task.
I thank the committee for its recommendation. I accept that the committee wants to close the petition, but will the convener write to the clerks of the Local Government and Transport Committee to highlight the comments that have been made today?
Yes.
Is everyone happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Dungavel (Detention of Children) (PE671)
Petition PE671 is from the Scottish Trades Union Congress on the detention of children at Dungavel detention centre. As members are aware, the petition calls on the Parliament to oppose the detention of children at Dungavel and to ensure that the Executive meets its statutory commitment to provide mainstream education for all children in Scotland.
On 1 October, we agreed to write to the minister to seek clarification of the Executive's position as to the reserved or devolved nature of the issues that the petition raises concerning the education of children who are detained at Dungavel. We also wanted an update on any action being taken following the recent parliamentary debate on the matter. In addition, we agreed to seek advice from the Parliament's legal office. We were handed the responses at our previous meeting, but we agreed to wait until today's meeting to discuss them.
The Executive response states:
"The children who are in Dungavel are detained with their families under the Immigration Act 1971"—
which is a reserved matter. The response continues:
"As the children are detained under such legislation, it is the responsibility of the Home Secretary to ensure that their detention is in accordance with all relevant laws, including any that relate to education."
The Executive also states:
"the nature of the response to the HMCIP and HMIE reports on Dungavel and the timing of any response remain matters for the Home Office. However … discussions between the Home Office and the Scottish Executive and South Lanarkshire Council and HMIE are underway."
No further information has yet been provided.
As members can see from the papers that have been provided, the advice from the Parliament's legal advisers is much more comprehensive. It discusses in some detail the interface between the Scotland Act 1998 and the relevant statutory provisions on immigration, asylum and education. It is acknowledged that it is possible to argue the point either way as to whether the education of children in removal centres is a reserved or a devolved matter, but our legal advisers' interpretation of the relevant legislation is that the matter is indeed reserved. However, the legal team makes the point that only the courts can give a definitive answer on the issue. It is also the team's view that the education authority may have some statutory functions in relation to the education of such children under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, but that is entirely a matter for the education authority and the Home Office—which is the relevant Whitehall department—in which neither the Scottish ministers nor the Parliament have any powers to intervene.
Therefore, the legal advice that is provided appears to back up the Executive's position. The issue that the committee must consider is what we should do with the petition in the light of such advice. Tommy Sheridan remains with us, as he wants to participate in the discussion.
It is clear that lawyers will disagree about the matter until legal action is taken and there is case law to depend on.
There are wider issues around Dungavel that are not just about education, but about children's services in general and whether the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 has any legal bearing—that has not been looked into.
I will give the Executive a wee bit of credit. It is moving towards a willingness to talk about such matters and to put out more information than it has ever done previously. As the petition focuses on education, I suggest that we ask the Education Committee and the Executive whether it would be acceptable for regular reports on the progress of talks with South Lanarkshire Council on education, discussions between the Executive and the Home Office, and plans for progressing such issues, to be made available so that the Parliament is always aware of what is happening.
I want to raise a number of issues, some of which I referred to when we received legal advice earlier. I would like to put on record some of the questions that were asked then.
We have asked for a legal opinion, but we must remember that there is a democratic impetus to the matter and that the Parliament is a democratic institution. It is clear that there is a significant democratic will in the country and that civic Scotland has democratic concerns about the rights of the children in question, education services and so on. We should bear that in mind. In the absence of a conclusive legal opinion, we cannot ignore our democratic and political responsibility to push the issues. We should not use an equivocal legal opinion as a reason not to pursue matters, although I do not think that anybody here is suggesting that that should happen.
I want to repeat some of the questions that I asked earlier, to which we do not have answers. If the Home Office has entire and exclusive responsibility for the children in question, why can there be a situation whereby the children's reporter declares that they could convene a panel for children in Dungavel and the care commission may and might conduct an inspection of the facilities at Dungavel?
If those devolved agencies have a statutory responsibility, what are the democratic lines of accountability for the Scottish Parliament in relation to those devolved areas? Is the Home Office saying that it has effected a Guantanamo Bay situation at Dungavel? Also, there are contradictions between Margaret Curran's letter and the legal opinion that she has obtained, because she has declared that there have been discussions about the provision of education at Dungavel. All that needs to be explored.
The other point that I raise this morning, which again has not been explored and which would inform debate about the legal situation, relates to the financial lines of accountability. Health services for people who are detained at Dungavel are obtained from the national health service in Lanarkshire. The situation is not absolutely clear, but I suspect that the Home Office does not reimburse Lanarkshire NHS Board for those services. Who picks up the purse for the education of children living in the South Lanarkshire Council area? Who would pick up the purse if the reporter to the children's panel were to become involved in a particular case? Who would pick up the purse if the care commission were to conduct an inspection? I think that such costs would be met from the Scottish purse—the block grant that we get from Westminster—so there must be a line of financial and democratic accountability.
We need to remember that the issue is the rights of the child. In summary, because so many questions remain unanswered and because there is democratic force behind the STUC's petition, it is incumbent on the Public Petitions Committee at least to refer the petition to the Education Committee for consideration. The issue is not dead.
At an earlier meeting, I think that I said that, although we could certainly seek a legal opinion, I did not find merit in the suggestion, as one can always find a lawyer somewhere who concurs with one's particular view. I am always prepared to be proven wrong, but two sets of lawyers have agreed a view—although that view does not necessarily suit members of the committee. I do not want to get into a deeply political discussion, but I think that the answer has been provided for us: if people wish to establish the legal situation, that is a matter for the courts and not for the Public Petitions Committee.
I was slightly confused by the comments about the contradictions in the Executive's comments. Parliamentarians from different parties regularly call on the Executive to intervene in areas where it has no power. The fact that the Executive has muscled in, to all intents and purposes, to engage in the discussion about education and the protection of children at Dungavel is a matter on which we should congratulate the Executive, rather than criticising it because its action appears to be contradictory to the constitutional position.
There is huge sympathy for the situation that gives rise to the petition and huge sympathy in Scotland for ensuring that children are the primary focus of any action. However, I do not think that we need to continue petition PE671. The Executive is already working on the matter and the Education Committee is interested in the situation. There will be opportunities for parliamentarians to scrutinise that work. Indeed, the cross-party group on refugees and asylum seekers has also been active. My view, based on the advice that we have been given, is that we should conclude the petition now, in the full knowledge that scrutiny of what goes on in Dungavel will continue.
We all express sympathy for what is happening at Dungavel and some of us also express anger and disbelief. That does not help the kids who are imprisoned there now. I assume that the intention of this petition, and of the Public Petitions Committee's earlier activity, is to try to determine the legality of the detention of the children in Dungavel and whether their education is for the Scottish Parliament or for Westminster to resolve.
That is why we get differences of opinion, not just in separate letters from the Minister for Communities, Margaret Curran, but in advice from lawyers. We cannot deny that the legal advice states that there is clearly an overlap to be resolved between immigration, which is a reserved matter, and education, which is not. There is no contradiction in that respect. We could go on and quote from the various documents, as we did earlier.
I want to know what the committee's powers are in this respect. Given that we have received various documents from legal advisers and from Margaret Curran and the Executive that contradict each other, I want the matter to go to the courts, because that is the only way that we can address it. However, does the committee have the competence to do that? I know that we cannot recommend such a course of action, but perhaps the STUC can pursue the matter. Can the committee advise the minister that we believe that the Home Office should take the matter to the courts? I ask the clerk's advice about the committee's competence and powers to take things further, because I do not think that we can satisfactorily leave the matter the way it is. After all, the documents that we have received contradict each other, and the public and the kids and families in Dungavel deserve a legal response.
Everyone in the room is sympathetic to the plight of the children who are involved, and I acknowledge members' comments and questions on the matter. In the past week, we have seen images of the Ay family children in Germany. I have been interested in how, with their governmental set-up, the Germans have been able to manage a situation that we have had a lot of difficulty with. In that respect, the discussions that we are having with our Westminster colleagues form part of the equation. Perhaps, as a member of the cross-party working group on asylum seekers—I do not know who else is a member of that group—Jackie Baillie could tell us what links have been made and what discussions have taken place between Westminster and Scottish parliamentarians on this matter. The fundamental will of the Scottish people is to find a solution that works; it would be a tragedy if the matter simply ended up in the courts. Surely, if the political will exists we can find a way of making progress that does not drag people through the courts and makes Scotland seem like an uncaring and unsympathetic nation. We are not that kind of nation: Scots are caring and supportive of people who find themselves in such difficulties.
That response does not evade the issue, which we all understand. The committee should refer the petition to Westminster with all the documentation and transcripts of debates and call upon it to help us find a solution. I think that there is a will at Westminster and at the Scottish Executive to do so. The way forward is for the committee to reflect the opinions that have been expressed and to send to Westminster every bit of documentation that it has received from day one.
I want to clarify some of the comments and points that have been made. Two members have said that the information that we have received from the legal advisers contains an equivocation. I have read the paper again, which says that
"in all circumstances … where children are detained or otherwise to be dealt with under the Immigration Acts, such matters are reserved to Westminster".
There is no equivocation in that statement. I understand why members are unhappy with the advice; however, if the committee seeks advice from our legal advisers and then says, "We're sorry, but that's not the advice that we wanted", we will find ourselves in a difficult position if ever we want to ask for legal advice in future. Advisers will ask themselves, "What advice do they want me to give them?" The committee has to be very clear about what it wants to do.
Although members might not want to agree with or accept the advice, we have to accept that that is the advice that we have been given. As for what we should do with that information, I fully appreciate the host of pertinent points that Carolyn Leckie makes about who pays for things and why the Scottish Executive picks up the tab for things that are reserved. Those are all legitimate questions, but we cannot start from the position that we are not happy with the advice that we have received. We have received advice that is completely unequivocal; it says that the matter is reserved. That being the case, I do not know where we can refer the matter.
For clarification, I am not refuting the legal advice.
I know that, but I am saying that if we accept the advice as our starting point, I do not know whether we can then refer the matter to Westminster.
If we accept the advice, that is the committee's decision. If other parties want to raise an action and challenge that advice on the grounds of the reasonable doubts that have been expressed, it is up them to do so.
The clerk will refresh my memory, but I think that the committee has referred petitions to Westminster on several occasions; it is within normal practice for us to do that. It is my understanding that, when we do so, we are within our settlement arrangements with Westminster and within the legal advice that we have been given. We are reflecting views that have been brought to the committee by the Scottish public and asking the Westminster parliamentarians to take those views forward as they see fit.
The point has just been made to me that, in the past, the committee has made referrals to the relevant minister at Westminster for that minister to take cognisance of petitions.
In this case, when I say Westminster, I mean the Home Office.
The matter goes back to what I said earlier about what legal advice represents—it represents an opinion, as Margaret Macdonald confirmed. It is not arbitrary and it is not a judgment; it informs our deliberations. I do not think that it is to be disrespectful or to disregard the advice to make a political decision to move the issue on. It is perfectly competent for us to do so. In any case, a legal opinion before a judgment only informs us about the balance of risks in whatever decision we take. It is not binding and it is not arbitrary. It would be wrong for us to go down the road of being bound by an opinion, because we are politicians.
There is a political responsibility and a requirement for political courage to push the issue forward. As far as I am concerned, the issue is that children's human rights are being breached left, right and centre. Despite the provision of services for the children concerned, it seems that the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament cannot exercise their democratic responsibility and accountability in this area without permission from the Home Office. The Home Office is by no means qualified to deliver education, health or social care. It is legitimate for the Scottish Parliament to be concerned about the issue.
The legal opinion does not prevent us from asking Westminster to comment or from referring the matter to the Education Committee. If we did not do those things, that would be a political decision. We can also ask the Executive to use its power to seek conferment of powers that might be perceived at present not to be theirs, by getting the Privy Council to meet. There can be an exchange here; the Scottish Executive can intervene. I am merely pointing out the contradictions in the various statements. It is right for the Executive to concern itself with the matter. However, if it does so, the Parliament needs to be able to hold it to account, so we cannot ignore the issue.
I will be brief, convener. I appreciate the fact that members are giving me the opportunity to speak. Issues will arise all the time where members feel that the boat should be pushed out as far as possible and this is that type of issue. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 states:
"It shall be the right of every child of school age to be provided with school education".
In a written answer on 3 January 2002, Nicol Stephen stated:
"Under the Standards in Scotland's Schools Act 2000, every child of school age has a right to be provided with school education by an education authority. This includes children of asylum seekers within their area."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 3 January 2002.]
There has been no Sewel motion in relation to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 to remove that right from children who are held in detention. The 2000 act clearly states that the right applies to every child. It does not say, "It shall be the right of every child, apart from those who are held in detention."
For clarification, Tommy, the legal advice that we have received says that, if a person is in a detention centre, they are under the authority of the Home Office. That is the advice that we have been given—it says exactly what you are saying that it does not say.
My point is that we have not had a Sewel motion to remove from us this devolved area of power. There is no argument about the fact that education is devolved and that immigration is reserved. When Westminster encroaches on a devolved area, we deal with that via a Sewel motion. There has been no Sewel motion on this issue.
I agree with you on that point, except that what we are talking about is a reversal of that process. The legislation existed and was not passed on to the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998.
But the legislation amended a number of Scottish acts.
The legal advice that we have received says that the issue is still reserved to Westminster. As a committee of the Parliament, we can ask for legal advice from the Parliament's legal advisers, but this committee is not here to pick holes in that advice, although you and any committee members are entitled to disagree with it. The advice that we received is that, yes, there are areas of debate. The adviser did not say that there were no areas of debate. She was asked for her legal advice and her legal advice is clear and unequivocal. What we do with the petition is a matter for debate, but we cannot debate the legal advice that has been given to us. It would be wrong of the committee to challenge the advice because we were not happy with it.
My point is that the fact that there is an area of debate—and everybody accepts that there are areas of debate—is ground enough at least to refer the petition to the Education Committee.
As a committee of the Parliament, the Education Committee could, like this committee, seek legal advice from the same legal advisers and get the same advice. What purpose is there in that? We sought advice on behalf of the Parliament—that was our request. There was initially no legal advice from the Parliament's advisers; there had been advice from the Scottish Executive, but we wanted to test it on behalf of the Parliament.
The legal advice was received on behalf of the Parliament. The adviser said that the issue can be tested in court—there is no question about that. She did not say that the issue was hard and fast. However, she has given her advice. This committee would be leaving itself open to all sorts of accusations if it said, "Thanks very much for giving your advice, but we're not prepared to accept it because it's not the advice we wanted."
That is not what I am saying.
I want to provide clarification. I have the original document, from which Mike Watson and I quoted earlier. Under the heading "The legal position", the document says:
"There is nevertheless clearly an overlap to be resolved between immigration which is reserved and education which is not."
That is part of the legal advice. That is where we ask the question—
Sorry, Sandra, but if you are going to read out from documents, I have to stop you, because the final paragraph—
It is the legal advice.
That is an early argument, but the legal adviser comes to a conclusion and explains why she arrives at that conclusion.
It is still part of the argument, whether you accept it or not.
There is no point in taking a passage from her previous discussion.
The earlier document was a synopsis.
No, you have taken a paragraph from her discussion. I read out the definitive answer that she gave, which is her conclusion.
Well, what I read is written here.
You are absolutely right, convener. We cannot afford to cherry pick legal advice. We need to give cognisance to the conclusion that is arrived at. I am probably going to astound Carolyn Leckie by agreeing with her, in as much as I accept that when you get legal advice, it us up to you whether you take it. However, at the end of the day, the committee needs to be clear that the legal advice from our independent adviser is the same as the Executive's view, which is that these matters—irrespective of whatever grey areas can be challenged in the courts—lie with Westminster.
The political courage is not in continuing with the issue and saying, "We can do something about it." We have to be clear that there is a productive route that people can go down and that that is the Westminster route. My recollection is that the STUC representatives acknowledged that at our last meeting with them and said that they were in dialogue with Westminster. It would be appropriate for us to tell the STUC that, given the advice that we have received, we believe that the most productive way forward is the Westminster route.
In addition, this committee should maintain a dialogue with Westminster, too. The clear advice is that the matter is one for the Home Secretary and, in relation to the provision of education, for South Lanarkshire Council. However, I take on board the points that Carolyn Leckie has made, which I think need to be pursued so that we can find out who ultimately pays for all the funding streams that are required to maintain these people. Taking other members' advice, I think that we should write to the Home Secretary—if he is the relevant person—asking him to let us know what the on-going situation is.
I might need to clarify what I was saying. I am not suggesting that we challenge the veracity of the legal advice that we have obtained; I am saying that we should recognise the advice as an opinion that informs our discussions. We still have a political decision to make and the freedom to make it. We have a moral and political responsibility to those children, because this is the Scottish Parliament and, normally, all children in Scotland would come within the ambit of this Parliament. We have a legitimate right to express an interest in those children and to follow the issues through.
I do not think that, in order to wrap the issue up, we should just accept that the matter is the responsibility of Westminster. I do not think that that should be the advice that we give to the petitioner. The Scottish Parliament should maintain an interest and progress the petition through its structures. In the first instance, the petition should be referred to the Education Committee. I think that we will have to put the matter to a vote.
I think that that is what it is coming down to. Carolyn Leckie's recommendation is that the Public Petitions Committee should refer the petition to the Education Committee.
Yes. However, I think that a number of other committees would have an interest in the petition.
The petition has to be referred to one committee, although other committees might make comments on it.
The petition is specifically about the educational rights of children, so the Education Committee is the obvious committee to which to refer it.
Do you want to move a proposal to that effect, Carolyn?
Yes.
Do we have a seconder?
I will second it.
Convener, I made another recommendation.
I know. The alternative is Helen Eadie's suggestion that the petition be referred to the Home Secretary at Westminster.
I am suggesting that we refer the petition with all the documentation accompanying it and the Official Report of all the debates that we have had on it, right from the start.
The suggestion is also that that should conclude our consideration of the petition.
Yes.
We will take a vote on Carolyn Leckie's proposal first. The question is, that the Public Petitions Committee refer petition PE671 to the Education Committee for further consideration. Are we agreed?
No
There will be a division.
For
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0. The proposal is disagreed to.
We will now vote on Helen Eadie's recommendation. The question is, that petition PE671 and all the accompanying documentation be sent to the Home Secretary for his consideration.
To take up Jackie Baillie's point, the proposal is also that that concludes our consideration of the petition.
I am not sure that we should be concluding our consideration. I do not see why there has to be a conclusion. What will we do when we get a response?
Shall we also seek a response?
I recognise people's concerns, which I think we all share. However, if we have no power to do anything about the matter, surely the most appropriate place for it to be taken forward is Westminster. Some legitimate points have been raised about the costs and who pays them. However, those matters are not raised by the petition; they are separate issues. I believe that we should conclude our consideration of the petition. There are other avenues by which we may pursue those other issues.
There will be time enough to conclude our consideration of the petition when we receive a satisfactory response.
We can put the matter to the vote. The question, following Helen Eadie's recommendation, is, that petition PE671 be sent to the Home Secretary for his consideration, along with all the documentation accompanying it, and that that should conclude our consideration of the petition. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Against
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0. As that recommendation was disagreed to, we have reached no conclusion.
I have a counter-proposal that we send the petition to the Home Secretary and examine his response, as and when we get it. We may decide to conclude our consideration of the petition thereafter.
I second that proposal.
Do we need to put that proposal to a vote?
Yes.
The question is, that the committee send petition PE671 to the Home Secretary, seeking a response, which it will discuss at a later meeting.
I would just like to clarify that the proposal is not my preferred course of action. I want to make it absolutely clear on the record that my preferred option is for the petition to be retained by the Scottish Parliament and referred to the Education Committee. Having lost the vote on that option, I would like the petition to come back to the Scottish Parliament following referral to Westminster.
That is the only option on the table.
I want to make it clear that it is not my preferred option. However, I will vote for it now.
Will votes be minuted, so that it is clear who voted for what?
Yes.
The vote on Carolyn Leckie's proposal was lost, so we will have to vote for the other option.
The question is, that we refer the petition, with all documentation, to the Home Secretary for consideration and that we await a response to be discussed by the committee, if required.
What do you mean by "if required"?
We will consider the matter once we have received a response from the Home Secretary.
We will get a response.
The question is, that we seek comments from the Home Office on a number of issues relating to the petition. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0. The committee has decided that the petition should be referred to the Home Secretary, whose response we will await.